1443836583

Future Prospects for Music Education
Future Prospects for Music Education:

Corroborating Informal Learning Pedagogy
Edited by
Sidsel Karlsen and Lauri Vkev
Future Prospects for Music Education:

Corroborating Informal Learning Pedagogy,
Edited by Sidsel Karlsen and Lauri Vkev
This book first published 2012
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Copyright 2012 by Sidsel Karlsen and Lauri Vkev and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-3658-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-3658-6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................... vii

Theorising the Formal-Informal Nexus: A Critical Examination of Future
Possibilities for Music Education Practice and Research
Part I
Chapter One................................................................................................. 3
Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing Methods through a Change
of Paradigm
Ann C. Clements
Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 11
New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning:
Anticipating the Second-Wave
Randall Everett Allsup and Nathaniel J. Olson
Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 23
The World Well Lost, Found: Reality and Authenticity in Greens
New Classroom Pedagogy
Lauri Vkev
Part II
Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 53
Categories and Music Transmission
Greg Gatien
Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 79
BoomTown Music Education and the Need for Authenticity:
Informal Learning Put into Practice in Swedish Post-Compulsory
Music Education
Sidsel Karlsen
vi
Table of Contents
Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 97

Music Education: A Personal Matter? Examining the Current Discourses
of Music Education in Sweden
Eva Georgii-Hemming and Maria Westvall
Part III
Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 117
Informal Learning in Music: Emerging Roles of Teachers and Students
Carlos Xavier Rodriguez
Chapter Eight........................................................................................... 129
Improvisation as an Informal Music Learning Process:
Implications for Teacher Education
Panagiotis Kanellopoulos and Ruth Wright
Part IV
Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 161
Informal Learning and Aural Learning in the Instrumental Music Lesson:
A Research-and-Development Pilot Project
Lucy Green
Contributors............................................................................................. 197
Index........................................................................................................ 199
INTRODUCTION
THEORISING THE FORMAL-INFORMAL NEXUS:
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF FUTURE
POSSIBILITIES FOR MUSIC EDUCATION
PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
In this anthology, we have collated articles that address in different

ways what has come to be known as informal learning pedagogy within
the music education field. Informal learning pedagogy refers to
pedagogical approaches that build on strategies found within learning
situations or practices outside formal settings, such as school lessons
(Folkestad 2006). The aim of this book is to corroborate such approaches
by subjecting them to a scholarly examination, hopefully strengthening
and further developing the discussion of music-related informal learning in
music education scholarship.
In our view, part of the maturation process of any scholarly field is to
engage in discussion concerning its appropriate philosophical and
theoretical underpinnings. It is also important to consider the areas of
applicability and reciprocal relationships between the theory and practice
of such frameworks. Thus, the articles selected in this book discuss
ontological and epistemological frameworks, as well as both the potential
and challenges that informal approaches entail for teaching and learning
music.
Informal Learning in Music Education

As musicians, music educators, and music scholars educated within the
Nordic field of music education, we have encountered various forms of
informal learning pedagogy during our careers. One area where these
forms are prevalent is popular music. As of this writing, popular music has
been part of Nordic compulsory school music curricula for at least 30
years. In 1971 a music teacher education programme (SMUS) was
viii
Introduction
launched in Gothenburg, Sweden, embracing such musical styles as jazz,

folk music, pop and rock (Olsson 1993). The programme quickly spread to
Malm (in 1973) and Pite (in 1976). Similar programmes soon emerged
in the higher music education institutions of the other Nordic countries
for instance, in Finland, popular music has been a part of music teacher
training since the early 1970s (Vkev 2006; Westerlund 2006).
The pedagogical approaches in Nordic school music often build on
learning strategies that popular musicians employ when acquiring their
skills and knowledge in informal situations or practices. This is reflected
in the increase in empirical research on the learning styles, strategies and
environments of popular musicians from the mid-1990s onwards (see e.g.
Berkaak and Ruud 1994; Forns, Lindberg and Sernhede 1995; Gullberg
2002; Johansson 2002; Lilliestam 1995). Such research has encouraged
further studies investigating and discussing musical learning in other types
of informal learning settings (see e.g. Balsnes 2009; Karlsen 2009; Partti
and Karlsen 2010; Salavuo 2006; Sderman 2007; Vestad 2010; Wingstedt
2008).
Since the appearance of Lucy Greens book How Popular Musicians
Learn in 2001, music-related informal learning has also been a topic of
major interest and debate in the field of international music education (see
e.g. Rodriguez 2004). Greens subsequent research on the implementation
of informal learning in new classroom pedagogy (2008) added yet
another dimension to the discussion. It also provided something that the
Nordic music educators had not yet been able to develop: a comprehensive,
research-based popular music pedagogy. Greens work has engendered a
new array of pedagogical possibilities, the value of which is acknowledged
throughout the field of international music education (Lines 2009).
While the pedagogical significance of informal learning has been
debated, sometimes critically, sometimes appreciatively, we find that only
a few scholars have engaged in a thorough theorising of the formalinformal nexus, and in building a philosophical basis for research that
further explores the possibilities for music education inherent in informal
learning practices. It is this realization that motivates this book, with a
hope that the debate will continue and bring forth new perspectives on
how informal learning may be implemented in music education.
Angles of Corroboration: a Brief Overview

The articles gathered in this anthology address informal learning
pedagogy from different angles and through various theoretical perspectives.
Taken together, they offer a multiplicity of points of departure for scholarly
ix
discussion and critique. In order to identify and highlight some main areas
for debate, the articles are grouped according to what we consider to be
their main angles of corroboration.
Part I of this book sheds light on the general challenges and
consequences of transforming the field of music education through
altering its pedagogy with modes of informal learning.
In her contribution, Ann C. Clements suggests that music educators,
instead of following ready-made solutions for implementing informal
learning practices, should focus on developing multiple models for such
approaches and engaging in further experimentation. She points to
culturally responsive teaching as one possible framework within which
such explorations can be made.
Randall Everett Allsup and Nathaniel J. Olson call for a secondwave of research on the teaching of popular music in schools, in order to
critically examine research on informal learning practices that are
associated with the ways popular musicians learn. Drawing on a Deweyan
pragmatist framework, they emphasize the ethical responsibilities of the
teacher and the need to establish sound educational frameworks that build
on informal learning.
The Deweyan pragmatist perspective is also evident in Lauri Vkevs
article, in which he problematizes the ideaderived from Greens work
that informal learning captures naturally arising learning practices. He
also unpacks Greens research on the informal learning of classical music
and considers it in connection to digital musicianship and ICT-based
music learning.
Part II focuses on earlier or parallel attempts to establish informal
learning as part of formal music education, as well as on the experiences
and implications of such efforts.
Greg Gatien conducts a historical reconstruction of the formalization of
jazz education, an endeavour that he finds synergetic with Green's
research. In particular, he discusses the challenges of upholding certain
modes of transmission within academic structures.
In her article describing a Swedish higher music education programme
for rock musicians, Sidsel Karlsen shows how educational environments
that take account of popular musicians needs might be developed through
research and theoretical insights from within the framework of sociocultural learning theories. She also critically examines this particular
educations self-proclaimed authenticity, and raises questions concerning
its actual informality.
Eva Georgii-Hemming and Maria Westvall investigate the current
discourses on music education in Sweden, which during the last twenty
Introduction
years have been dominated by popular music and informal learning

pedagogy. They survey recent evaluations and studies that show how this
approach may lead to a limitation of repertoire, content and teaching
methods as well as to a general lack of direction, and how it may in fact
fall short in facilitating students creative engagement with music.
Part III concentrates on informal learning within music teacher
education and looks into different paths and possibilities, while also
highlighting challenges.
Carlos Xavier Rodriguez discusses the problems with informal
learning that he has encountered working as a teacher of both a high
school rock band and of pre-service music educators at the university
level. He pays particular attention to how, for formally trained students,
informal learning pedagogy may provide inefficient tools for learning and
even create a feeling of alienation.
Drawing on perspectives from critical theory and pedagogy, Panagiotis
Kanellopoulos and Ruth Wright suggest that free improvisation could be
used as a tool for helping student music educators acquaint themselves
with modes of informal learning, and for fostering the qualities that are
required in working with informal pedagogies in music education.
Finally, in Part IV, Lucy Green gives an account of the experiences
and findings of a recent research-and-development pilot project focussed
on informal and aural learning in instrumental music lessons. This project,
building on her previous work, is an attempt to apply the strategies used
and described in her book Music, Informal Learning and the School: A
New Classroom Pedagogy (2008) in traditional one-on-one instrumental
tuition. The findings are promising, as they chart possible paths for the
renewal of this form of tuition, often characterised by practices inherited
from the classical conservatoire pedagogy.
The Exploration of Frameworks

As mentioned above, the articles of this collection examine informal
learning pedagogy through different perspectives. The theoretical and
philosophical perspectives we find most fruitful in this connection are (1)
culturally responsive teaching; (2) socio-cultural learning theory; (3)
pragmatism; and (4) critical pedagogy. In the following, we examine these
four perspectives with regards to their implications for the scholarly
discussion of future informal learning pedagogy.
xi
Culturally Responsive Teaching

The resources that people have access to in schools or in other formal
environments, and also the kinds of learning environments and knowledge
accessible to them in informal contexts, have proved to differ greatly with
such social strata as race, ethnicity, class, gender and language group
(Villegas and Lucas 2002). There is no reason to believe that music
education is an exception. Hence, a music education scholar who wishes to
engage in investigations of the formal-informal nexus would do well to
educate herself as a culturally responsive researcher. This would
necessitate being able to capture a variety of learning experiences, instead
of focussing merely on those that are recognisable as being connected to
persons with a similar background as that of the researcher. It would also
necessitate the recognition of patterns of omission and exclusion. These
patterns might be discerned, for example, in how certain modes of musical
transmission correspond with those found within the social surroundings
of a specific group of students, leaving the other students to learn in ways
that are unfamiliar to them. Through their creation of a conceptual
framework for educating culturally responsive teachers, Villegas and
Lucas (2002) offer theoretical, research-based and practice-oriented
perspectives that carry relevance for research into the formal-informal
nexus of music transmission and learning. In the following, we will focus
on their six strands of essential dispositions, knowledge and skills (xxi)
needed in order to function successfully in multicultural and multilingual
societies, as a point of departure for culturally responsive research within
music education.1
In strand one, Villegas and Lucas (2002) affirm that in order to act in
culturally responsible ways, aspiring teachers need to gain socio-cultural
consciousness; that is, they need to become aware of how their life
experiences, as mediated by a variety of factors, chief among them
race/ethnicity, social class and gender (27), have shaped their worldviews.
Tying this more closely to music education, we would like to argue that in
order to work successfully in the realm of formal/informal music learning,
researchers need to become aware of how their own teaching and learning
histories have shaped their views of what constitutes knowledge and skills
in music and the means by which these should be transmitted.
In strand two, the authors remind us of the necessity to develop an
affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds. In
other words, as educators or researchers who have grown up within the
realm of the dominant cultural norms, we need to change the belief that
our culture is inherently superior to the cultures of marginalized groups in
society (35). While this should serve as a reminder to music education
xii
Introduction
scholars, it could also be applied in a more practical way, helping the

researchers working within the range of the formal-informal nexus to
maintain an affirming attitude towards musicians who come from musicalcultural backgrounds different than their own.
Strand three presents the idea that culturally responsible teachers need
to develop the commitment and skills to act as agents of change, an idea
that should also be relevant for researchers in the field of music education
(this idea is also clearly manifested in Greens work). Through the
investigation of previously unexplored informal-musical territories,
researchers could discover practices and ways of organising learning that
could act as models for the transformation of classroom practices.
Furthermore, they could employ action research in order to transform
classroom music from within, through a collaborative negotiation between
the researcher, teacher and students (see e.g. Rikandi 2010).
The fourth strand implies that teachers need to embrace the
constructivist foundations of their framework. Central assumptions here
are, for example, that knowledge is always filtered through the knowers
frames of reference (Villegas and Lucas 2002, 68), that the meanings
given to educational content are always based on the learner's pre-existing
knowledge and experiences, and that learning is an active process of
constructing experience. Transferring these assumptions to the field of
research entails that culturally responsive researchers build their work on
paradigms that acknowledge research findings as something that is not
found but, rather, co-constructed in the negotiation between the
researcher and the other participants in the study. Such presuppositions are
already implicit, for example, in ethnography, action research and
narrative inquiry.
Stating that the overriding task of the teacher within such a
constructivist perspective as outlined above is to build bridges between
[students] prior knowledge and experiences and the new ideas to be
learned (79), Villegas and Lucas emphasise in strand five that the
teachers need to learn about students and their communities so that they
know their students and are able to help them feel connected. A similar
attitude of curiosity might also be needed when trying to connect informal
and formal music making as a music education researcher. In our rapidly
paced multicultural society, new contexts and new ways of making music
are constantly emerging. A researcher who wants to keep up with the
times needs to ask herself such questions as: What, if anything, are the
kids learning from playing e.g. Guitar Hero? Do Idols competitions have
any educational value? What are the learning implications of participating
in online music communities? What is happening at a private music school
xiii
set up by an immigrant association (see e.g. Sther 2010)? Furthermore,

the researcher needs to linger on such matters as: Given that there are
conditions of learning music that students already experience outside of
school, how do they experience their formal music education?
In the sixth strand, the authors draw together the five previous strands
in order to remind that it is necessary to cultivate the practice of culturally
responsive teaching in order to provide good education and meet the needs
of a changing student population. For music education researchers, this
framework may serve as a basis for forming a new attitude towards
research, and towards the process of constructing research-based
knowledge; moreover, it can help them to establish a position from which
they can interact responsively with their surroundings and thus collect rich
and multifaceted data which opens up matters of inequality, exclusion and
social justice. This would certainly be an asset in the future exploration of
the possibilities for music education inherent in informal learning practices.
Socio-Cultural Learning Theory

One of the paradigms underlying culturally responsive teaching is the
socio-cultural perspective on development and learning. This perspective
ranges from the work of Piaget and Vygotsky to recent developments such
as Engestrms cultural-historical activity theory (Engestrm 1987; North
and Hargreaves 2008). In what follows, however, we shall focus on sociocultural learning from the standpoint of situated learning, as found in the
works of Lave and Wenger (1991; see also Wenger 1998, 2006), and in
the related theories of Slj (2000). We will put a special emphasis on how
these ideas can be utilised for uncovering learning among the members of
communities of practice and in the exchange of knowledge between
different communities.
Lave and Wenger (1991) describe a community of practice as a set
of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation
with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice (98).
Following Wengers (1998) more explicit ideas of what characterises such
communities,2 it should be evident that many of the musical practices
found on the informal side of the formal-informal nexus could be defined
as communities of practice. What we usually think of as music-related
peer or affinity groups (Gee 2001)for example garage bands, music
festivals, online communities, and local choirsmay be understood as
communities of practice and analysed according to what is going on within
them in terms of learning and distribution of knowledge.
xiv
Introduction
Deliberately avoiding the acquisition metaphor of learning, Lave and

Wenger (1991) describe how learning is integral to generative social
practice and how the process of gaining knowledge can be explained as
legitimate peripheral participation (35). In other words, acting within a
community of practice, an individual gradually learns what the community
is about and what she has to know in order to participate in it, in order to
move from the peripheral position of a newcomer to the more mature stage
of full participation (37). In order to capture the learning processes
within such a community of practice, one must consider the relationship
between the newcomers and the old-timers, as well as the relationship
between the participants, activities, identities, and artefacts of the
community. Hence, this theoretical framework allows investigation into
the learning processes that occur, for example, when the newcomers and
the more experienced members of an amateur brass band negotiate ways
of exchanging information, or when amateur digital musicians stage,
narrate and negotiate their musical identities in virtual space (Partti and
Karlsen 2010). Another possible angle, elaborated by Slj (2000), is to
look into the role that communal artefacts play in the mediation of
knowledge and how human knowledge, insights, conventions and ideas
[that] are built into apparatus (82) are released when the artefacts are put
to use. For example, one may investigate what role a mixing console plays
in the act of creating and playing music in a rock band, and what kinds of
music making it allows, supports or restricts.
In connection to the formal-informal nexus, socio-cultural theories of
learning also provide tools for discussing the exchange of information that
takes place between different communities of practice. For the purpose of
describing the process of inter-community knowledge exchange, Wenger
(1998) applies the concepts of boundary objects and brokering, which
imply, respectively, the artefacts, documents, terms, concepts, and other
forms of reification around which communities of practice can organize
their interconnections, and the connections provided by people who can
introduce elements of one practice into another (105). Making use of
these concepts, it is possible to define and understand the mediations and
negotiations performed by a musician moving between different musicmaking contexts and bringing his or her artefacts, knowledge and skills
from one arena to another. A recent example is mentioned by Partti
(2010), who describes how digital musicians travel between different
musical communities of practice and transfer their knowledge and skills,
thereby also transforming them and the communities they become a part
of.
xv
Moreover, socio-cultural theories of learning can provide information

on the routes that individuals use to move within specific learning
contexts. Wenger (2006) refers to these routes as learning trajectories:
personalised pathways through practices, communities, networks and
institutions that together constitute the multi-scale social learning
systems (4) of our time. For researchers setting out to explore how
musicians are, for instance, enculturated into a specific musical style, the
notion of learning trajectories may be useful because it can help them to
map the whole range of the musicians learning experiences as they make
their way through contexts that provide various degrees of ownership and
intentionality (Folkestad 2006).
As with most theoretical frameworks, socio-cultural theories have their
limitations. One of the most obvious of these limitations is that they
provide little information on how to design educational environments and
how to teach within these environments. Lave and Wenger (1991)
emphasise that legitimate peripheral participation is not itself an
educational form, much less a pedagogical strategy or a teaching
technique. It is an analytical viewpoint on learning, a way of understanding
learning (40).3 Another possible weakness is the rather positive belief
that, among members of a community of practice, learning will just take
place. Little effort is put into describing instances in which newcomers are
denied access to knowledge, are interrupted in their efforts to strive
towards full participation, or are subjected to an imbalance of power
within the community. Hence, in order to discuss matters of exclusion,
inequality and social justice, researchers of musical learning communities
might want to look elsewhere.4 As we shall see next, the philosophical
perspectives of pragmatism and critical pedagogy may be useful in this
quest for a normative framework.
Pragmatism
One philosophical framework in which accounts of culturally responsive
teaching and socio-cultural learning can be situated is pragmatism.
Pragmatism has its roots in the late 19th century and early 20th century
American discussion concerning the relevance of functional psychology
and evolutionary biology to philosophy. Classical pragmatists formulated
philosophical theories of knowledge, meaning and value based on the
activity of human organisms in their biological and social-cultural
environment. From an educational standpoint, the most important
developments in classical pragmatism emerged from the work of John
Dewey, who conceived philosophy as an endeavour to solve problems of
xvi
Introduction
everyday life (Dewey 1924/MW 12).5 Dewey saw education as

philosophys laboratory, a practice in which the implications of
philosophical ideas can be tested, and through which prevailing social
habits can be transformed in ways that promote social life through the
reconstruction of the shared realm of meaningful experience (Dewey
1916/MW 9).
For Dewey, the most important task of both philosophy and education
was to alleviate problems brought along by modernity, problems that
prevented the blooming of the positive freedom of individuals in
democratic community life (Dewey 1946/LW 15, 154169). The most
severe of these problems was the alienation of the modern subject from her
environment, a problem that, according to Dewey, had led to the
separation of individual agency from the ethical needs of public social life.
In his philosophy, Dewey vigorously attacked all dualisms that suggest a
breach between the subjective and objective realms of values and science:
he wanted to reconstruct philosophy as a holistic view of how different
realms of experience can come together most constructively in socialcultural life.
Deweys philosophy provides tools for immanent cultural critique,
with education acting as its mediator. While education has an important
role in the transmission of the social values of a culture, it also makes
possible the critical examination of these values in terms of their future
implications. Thus, education is not the mere presentation and
reproduction of habits previously accumulated. By calling education a
laboratory Dewey wanted to emphasize that its primary task, whether it
takes place inside or outside school, is to provide tools with which to
reflect on our shared cultural realm, so as to be better prepared to meet
future situations of conjoint life. In a complex society, education becomes
a necessary condition for social growth, or the expansion of the realm of
meaningfulness that, according to Dewey, frames democratic life as a
forum to negotiate different opinions, attitudes, and convictions as
practical guidelines (Dewey 1916/MW 9).6
In philosophical research on music education, Deweyan pragmatism
has been one of the frameworks that comprises diverse sets of ideas related
to the meaning and implications of music in social life, especially as
concerns the role of music education in promoting democracy, agency and
equality (Bowman 2003; Vkev 2004; Westerlund 2002; Woodford
2005). From this standpoint, there is no pedagogical meaning of music
apart from the general meaning of education, and the general meaning of
education amounts to growth. Growth is not just the accumulation of skills
and ideas; it is the formation of an active ethical disposition, manifest in
xvii
the ways in which we participate in conjoint efforts enhancing the

conditions that make our shared lives meaningful. This necessitates active
working, experimentation and negotiation with the subject matter of
musical learning. Music education cannot be merely taken as the
transmission of tradition, but it must also frame new possibilities for
interpretation and ingrain new habits of thinking and action, and thus open
new fields for agency in which musical traditions can be reconstructed and
revalued in terms of their possibilities for enhancing the quality of future
experience.
One of the consequences of applying the Deweyan pragmatist
perspective to education is that it leaves the curricular framework open, by
emphasizing the importance of learning situations. Because all learning
(and thus, all teaching) is considered to be situational, it makes little sense
to peg our pedagogical practices to established values, standards and
norms, derived from bygone situations. Thus, as part of general education,
music education can be seen as a practice constantly adapting to change, in
which constant negotiations of meaning take place over the value and
significance of what is learned, how and why. This implies that music is
not seen as a collection of established musical practices or canonized
masterworks, but as a constantly evolving cultural field, intertwining with
other cultural fields through which we make sense of our lives as social
beings. Pragmatism suggests that we heed the actual processes in which
music is made and re-made, disseminated and enjoyed, and accept them as
situational points of departure for pedagogical practices, always keeping
the more extensive goal of social growth in sight.
In its openness and recognition of the challenge of constant cultural
change, Deweyan pragmatism provides a normative basis on which we can
justify the demand for cultural responsiveness and the related need to
examine learning as sociocultural practice. For music educators, it can also
provide a tool to avoid fixed notions of the function of pedagogical
methods and goals. By emphasizing the dynamic nature of growth as a
constant expansion of our meaningful relations to each other and to our
environment, and by further underlining individual agents ethical
relationship to society, pragmatism puts agency in focus. From the
pragmatist standpoint, music education aims at more than developing
musical agency: musical agency is one way to find ones place in the
shared reality of ethical life. With this recognition comes an enhanced
awareness of the power relations that condition social relationships. By
suggesting that education is immanent cultural critique, pragmatism also
suggests that we take seriously the possibility of social change through
acknowledging the power structures of the society.
xviii
Introduction
Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogy is an educational perspective, and a pedagogical
program, that applies the ideas of critical theorists to the issues of
becoming human in society. Critical pedagogy posits that education and
growth are a constant negotiation of ones place in society, and that culture
is the medium in which this negotiation takes place. From this position,
critical pedagogy derives its two tasks: to examine how power relations
work in education, and to suggest educational practices more conducive to
emancipation.
There are several ways to specify what this approach means for
educational research and teaching practice. According to Aittola, Eskola
and Suoranta (2007, 6), critical pedagogy includes different theoretical
perspectives, united by the critical interest of knowledge and the quest for
the possibility of change for a more just society that stems from the
perspective of hope. In other words, the critical perspective is as much a
political program of action as it is a theory. In this sense its agenda can be
related to Freire's pedagogy of hope, developed and applied in AngloAmerican cultural settings by e.g., hooks (1994), McLaren (1995) and
Giroux (Giroux and McLaren 2001).
Critical research on education can focus, for example, on issues related
to gender, ethnicity, social strata and globalization. A constant subject of
discussion in critical pedagogy is power, its distribution in society as well
as its practices. One way to look at this distribution is to link power with
knowledge and to argue that it is through ownership of knowledge that
society defines access to its discourses (Foucault 1980, 2005, 2010). By
recognizing the conditions of this ownership, critical pedagogues can
suggest ways to empower the marginalized by providing conditions to
develop their critical thinking. Thus, critical pedagogy implies the
transformation of society through developing the awareness of how people
come to know and understand themselves as agents of their own
understanding.
In music education, critical pedagogy has been suggested as an
alternative to music-centered philosophical and theoretical approaches. For
instance, Regelski (2002) argues that critical theory can guide the focus of
the profession to recognize the needs of marginalized groups. The solution
to the problem of different perspectives and opinions in music cannot be
found in rampant multiculturalism; we need a mutually accepted rational
framework within which to negotiate the significance of different claims
for power. Regelski suggests Habermas communicative rationality as this
kind of a uniting base.
xix
Thus, it can be argued that a basic problem for critical music pedagogy
is to mediate the needs of communicative reason and the multifarious
cultural needs of a rapidly fragmenting society. As concerns the formalinformal nexus in music education, it becomes vital to create the means to
bridge various situations of learning in a normative setting that provides a
forum for developing the critical knowledge of the mechanisms and
techniques used in society to distribute power. In communicative action,
participants in negotiations do not just argue for the legitimation of their
idiosyncratic views, but seek a common ground in which to recognize
different lifeworlds. A key issue is to avoid the hegemonic determination
of the pedagogical value of music before this common ground is
established. From the critical standpoint, a major problem with Western
institutionalized music education is its association with the cultural
patriarchy of Eurocentric high culture and its techniques of skill
mediation, knowledge and attitudes. The recognition of different ways of
learning music outside of this system of mediation is an important step in
expanding music educators sensibility to communicative situations. This
necessitates critical awareness in the form of a willingness to recognize the
meaning potential of different lifeworld-related practicesnot only for the
practitioner but also on the part of the music education researcher.
Concluding Remarks
In this introductory chapter, we have aimed at exploring four possible
frameworks for the scholarly investigation of the formal-informal nexus in
music education. Despite their obvious differences, these frameworks also
display similarities, perhaps best explained as a need for researchers to be
attentive and observant and to critically examine and constantly expand
their own views and assumptions about what musical competencies and
learning might look like, and where they could be achieved and enhanced.
Moreover, all frameworks emphasisein various ways and through using
different metaphors and theoretical conceptsthe significance of the
links of learning that weave in and out of both informal and formal
learning arenas, or Wengers (2006) learning trajectories.
By exploring the remaining chapters of this book, interested readers
may discover more points from which informal learning pedagogy can be
corroborated. For example, there seems to be a further need to examine
how embedding informal modes of transmission into academic structures
transforms not only the latter but also the modes of transmission
themselves. More work is also needed on the matter of recreating students
experiences of authenticity. Another fruitful angle might be to perform a
xx
Introduction
deeper investigation into formally trained students resistance to or

discomfort with informal learning pedagogy and ask how it couldor
whether it shouldbe overcome. Overall, as hinted at in the beginning of
this introduction, we believe in discussing the appropriate theoretical and
philosophical underpinnings of such research, not just in order to engage
in the general growth of the field, but also because there is a need to elicit
such frameworks specific ethical, moral and political implications and
consequences through scholarly conversations. If, for example, our goal in
focussing on the formal-informal nexus is to contribute to a
democratisation of the music education field, then we ought to make sure
that we build from frameworks and practices that will enable, not restrict,
such efforts.
It is our hope that this book will guide future studies in directions that
we, at the present, cannot foresee. It is hoped that the theorising of the
formal-informal nexus both in this chapter and throughout the anthology,
through the presentation of a wide range of experienced scholars
viewpoints, will provide fertile soil for such explorations.
References
Aittola, T., J. Eskola, and J. Suoranta. 2007. Johdanto [Introduction].
in Kriittisen pedagogiikan kysymyksi [Problems in Critical
Pedagogy], eds. T. Aittola, J. Eskola, and J. Suoranta, 58. Tampere:
Vastapaino.
Balsnes, A. H. 2009. lre i kor. Belcanto som praksisfelleskap [Learning
in Choir. Belcanto as a Community of Practice]. PhD diss., Norwegian
Academy of Music. Oslo: NMH-publikasjoner 2009:6.
Berkaak, O. A., and E. Ruud. 1994. Sunwheels. Fortellinger om et
rockeband [Sunwheels. Stories about a Rock Band]. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Bowman, W. 2003. Re-Tooling Foundations to Address 21st Century
Realities: Music Education Amidst Diversity, Plurality, and Change.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 2 (2).
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bowman2_2.pdf
Dewey, J. 2003. The Collected Works of John Dewey, 18821953.
Electronic Edition. Charlottesville: InteLex Corporation.
Engestrm, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity Theoretical
Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Folkestad, G. 2006. Formal and Informal Learning Situations or
Practices vs Formal and Informal Ways of Learning. British Journal
of Music Education 23 (2): 13545.
xxi
Forns, J., U. Lindberg, and O. Sernhede. 1995. In Garageland. Youth and

Culture in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. 1980. Tarkkailla ja rangaista. [Surveiller et punir]. Helsinki:
Otava.
. 2005. Tiedon arkeologia [Larchologie du savoir]. Tampere:
Vastapaino.
. 2010. Sanat ja asiat: Ihmistieteiden arkeologia [Les mots et les choses:
Une archologie des sciences humaines]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Gee, J. P. 2001. Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education.
In Review of Research in Education 25, ed. W. G. Secada, 99125.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Giroux, H., and P. McLaren. 2001. Kriittinen pedagogiikka [Critical
Pedagogy]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Green, L. 2002. How Popular Musicians Learn. A Way Ahead for Music
Education. Aldershot: Ashgate.
. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom
Pedagogy. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Gullberg, A.-K. 2002. Skolvgen eller garagevgen. Studier av musikalisk
socialisation [By Learning or Doing. Studies in the Socialisation of
Music]. PhD diss., Lule University of Technology.
hooks, b. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of
Freedom. London: Routledge.
Johansson, K.-G. 2002. Can you Hear What Theyre Playing? A Study of
Strategies Among Ear Players in Rock Music. PhD diss., Lule
University of Technology.
Karlsen, S. 2009. Learning Through Music Festivals. International
Journal of Community Music 2 (2/3): 12941.
. 2010. Revealing Musical Learning in the Informal Field. In
Sociology and music education, ed. R. Wright, 193206. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lilliestam, L. 1995. Gehrsmusik: blues, rock och muntlig tradering
[Playing by Ear: Blues, Rock and Oral Tradition]. Gothenburg:
Akademifrlaget.
Lines, D. 2009. Exploring the Contexts of Informal Learning. Action,
Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 8 (2): 16.
http://act.maydaygroup.org/php/archives_v8.php#8_1
McLaren, P. 1995. Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture:
Oppositional Politics in a Postmodern Era. New York: Routledge.
xxii
Introduction
North, A., and D. J. Hargreaves. 2008. The Social and Applied Psychology
of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olsson, B. 1993. SMUSen musikutbildning i kulturpolitikens tjnst? En
studie om en musikutbildning p 70-talet [SMUSMusic Education
in the Service of a Cultural Policy? A Study of a Teacher-Training
Programme during the 1970s]. PhD diss., University of Gothenburg.
Partti, H. 2010. The Construction of Music and Technology Related
Identities in Narratives of Digital Musicians. Paper presented at 3rd
International Conference on Narrative Inquiry in Music Education
(NIME3), Brisbane, Australia, November 2010.
Partti, H., and S. Karlsen. 2010. Reconceptualising Musical Learning:
New Media, Identity and Community in Music Education. Music
Education Research 12 (4): 36982.
Regelski, T. 2002. Critical Education, Culturalism and
Multiculturalism. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education
1 (1): 140. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Regelski1_1.pdf
Rikandi, I. 2010. Revolution or Reconstruction? Considering Change in
Finnish Piano Pedagogy. in Mapping the Common Ground.
Philosophical Perspectives on Finnish Music Education, ed. I.
Rikandi, 16277. Helsinki: BTJ.
Rodriguez, C. X. ed. 2004. Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and Music
Education. Reston: MENC.
Salavuo, M. 2006. Open and Informal Online Communities as Forums of
Collaborative Musical Activities and Learning. British Journal of
Music Education 23 (3): 25371.
Slj, R. 2000. Lrande i praktiken. Ett sociokuturellt perspektiv [Learning
in Practice. A Socio-Cultural Perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma.
Sther, E. 2010. Music Education and the Other. Finnish Journal of
Sderman, J. 2007. Rap(p) i kften. Hiphopmusikers konstnrliga och
pedagogiska strategier [Verbally Fa(s)t. Hip-Hop Musicians Artistic
and Educational Strategies]. PhD diss., Lund University.
Vestad, I. L. 2010. To Play a Soundtrack: How Children Use Recorded
Music in Their Everyday Lives. Music Education Research 12 (3):
24355.
Villegas, A. M., and T. Lucas. 2002. Educating Culturally Responsive
Teachers. A Coherent Approach. New York: State University of New
York Press.
Vkev, L. 2004. Kasvatuksen taide ja taidekasvatus. Estetiikan ja
taidekasvatuksen merkitys John Deweyn naturalistisessa pragmatismissa
[Art of Education and Art Education. The Meaning of Aesthetics and
xxiii
Art Education in John Deweys Naturalist Pragmatism]. PhD diss,

University of Oulu. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E Scienitae Rerum
Socialium 68.
. 2006. Teaching Popular Music in Finland: Whats Up, Whats
Ahead? International Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 12631.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and
Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 2006. Learning for a Small Planet. http://www.ewenger.com.
Westerlund, H. 2002. Bridging Experience, Action, and Culture in Music
Education. PhD diss., Sibelius Academy. Studia 16. Helsinki: Sibelius
Academy.
. 2006. Garage Rock BandA Future Model for Developing Musical
Expertise? International Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 119125.
Wingstedt, J. 2008. Making Music Mean. On Functions of, and Knowledge
about, Narrative Music in Multimedia. PhD diss., Lule University of
Technology.
Woodford, P. 2005. Democracy and Music Education: Liberalism, Ethics,
and the Politics of Practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Notes
1
Villegas and Lucas (2002) six strands concern teachers first and foremost,
however we believe that their points are also applicable to the world of music
education research.
2
See Wenger (1998, 125) for a comprehensive list of indicators.
3
This stand does not prevent Wenger (2006), in later writings, from expressing
strong opinions concerning how education should be designed in a globalised
world.
4
See for example Karlsen (2010) on how socio-cultural theories, when combined
with perspectives borrowed from sociology, afford power-relations within musicrelated communities of practice.
5
Our references to Dewey (2003) are abbreviated EW for The Early Works, MW
for The Middle Works and LW for The Later Works, followed by part and page
numbers.
6
Interestingly, Dewey also criticized the modern tendency to compartmentalize art
and the aesthetic into their own realm, distinct from everyday life. He argued that
aesthetic experience should be regarded as focal part of a humane way of life; in
turn, he saw art as a general attempt to deal with an ever-changing environment, at
best in ways that afford qualitative experiences that can be felt as consummatory,
or esthetic (Dewey 1934/LW 10). In Experience and Education (1938/LW 13)
Dewey also emphasized that it is the ultimate goal of education to contribute to the
quality of subsequent experience.
PART I
CHAPTER ONE
ESCAPING THE CLASSICAL CANON:
CHANGING METHODS THROUGH A CHANGE
OF PARADIGM1
ANN C. CLEMENTS
Preface
Lucy Greens How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music
Education (2002) describes her research in the realm of popular musicians
and music transmission. Through her more recent publication Music,
Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy (2008),
Green has found many innovative ways in which to move from the realm
of research and inquiry to the practical application and examination of that
application through practicea gap that many researchers fail to traverse.
I feel that as we examine her work in a critical way and seek our own
unique forms of implementation of the ideas she has presented, we must
keep in mind that this latest text is an attempt to bridge the all too elusive
gap between research and practice, and that in doing so there is room for
experimentation. Through this publication she has exposed her research
and teaching practices in a very intimate and personal way and we are
indebted to Green for providing a model of research to practice that is so
greatly needed in the field of music education.
Introduction
First I would like to focus my attention on three strands that are
apparent throughout Greens work: (1) student centered learning or
students as source, (2) the role of teachers in informal learning, and (3) the
organic nature of music learning. Each of these areas will be discussed in
relation to popular musics and classroom music education. These
conversations are a mixture of my personal response to her work and
Chapter One
examples of practical applications of her work in American music

classrooms, in the attempts to look beyond prior knowledge and practice
towards new possibilities for the implementation of Greens work.
Student Centered Learning

Key to Greens work is the concept of student centered learning. She
constructs a good argument that it may be time to experiment with, or
perhaps withdraw from, formal western music traditions of music teaching
and learningin which the teacher is often thought of as the end all be all
of musical knowledge, and that to be successful as a teacher is to install
knowledge upon the unknowing student. Greens experiment of application
in Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy
(2008) is an in-depth acknowledgement of students as sources of
knowledge. Her methodology is based on partnerships of students, shared
responsibilities among student-centered groups, and acknowledgement
through the respect and valuation of students pre-existing interests,
abilities and preferences by the classroom teacher. In particular, student
preference and knowledge become the primary starting points from which
students expand outwards into different musical styles, genres and
cultures.
Within the field of multicultural education the notion of culturally
responsive teaching has raised awareness of students individuality. This
approach to educational practice takes into consideration the needs,
experiences, and perspectives of culturally diverse students, where its
main purpose is to help students with their cultural and social identities in
such a way that learning in any subject is made more relevant (Abril
2008, 5). Culturally responsive teaching embraces constructivist views of
teaching and learning, in which learning is viewed as an active process by
which learners give meaning to new information, ideas, and principles and
other stimuli, and in which teaching is viewed as inducing change in
students knowledge and belief systems (Villegas and Lucas 2002). While
Green does not reference much literature regarding cultural diversity or
learning practices for world musics in music education, which is rather
disappointing, the practice of her evolving pedagogy is very much based
on these principles. The consumption of music by youths, their musical
preferences, and their musical knowledge can very easily be described as
youth culture (or cultures), a generational and cultural grouping that is
not often given serious consideration in a positive way. Youth culture,
which is heavily comprised of musics and musicians, is a source that
Changing Methods through a Change of Paradigm
Green acknowledges as legitimate and worthy of study for its own merits,
including adolescents culture and musical preferences and knowledge.
The largest portion of music makers in the United States cannot be
found in professional or community bands, choirs, and orchestras. Instead,
they are found in basements, pubs, garages, worship teams, computer labs,
dance clubs, and recording studios. One can argue that lessons learned in
one musical communityfor example musical lessons from band, choir,
and orchestracan be transferred to other communities, but this is not
necessarily true. Teachers frequently complain about students inability to
transfer knowledge from the general music classroom to the instrumental
classroom or from the elementary music classroom to the middle school
music classroom. If transfer between somewhat like musical idioms is
difficult at best, how can we expect students to make the connections
between musical systems that to them may have little-to-nothing in
common? Transfer has to be taught, and unless you are teaching how to
transfer to and from multiple musical cultures it has no lasting meaning or
relevance.
It has been estimated that only 20% of high school students in the
United States are participating in formal music instruction. Where are the
missing 80%? The answer to this is quite simple, theyre musicking (in
Smalls (1998) sense of the term)! Visit any local high school Battle of the
Bands competition and you will see many students who may fall outside
formal musical instruction but have musical skills and passion that are
enviable by some of our best traditional singers and players.
How do we reach this missing 80%? Green believes that the time has
come for music to be just thatmusic, unattached from our preconceived
notions of good and bad and with an understanding that there is no
hierarchy or superiority of particular genres; there is only personal
preference. Music around the world is created, listened to, adapted, danced
and moved to for the same reasons: it defines, represents, symbolizes,
expresses, constructs, mobilizes, incites, controls, transforms, unites, and
much more (Wade 2006). If we want to draw these students in and invite
them to participate in an education that will bring them into adulthood and
foster continued learning beyond and outside of classrooms, we must
move towards pedagogies that are inclusiveand, shouldnt we pay more
attention to their preferences than we do our own? It may be a balancing
act, but I agree with Green that the time has come to tip the scales in their
direction.
Chapter One
Teachers and Formal Music Education

As Green expresses her created curriculum in Music, Informal
Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy (2008) we begin to
witness changes in the role of teacher. Throughout the Musical Futures
program (the curricular program that is the primary focus of this text) the
teachers are asked to step back and allow for student centered learning.
Green indicates that this was not always an easy role for teachers to adhere
to. During each of the seven stages of this curriculum teachers were asked
to establish ground rules for behavior, set the task going at each stage,
and then stand back and observe what the pupils were doing (Green 2008,
74). Debbie, one of the teachers in this project framed her anxiety by
stating Im terrified about the lesson today; just letting the students go off
and jam. Im actually scared of letting them do this . . . (30).
I believe much of the disconnect between formal music education and
learners preferences and knowledge can be traced to institutions of higher
learning. These institutions, serving as gatekeepers to the profession,
generally reserve admittance to students whose training in Western art
music qualifies them to continue such pursuits. Our institutions can be
seen as an integral part of the reciprocal cycle of music teacher
preparationwe only accept a portion of those for whom formal music
education has worked, and only if their voice or instrument is needed in
a particular ensemble or studio. It is completely the wrong way to go about
selecting the next generation of education hopefuls. While NASM has
begun to make acceptations for the acceptance of a broader array of
students (NASM Handbook 2007), very few programs are taking
advantage of these changesagain, what can we do when there are no
studios or ensembles to cater to various kinds of musicians?
Carlos Abril (2008), in a recent study of one teachers journey to create
a mariachi program in her central Chicago high school strings program,
found that while she was willing to work for change, she felt she did not
have the skills needed or perhaps even the confidence needed to risk
change. While as a university musician she participated in the traditional
string ensembles, she also played violin in a local Emo band (a style of
emotional punk rock or heavy metal music). However, she was reluctant to
even mention this band participation to the researcher as she thought he
would be uninterested. Her participation in the band was a facet of her
musical self that she claims did not inform her work as a university student
or music educator years later. She never thought of them as being related.
My own research (Clements and Campbell 2006) found a similar
disconnect for teachers between what was required of them for the degree
program and the other musical worlds in which they reside. If we want to
prepare future teachers for success in teaching all forms of musics we,
along with our colleagues in musicology, theory, and performance, must
acknowledge all of the musics in which we are engaged. We all contain bior multi-musicality, but through formal education we begin to value some
more than others, and this separation must end.
While Green takes a very strong approach to the role of teacheror
the lack of the role of teacherI would like to suggest that music teachers
play a role that is more similar to a facilitator and sharer in the learning
process, and that their role be developed from the expression of their
personal multi-musicality, their understanding of their students needs,
desires, knowledge and skills, and the musics and cultures that surround
the school building within the community (both locally and virtually). I
will address this more specifically in the next conversation.
The Organic Nature of Music Learning

Green (2008) has created a fairly strict concept of how her research
may be applied in classroom settings. The objectives and learning
outcomes are created by the students with little to no involvement by the
music teacher other than to set them on their way. While I fully support
student centered learning, I cant help but have great faith in the
intuitiveness, creativity, and ability level of music educators. To me any
musical project + a music educator = a better musical project for those
musicians who canteach. I know it is clich but it is true.
The master-apprentice model is prevalent throughout most of the
worlds cultures; yet, it is strangely missing in Greens approach. While
my own research on community musicians (Clements 2008; Clements and
Gibbs 2007; Jones and Clements 2006) has shown me that music making
among the popular realms may be constructed in solitude at timesa point
that Green takes to extremesthe recordings they use are not the main
instrument of teaching and learning. Musicians gatherits what we do,
the inexperienced alongside the more experienced. Even when recordings
are used, the music is often brought to fruition not when it is copied or
replicated but when it is arranged or created anew through organic means.
Another issue that I continue to struggle with is the very term popular
music and musicians. While I certainly do not mean to squabble, and
defining terms is always a challenge, popular musics are individual,
multidimensional, dynamic, and culturally and genre specific, not a large
grouping. There is no such thing as pan popular. A general term
attached to a specific pedagogy would never fly in world music circles, for
Chapter One
example, if someone where to develop a Pacific Islands pedagogyit

just does not work and it is not appropriate. Everything should be taught
within its own terms. We also must keep in mind that popular musics are
often popular because someone has paid big bucks for it to be that way,
and often, popular musics, at least in a teen culture sense, are not fully
organic. They are a deliberate attempt at profiteering and are frequently
composed by professional, often non-recording or performing musicians,
in a very traditional western way. While this is not universal, it is quickly
becoming the norm.
The term pedagogy scares me and I am not completely sure where
pedagogy ends and methodology begins. My research in community music
making has led me to believe that the real beauty in the process is the way
in which individuals engage in musical practices within the time, space,
and location in which they find and develop their groove (in the full
Charlie Kiel sense of the term; see Kiel and Feld 1994). I believe that on
multiple occasions Green becomes too prescriptivebordering on
becoming a the right way and the wrong way curricular model, which is
simply replacing traditional methods with a new oneone soap box to
another. My wish for formal music education is to work to capture the
freshnessthe soul of the organic ways in which music is taught and
learned in multiple avenues. These should be created based on a
combination of student and teacher know how and should be instigated
through personalized exploration and experimentation. The teacher, being
an extremely knowledgeable resource of musical knowledge and capable
of understanding their students, should create learning opportunities that
will best meet the needs of students in their particular classrooms. Even
with a base of student centered learning, it cannot be one-program-fits-all
model as prescribed by Green (2008).
What the field of music education needs is a closer examination of
what is out there happening in music classrooms at the grassroots level; an
investigation of the kinds of programs innovative teachers found to draw
in the multitudes of musicians within their school buildings. We need
multiple single-case studies of these innovated programs to serve as
models for future exploration and experimentation by the masses, both in
prekindergarten through twelfth grade and in higher education.
Some teachers remain unaware or simply do not care to think about
formal music educations relevancy in the lives of children, and Green
does much to bring this topic to the table. But, in my opinion, many
educators have already moved beyond Lucy Green and have found ways
in which to keep the organic nature of music learning alive within the
classroom. These organic forms of learningdeeply rooted in individual
students and their preferencesintertwined with the musical skills and

educational knowledge of teachers, will lead us into the new frontier of
music education.
References
Abril, C. 2008. Culturally Responsive Teaching in Secondary
Instrumental Music: Mariachi as a Case in Point. Paper presented at
the Cultural Diversity in Music Education Nine Symposia 2008,
Seattle, Washington, March 2008.
Clements, A. 2008. From the Inside Out: The Case Study of a
Community Rock Musician. Paper and poster presented at the Music
Educations National Conference Bi-annual Meeting: Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, April 2008.
Clements, A., and P. S. Campbell. 2006. Rap, Rock, Race, and Rhythm:
Music and More in a Methods Class. Mountain Lake Reader 4: 19
23.
Clements, A., and B. Gibbs. 2007. Connecting In School and Out of
School Musical Experiences. Paper presented at the Mountain Lake
Colloquium for Teachers of General Music Methods, May 2007.
Green, L. 2002. How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music
Jones, P. M., and A. C. Clements. 2006. Making Room for Student
Voice: Rock and Popular Musics in the School Curricula. Paper
presented at the MayDay Group Colloquium: Princeton, NJ, June
2006.
Kiel, C., and S. Feld. 1994. Music Grooves: Essays and Dialogues.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
NASM Handbook. 2007. Handbook for the National Association of the
Schools of Music. http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/.
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meaning of Performance and Listening.
Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Villegas, A. M., and T. Lucas. 2002. Educating Culturally Responsive
Teachers: A Coherent Approach. New York: SUNY Press.
Wade, B. 2006. Thinking Musically: Experiencing Music, Expressing
Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
10
Chapter One
Notes
1
Previously published in 2008 as Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing

Methods through a Change of Paradigm in Visions of Research in Music
Education 12. Reprinted by permission of the editor.
CHAPTER TWO
NEW EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORKS
FOR POPULAR MUSIC
AND INFORMAL LEARNING:
ANTICIPATING THE SECOND-WAVE1
RANDALL EVERETT ALLSUP
AND NATHANIEL J. OLSON
This chapter seeks to advance a critical examination of research on the

informal learning practices that are associated with the way so-called
popular musicians learn. It is our intention to theorize this practice with
illustrations, seeking not to advance a particular operational platform or
method, but to introduce responses to an ethical mandate grounded in our
professions obligations to diversify our curricula in an increasingly
pluralistic and rapidly changing world. Our chapter begins with an
appreciation of the pioneering work of Lucy Green. It can be argued that
her seminal manuscript, How Popular Musicians Learn, helped to
legitimize popular music as a field of music education research and
smoothed the way for its inclusion in schools (Green 2001). Next, we will
briefly outline new problems facing researchers as they move beyond a
first-wave body of literature to a burgeoning second-wave, where
studies on popular music intersect with public education, curricular
demands, and music teacher education. Early studies of popular music,
from the fields of cultural studies (Frith 1996; McClary 1991), empirical
research (Finnegan 1989; Forns, Lindberg and Sernhede 1995) and
sociology (Frith 1988; Leblanc 1999) were rich in scope, but lacked
grounding in educational theory or a strong interest in the public school
mission. An anticipated second-wave calls for research studies that
locate and problematize methods of teaching popular music. Looking
forward to this second-wave, we will sketch our own model of teacher
12
Chapter Two
preparation based on the democratic potential of mutual learning

communities, or what we fondly refer to as learning through modified
garage bands (Allsup 2011).
It is hard to believe that it was only ten years ago that the field of
popular music education research really took hold (Allsup 2002; Green
2001). Prior to the turn of the 20th century, there was only one published
English-language research article that looked at popular music from the
standpoint of teachers, schools, and applied instruction: this was Patricia
Shehan Campbells (1995) hard-to-find article called Of Garage Bands
and Song-getting. Today an expanding field of international scholarship
is flourishing around the importance of popular music and the manner in
which it is taught and learned (Green 2006, 2008; Folkestad 2006;
Rodriguez 2004; Sderman and Folkestad 2004; Vkev 2006; Westerlund
2006; Wiggins 2006; Woody 2007). Indeed, growth has been rapid. In five
short years, the paradigm has shifted from descriptive research on what
popular musicians are actually doing (Allsup 2002, 2003; Byrne and
Sheridan 2000; Hebert and Campbell 2000; Green 2001) to heuristic
investigations into the whys and hows of popular music and informal
learning, especially as these domains intersect with schools, schools of
education, methods of instruction, and our professions efforts to diversify
curricula (Abramo 2011; Allsup 2004; Davis 2005; Green 2006, 2008;
Vkev 2006; Westerlund 2006; Woody 2007). As Lucy Green also
continues to play an important role in expanding this field of inquiry,
writing and researching particularly around issues of informal learning and
popular music, we turn now to a critical appreciation and critique of
Music, Informal Learning and the School (2008), the contents of which
frame increasingly complicated problems for researchers in this field. We
will address four general concerns that spring from this work.
First, researchers must be careful not to make equivalent the notion of
informal learning ipso facto with that of popular music.2 Conflating
informal learning with a genre-specific art form, as Green (2001, 12) does
when she designed her Musical Futures curriculum around the practices of
Anglo-American guitar-based music makers may lead to the unintended
consequence of narrowing of musical possibilities rather than expanding
them.3 It deserves asking whether pedagogical inspiration from this mostly
male, mostly White genre represents a step forward in our efforts to
diversify classroom offerings. Are music lessons designed around AngloAmerican guitar-based music a culturally responsive choice for all
especially considering the increasingly pluralistic makeup of public
schools around the world? And if, as Green (2008, 110) is quoted as
saying, the learning practices adopted were based, not on a theory of
New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning
13
child-centeredness or discovery-learning, but on an empirical investigation

and analysis of the real-life, informal practices of popular musicians as
they operate outside the educational environment, it is worth recalling
that the empirical investigations referred to come from data she collected
from a sample of fourteen all-White participants, twelve of whom were
male, all of whom played what can be loosely described as White-ethnic
rock (Green 2001).
Second, while Green (2008, 2829) notes the reluctance and hesitancy
with which teachers approached informal learning practices, little is said
about how the training of these teachers could or should proceed. How
will research studies inspired by the informal practices of popular
musicians instruct the training of future music educators? What will
changing approaches to teacher preparation look like? What new
certification requirements will be asked of our student teachers? Secondwave research must empirically describe and philosophically justify that
which it seeks to replace or modify.
Importantly, we must not conflate the term school with schooling
or use these terms interchangeably. Should researchers fail, furthermore, to
distinguish between formal learning and formalism and informal
learning and informalism, teacher educators will be left ill-equipped to
imagine a role for teachers in which they do the business of educating, or
schools as social laboratories in which students interact with all walks of
life (Dewey 1916).4 Ideally, teacher preparation will navigate a way for
teachers to reap the pedagogical benefits of informal learning, while
avoiding the negative consequences of succumbing to informalism.
Third, it deserves asking exactly what constitutes teacher quality in
informal or popular settings? To outside observers, music teachers who
apply informal processes in formal settings may appear to be doing very
little. The children in Greens Musical Futures project decide the friends
they wish to study with and the music they wish to learn. They spend most
of their time copying what they hear from CDs and MP3s. In Greens
(2008, 31) curriculum, professional educators are encouraged not to set
explicit educational targets and learning objectives for their students, as
the free choice of the learners was one of the essential learning strategies
that was drawn from the practices of popular musicians. As teachers
become somewhat more involved in later stages of learning, even then
their role seems limited to showing students rough, simplified, or partial
forms and then retreating, not insisting on correct [instrument] hold or
posture, and not expecting accurate repetition (35). If teachers are not
helping to define educational outcomes or offering precise instruction,
even a friendly critic is left wondering just how a music educator is trained
14
Chapter Two
in informalist teaching, to what uses are put a teachers content expertise,

and the degree to which an acquaintance with instructional theory is even
necessary.
As the topic of teacher expertise bumps up against the values of
informal learning, Greens research may have the unintended effect of
fueling right-wing critics of education schools whose efforts to dismantle
teacher certificationand public education in generalare advanced by
arguing against the utility of training teachers, given the inherent
ineffectiveness of teacher education programs on the one hand, and the
inherent ineffectiveness of pedagogical theory on the other (CochranSmith 2002a; Kozol 2005; Will 2006). Her research likewise gives fuel to
left-wing critics, those de-schoolers who see the public school as little
more than institutional state apparatuses (to borrow from Louis Althusser)
that reproduce conditions of hegemony and oppression. If music education
researchers are now finding new favor in informalist learning as a reaction
to a history of poorly trained music educators (Kratus 2007; Williams
2007), or if a professions collective loss of faith in teachers and their
capacity to educate is engendered, we may be sowing the seeds of our own
demise. The music teachers in Greens book could easily be outsourced in
favor of cheaper, less experienced, and under-educated labor. If the tenets
of informal musical learning are to be adapted, second-wave research
needs to provide broad and self-critical illustrations of what constitutes a
qualified, indeed highly qualified, music teacher (Cochran-Smith 2002b;
Darling-Hammond and Berry 2006).
Finally, are the methods and processes of informal learning equal to
the unique problems that popular music brings to the classroom? How do
students become media literate in informal settings (Buckingham 2003;
Richards 1998; Vasudevan 2010)? Green worries, like many of us, that
children are insufficiently equipped to defend against market exploitation.
She claims, however, that children develop a critical musicality by
learning the music they like (Green 2008, 8385). Because they hear
more, they will see more. We fear, in spite of this, that a curriculum based
on the copying of MP3 recordings apart from adult interaction is
educationally nave, especially when faced off against the sophistication of
predatory capitalism. No matter how beneficial investigations of popular
music are, or how rewarding the processes of informal learning turn out to
be, it seems prudent to provide formal spaces in which dialogue and
critique can occur.
To this point, we turn to John Dewey, who like Green viewed informal
learning as spirited and natural, but worried that its gains were too
random, and its outcomes too narrow. Dewey imagined the school as a
15
place of social experimentation, where the problems of home and

neighborhood, or the musical problems of the garage, are worked out in
common. In the following quote by Dewey, we have substituted a few
words, garage for home, musical life for social lifebut the reader will get
what we mean. Dewey writes,
The ideal garage has to be enlarged. The child must be brought into
contact with more grown people and with more children in order that there
may be the freest and richest musical life. Moreover, the occupations and
relationships of the garage environment are not especially selected for the
growth of the child; the main objective is something else, and what the
child can get out of them is incidental. (Dewey 1915/2001, 2425)
We know that young adults in informal learning environments,

whether alone at a computer or with friends in a garage, are likely to work
in isolation, away from the eyes and ears of adults (Finnegan 1989; Jewitt
2008; Putnam 2000). But we believe that the music classroomthe band
room or choir roomis the ideal location for a critical sharing of values
and perspectives, a community of diverse talents and powers, arguing and
debatingindeed laughing and smilingacross differences. In this
environment, the teacher will be a critical part of the community, coming
as she will with experience and expertise gained from a lifetime of
engagement with music. To stand on the sidelines and not invite students
to consider that experience would indicate a less than full engagement
from her, and consequently limit the learning potential of the shared
community. As Westerlund (2006) describes her conception of garage
band learning, she writes, In knowledge-building communities, the
teacher is a participator and co-learner, a more expert learner (122).
This is the realm that we are most interested in working in. Purposeful,
democratic spaces where teachers and students come together, not through
the casualties of formalist or informalist ideologies, but through methods
of living and learning where plausible human interests and diverse
expertise intersect with shared desires. These are humble aspirations, not
grand. But because they take many forms, they are not linked to a singular
genre or method of instruction; they do not focus wholly on the teacher or
exclusively on the student. Determinations of valuedare we say
standardsare worked out in common. And growthincidental and
intentionalcomes from interaction, not isolation. Concerning this
chapter, we would have to say that we dont actually operationalize
informal learning, or formal learning either. Rather, pressed, we would say
that we operationalize democracy in the hope that by bringing the graduate
16
Chapter Two
students we work with to reach beyond narrow specializations to greater

openness, they will do this for their own students in turn.
The problem, of course, is how to prepare teachers to comfortably
interact in this arguably idealized, always evolving classroom
community. Older models of music teacher preparation focused primarily
on mechanical skills like baton technique and woodwind fingerings, with
the expectation of placing these a priori skills without reference into
faceless schools in faceless neighborhoods. Todays music educator is
often called upon to work in partnership with the particulars of location
and context (Abrahams 2005; Custodero and Williams 2000). Looking
outward, this is an interesting inversion of formal learning, where the
teacher places skill at the service of student needs, rather than personal
expertise. But neither should teacher expertise be hard to locate, only
redirected or refocused toward a common good.
We are no more or no less inspired by the music that garage band
musicians make than we are by the music of jazz, folk, classical, or hiphop musicians. Resisting literal understandings of how garage bands are
operationalized, we are inspired, rather, by how garage band communities
are made and negotiated, the way problems get solved, and above all, the
manner in which the music practiced and composed is personally
meaningful and self-reflective. This focus leads to critical questions: how
can the unique ways and qualities of garage band interactions be harnessed
for positive educational outcomes? And, importantly, where is the teacher
located in this dynamic? The questions that we ask are not whether or
not or why or why not, but how those very ways and qualities are
formalized in a meaningful fashion. We must recognize this rather obvious
fact, that anything we do in schools represents formal instruction. By
choosing locations and contexts, providing instruments and opportunities,
educators formalize formerly informal musical experiences and
environments. The formal spaces of schools are different from the
informal spaces outside, and they provide different opportunities and
challenges for the learning communities that inhabit them.
The formalizing of informal musical practices does not come without
hazard, to which the example of jazz music in the United States attests.
Several authors lament that the improvisational, collaborative, and
democratic culture of jazz became much more authority-driven, hierarchal,
and score-centered as it was formalized in North American institutions5
(Ake 2002, 2010; Prouty 2008). In addition to a proliferation of scored and
notated pieces and a consequent de-emphasis on improvisation, Prouty
(2008, 1) notes this formalization also carried profound implications for
the types of social relationships among practitioners [of jazz]. In other
17
words, those who learned and played jazz in the secondary school or
university-based conservatory have had different kinds of relationships as
teachers and students than were present fifty years ago on the street or
on the bandstand. The authors conclude that jazz musicians coming out
of American institutions today enjoy educational experiences that are
essentially the same as their classically trained counterparts.
Both the audition-based classical-style study of music and the strict
informalist experiences that Green advocates represent missed opportunities
to invite (or even prod) students to engage with and across differenceto
experience new ways of learning, creating, and making musica critical
role of a democratic mutual learning community. We worry that
informalist facilitators, like their conservatory counterparts, may not be
actively or purposefully engaged with diversity as an educational ideal,
allowing the young people in their carefans of a specific musical style,
saythe disinclination to look beyond and listen beyond the performers
and personalities that they like best or know best. Indeed, the students in
Greens studies are essentially left on their own to explore the music they
are most drawn to. In a setting that resists the false dichotomy of informal
versus formal learning, nuanced educators can access the rich educational
benefits of musical and social difference, and challenge their students to
do the same. With an unfamiliar musical example to stir up discussion and
debate, teachers will need to cautiously decide how that music is
presented. It can be reduced to a superficial treatment that focuses only on
how the music sounds different; or teachers can explore the multiple
cultural aspects of that music, which will bump up against different kinds
of values and signifiers. Such diversity-affirming learning communities
put us in contact with others who understand and present the world
differentlyand teachers, through their role in these communities, will
invite students to engage with one another, to wrestle with difference, and
with musical practices to which they may not be initially drawn.
It seems then, that music teacher preparation must include experiences
that ask future teachers to wrestle with the questions of both informal and
formal learning while working with and across difference. Only in an
experiential setting will students come to know where the questions are,
and learn to navigate responses to those questions democratically, in
particular settings with particular musics and particular individuals. The
garage band classes at Teachers College are one attempt.6 Beyond a mere
theoretical engagement, students are placed in ensembles, randomly, with
class members they may or may not know, and typically from a variety of
national backgrounds and musical preferences. We ask them to consider
seriously the unique perspectives and expertise of the members of their
18
Chapter Two
community (their garage band), and to explore musical genres with which
they may be unfamiliar. Importantly, these students are asked to create
music of their own, but they are not left on their own. As teacherfacilitators in this setting, and as part of this classroom community, we
carefully design opportunities and invitations for these groups to take their
experimentation further, to ask richer questions, and consider perspectives
that they may not otherwise consider. It is in this interaction that our own
expertise and experiences come into play. Our hope is that not only will
these invitations enrich the experiences that these pre-service teachers
bring to class, but that these future teachers will feel compelled to ask
those same questions of their future students, as well as demonstrate the
value and place of democratic expertise.
Questions, many questions, naturally arise, and these will be addressed
by second-wave researchers in this new domain of inquiry. What does
formal music teacher preparation look like in informal settings?in
popular music settings? What counts as teacher expertise? What does an
informal learning-inspired curriculum look like? What adaptations are
necessary? How do music educators adopt informal and popular music
practices without losing their vitality and relevance? How do college
music teacher educators with little or no experience in popular music
prepare the next generation of music practitioners? What can AngloAmerican music educators learn from Northern European schools, where
popular music has been an integral part of public school for several
generations?what mistakes can we avoid?what successes can we
emulate? How can we embrace a diversity-affirming approach to popular
music? What are the promises and limitations of ethnographic description
in helping design instruction? What theoretical frameworks can we turn
to?
The learning practices associated with popular musicians are sure to be
operationalized through a multiplicity of means. We are convinced that the
teachers best capable of managing such a task will be those music
educators with a practiced democratic outlook. The foundation of
democratic education rests on a diversity of ideas and their practical
connection to a changing world. Now, on to the next wave.
19
References
Abrahams, F. 2005. Transforming Music Instruction with Ideas from
Critical Pedagogy. Music Educators Journal 92 (1): 6268.
Abramo, J. 2011. Gender Differences of Popular Music Production in
Secondary Schools. Journal of Research in Music Education 59 (1):
2143.
Ake, D. A. 2002. Jazz Cultures. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 2010. Jazz Matters: Sound, Place, and Time Since Bebop. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Allsup, R. E. 2002. Crossing Over: Mutual Learning and Democratic
Action in Instrumental Music Education. PhD diss., Teachers College
Columbia University.
. 2003. Mutual Learning and Democratic Action in Instrumental Music
Education. Journal of Research in Music Education 51 (1): 2437.
. 2004. Of Concert Bands and Garage Bands: Creating Democracy
Through Popular Music. In Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and
Music Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 20423. Reston: MENC.
. 2011. Popular Music and Classical Musicians: Strategies and
Perspectives. Music Educators Journal 97 (3): 3034.
Buckingham, D. 2003. Media Education: Literacy, Learning, and
Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Byrne, C., and M. Sheridan. 2000. The Long and Winding Road: The
Story of Rock Music in Scottish Schools. International Journal of
Campbell, P. S. 1995. Of Garage Bands and Song-Getting: The Musical
Development of Young Rock Musicians. Research Studies in Music
Education 4 (1): 12-20.
Cochran-Smith, M. 2002a. Reporting on Teacher Quality: The Politics of
Politics. Journal of Teacher Education 53 (5): 37982.
. 2002b. What a Difference a Definition Makes: Highly Qualified
Teachers, Scientific Research, and Teacher Education. Journal of
Teacher Education 53 (3): 18789.
Custodero, L., and L. Williams. 2000. Music for Everyone: Creating
Contexts for Possibility in Early Childhood Education. Early
Childhood Connections 6 (4): 3643.
Darling-Hammond, L., and B. Berry. 2006. Highly Qualified Teachers
for All. Educational Leadership 64 (3): 1420.
Davis, S. 2005. That Thing You Do!: Compositional Processes of a Rock
Band. International Journal of Education and the Arts 16 (6).
http://www.ijea.org/v6n16/index.html
20
Chapter Two
Dewey, J. 1915/2001. The School and Society. Mineola: Dover.

. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
Finnegan, R. 1989. The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English
Town. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Folkestad, G. 2006. Formal and Informal Learning Situations or Practices
vs. Formal and Informal Ways of Learning. British Journal of Music
Education 23 (2): 13545.
Forns, J., U. Lindberg, and O. Sernhede. 1995. In Garageland: Rock,
Youth and Modernity. New York: Routledge.
Frith, S. 1988. Music for Pleasure: Essays in the Sociology of Pop.
Cambridge: Polity Press
. 1996. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Green, L. 2001. How Popular Musicians Learn. Burlington: Ashgate.
. 2006. Popular Music Education in and for Itself, and for Other
Music: Current Research in the Classroom. International Journal of
. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School. Burlington: Ashgate.
Hebert, D. G., and P. S. Campbell. 2000. Rock Music in American
Schools: Positions and Practices since the 1960s. International
Journal of Music Education 36 (1): 1422.
Jewitt, C. 2008. Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms.
Review of Research in Education 32: 24167.
Kozol, J. 2005. Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid in
America. New York: Crown Publishing.
Kratus, J. 2007. Music Education at the Tipping Point. Music Educators
Journal 94 (2): 4248.
Leblanc, L. 1999. Pretty in Punk: Girls Resistance in a Boys Subculture.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
McClary, S. 1991. Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Prouty, K. 2008. The Finite Art of Improvisation: Pedagogy and Power
in Jazz Education. Critical Studies in Improvisation 4 (1): 115.
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Richards, C. 1998. Teen Spirits: Music and Identity in Media Education.
London: UCL Press.
Rodriguez, C. X., ed. 2004. Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and
Education. Reston: MENC.
21
Sderman, J., and G. Folkestad. 2004. How Hip-Hop Musicians Learn:

Strategies in Informal Creative Music Making. Music Education
Research 6 (3): 31326.
Vasudevan, L. 2010. Re-Imagining Pedagogies for Multimodal Selves.
National Society for the Study of Education 110 (1): 88108.
Vkev, L. 2006. Teaching Popular Music in Finland: Whats Up,
Whats Ahead? International Journal of Music Education 24 (2):
12631.
Westerlund, H. 2006. Garage Rock Bands: A Future Model for
Developing Musical Expertise? International Journal of Music
Education 24 (2): 11925.
Wiggins, J. 2006. Compositional Process in Music. In International
Handbook of Research in Arts Education, ed. L. Bresler, 45167. New
York: Springer.
Will, G. F. 2006. Ed Schools vs. Education, Newsweek, January 16.
Williams, D. 2007. What are Music Educators Doing and How Well Are
We Doing It? Music Educators Journal 94 (1): 1823.
Woody, R. H. 2007. Popular Music in the Schools: Remixing the Issues.
Music Educators Journal 94 (4): 3237.
Notes
1
This chapter is an extended version of an article previously published in 2008 by

Randall Everett Allsup as Creating an Educational Framework for Popular Music
in Public Schools: Anticipating the Second-Wave in Visions of Research in Music
Education 12. Reprinted by permission of the editor.
2
Not all popular music is learned informally; nor is informal learning solely
derived from or derivative of popular musicians. Nor is the term popular music
the ideal way to describe this multifaceted and overlapping genre. But at present,
this is the term that has coalesced around this body of research.
3
For information on the Musical Futures project, go to:
www.musicalfutures.org.uk
4
In this context, we define formalism as a teacher-directed doctrine in which
students are trained to achieve predetermined outcomes. The doctrine of
informalism is equally dogmatic; it is a form of self-directed learning that takes
place solely through social intercourse, outside the school and without an assigned
teacher.
5
Today, an American teen can learn jazz in a private college preparatory high
school and finish her music major in jazz studies at an Ivy League college. The
same will soon hold true for rock and popular music.
6
For a more thorough description of this course-work, see Allsup (2011).
CHAPTER THREE
THE WORLD WELL LOST, FOUND:
REALITY AND AUTHENTICITY IN GREENS
NEW CLASSROOM PEDAGOGY1
LAURI VKEV
The Real-World Music

In her recent work, Green (2001, 2008) builds on the idea that there is
a gulf between real-world music and classroom music (2). One of her
main goals seems to be to pave the way for the former in the latter: to
make the music in schools more in touch with reality. The learning
practices of popular music are taken to bring the needed verisimilitude. As
most students prefer popular music to other types of music, it is assumed
that at least for this majority, its naturally arising learning practices
appear as more real than other, more formal procedures (41).
While one can question if the pop/rock band procedures described by
Green (2001) cover nearly all sub-styles of popular music, or whether
they are really natural, or even pedagogically the most interesting ones
(Green 2008, 5; compare Vkev 2006a; Allsup 2008),2 it is significant
that Greens point of departure is genre-independent. For instance, she
does not insist that there should be more popular music in British schools
at the cost of classical musicthe latter having not exactly been in the
cutting edge of school music in the last years at any rate (Green 2008,
153). Greens case is made more against the way music, classical, popular,
or any kind has been taught; the reality she looks for relates to the
processes by which the relevant musical skills and knowledge are passed
on and acquired (3, italics original). She attributes the reason for the weak
motivation and low take-up of music as a curriculum subject in the UK to
the formal methods of instruction (2).
24
Chapter Three
It is not surprising that popular music is preferred by many of the

students, especially in Greens target group (1314 year olds).3 In fact,
some of the students interviewed for Greens projects did not even seem to
count classical music as real music! (154158). This makes one wonder
how music becomes real for someone; moreover, it makes one ask, how
can a musical world be claimed for someone for whom it is well lost?4
In this chapter, my intention is to raise discussion rather than offer
systematic critique. I also do not pretend to read Greens texts through
neutral lenses: my interpretations are influenced by my background in the
pedagogy of popular music and a pragmatist philosophy of music
education, which makes my approach hermeneutic to begin with (Vkev
2000, 2003, 2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2007). While I agree with many of the
ideas that frame Greens books,5 I think that a further elaboration of their
underpinnings can encourage constructive discussion of the role of popular
music based learning practices in music education (see also FriersonCampbell 2008; Vkev 2006a; Vkev and Westerlund 2007; Westerlund
2006). I believe that this discussion is needed, not just for the obvious
reason that popular music is becoming commonplace in many music
classes around the world and calls for an elaboration of conventional
pedagogical practices,6 but also because this development might have
more far-reaching implications. For instance, popular music pedagogy
could indicate new ways in which music educators may conceive their
subject in a society that accepts democratic participation and creative
agency as its guiding key values (Westerlund 2006; Vkev and Westerlund
2007).
This elaboration can perhaps also help us to investigate some issues
that are not fully covered in Greens work. One of the practical aspects
that invite new ideas is the rapid global proliferation of digital music
culture.7 Information technology has brought forth new, even radically
new, ways of conceiving, manipulating, mediating, consuming, and
recycling music, and these new ways suggest new ideas which might help
us to reconsider music as art form, industry, and mode of communication
(Born 2005; Mantere 2008; Taylor 2001; Vkev 2006a). While Green
(2008, 5, 4142) frames the informal learning approaches as domainindependent in principle, the fact is that approaches that involve
computers, social networks, and other assets of digital music and
information technology are not really examined in her study, apart from an
occasional hint of the use of digital instruments in conventional music
making (48). Hence, there seems to be room for deeper meditation on
Greens ideas from the standpoint of digital music culture.8
Reality and Authenticity in Greens New Classroom Pedagogy
25
Authenticity in Learning
Greens underlying idea seems to be that the authenticity of musical
learningthe quality that makes it realis based on the authenticity of
the students preferences: what really interests the student is real for the
student, and thus worth learning from her standpoint.9 This is easy to agree
with: it is a commonplace in contemporary learning theory to treat
intrinsic motivation as an important factor in learning, and it is best
increased by means of engaging a students active interest. One might also
refer here to authenticity in learning (Petraglia 1998): learning is taken to
be more effective when it is motivated by desires and needs that are
original and genuine to the learner (Green 2006, 114115). From this
standpoint, a central condition for learning is a personal commitment, and
this commitment is judged by the recognized practical value of what is
studied. This idea has been the touchstone of educational philosophy since
progressivism: it forms a central tenet of Deweys pragmatist account of
the role of interest in education and further frames student-centered ideas
of constructivism.10
The motivational value of popular music may justify its place in music
curricula. For instance, it can be argued that one can invigorate music
classes with materials that students are already familiar with and to which
they react positively. Thus, popular music may be used as an introductory
device for music that is not so popular.11 Popular music can also offer a
gateway to further knowledge of music, musical literacy, and theoretical
concepts. When popular music is taught in this way, a student-centered
approach may become more a pedagogical device than an end result:
student involvement is taken as a means to achieve ends that are not
necessarily felt important by the learners. Authenticity, from this
perspective, is something that may help teachers to achieve learning
objectives that, from the student perspective, are things remote, as
Dewey put it (Dewey 1915/MW 8, 339, 1916/MW 9, 216).
However, Green does not subscribe to the idea that popular music
should be taught only, or even primarily, for external goals (e.g, Green
1988, 2001, 138139, 2006, 102). Like any music, popular music has its
own inherent or inter-sonic meanings, on which music education can
focus (Green 2008, 87).12 In fact, Greens need to map out the informal
learning practices of popular musicians, and the ensuing need to
experiment with the pedagogical application of these practices, seems to
have risen from an urge to criticize the approaches by which popular
music was taught primarily as a social and cultural phenomenonmore
for its delineations than for its inter-sonic meanings (see also Moore
26
Chapter Three
1993). According to Green, this approach may distort musics inherent

(inter-sonic) meanings and let ideological conceptions dictate how these
meanings are to be valued. At its worst, this distortion may lead to
fetishization of the musical object, where musics inherent meanings are
treated as autonomous essences (Green 1988, chap. 7). When this takes
place, delineations may appropriate the inherent meanings and become
the means through which music appears to communicate its value (86).
For instance, the assumption that popular music is either indescribable or
not worth studying for its inherent qualities may produce an ideological
vacuum that is then filled up with extra-musical (e.g., sociological or
cultural) meanings that are thought to better inform the students about
what is worth learning in connection to this music. Against this, Green
seems to argue that popular music, as any music, can also be an end in
itself and thus can be studied for its own sake.13 (Green 2008, 7; see also
Green 2001, 2006)
Green also argues for a kind of means-value for popular music in
school. By getting involved through the natural learning practices of
music, students can learn to appreciate its delineations (Green 2006, 2008,
4). Learning to enjoy music for its inter-sonic meanings may encourage
students to appreciate it in terms of its cultural references and further
direct them to pay more attention to how the latter are situationally
conditioned. This is based on the idea indicated above: that learning any
kind of music in a natural way can make it real for its practitioners.
Authenticity in learning can also spill over to new areas, widening the
musical horizons of the students and introducing them to new musical
worlds. Following Greens rationale, a sense of authenticity can thus
transform enjoyment of one kind of musical expression into an appreciation
of another.
One obvious problem in this account is the diversity of todays global
music cultures, which tends to encourage more or less relativistic accounts
of musics meaning and value. The inter-sonic meanings of music seem to
evaporate into the variety of musical subject positions possible in
contemporary mediated and networked culturethat is, the inherent
meanings of music tend to be delineated in so many ways that the
natural practices of learning music seem to always be conditioned by
cultural conventions. Thus, it is entirely possible that one can never point
out natural ways to music, or to learn any music in its authentic terms,
as musical cultures continuously influence each other and each others
indigenous procedures, intensified by global information networks
(Vattimo 1992, 1920).
27
Authenticity, one might further argue, may not be possible at all in a

multifaceted culture: the most we can grasp are different cultural attitudes
and approaches reflecting different discursive positions, always presenting
musical values and objects in new light. As Rorty (1972) put it in his
infamous attack on empiricist epistemology: a world outside of language
is, for us, well lost. Even if one does not subscribe to the extreme
linguistic pragmatism of Rorty,14 there is still something quite suspicious
in the claims that one can discern an authentic way that music is, and
could be, made and learned on the basis of its inherent qualities. Even if
we grant a virtual autonomy (Green 2006, 104) to music, one might
further argue that in education we could always do more than drill for
authenticity. Is it not the goal of education to point out new critical
possibilities and horizons of meaning in cultural processes, rather than just
represent the ways in which music is authentically made or learned?15
Acutely aware of the discourses of multiculturalism, Green (2008, 41
42) still argues that while the variables making music authentic change
along with the historical and social-cultural context, at least in principle it
is always possible to hit upon the level at which people respond to music
for its own sake, as a universally human expressive practice (see also
Green 2006, 2008, 59).16 Even if different musical cultures and subcultures articulate their own musical meanings, according to Green (2008,
42), in every case there lurks underneath a learning approach that is
fundamentally similar in every culture and thus can be grasped by all
learners. Moreover, as already indicated, the authenticity of involvement
that makes learning one kind of music real to the student can spill over
to other settings, as long as the teacher can distinguish the relevant
learning practices in each case and establish learning environments where
those practices can flourish. When students grasp music this way, they are
empowered to make its terms their own regardless of its style, genre, or
culture. Authenticity, from this standpoint, is not something that is an
original property of the subject matter in music, but something that can be
arrived at through internally motivated involvement with its inter-sonic
properties. Channelled pedagogically, this can further lead to critical
musicality, a term that Green (8385) advocates as a central goal of
music education.17
Authenticity In Situ
While one can be critical of the global applicability of the idea that all
music has underneath a natural learning practice that is fundamentally
similar in every cultural case,18 Greens account of authenticity in learning
28
Chapter Three
seems to imply a pragmatic logic, which makes it especially inviting for

music education programs that suffer a gap between school music and
music outside school. One can perhaps open its logic further by
considering how the locus of interest shifts from one learning situation to
another.19
One of the most important teachings of Greens account here,
pragmatically speaking, seems to concern the flexibility of musicianship.
Given this flexibility, musicianshiptaken as the capability to participate
actively in the practices and processes of musicing (60)20does not
have to be restricted by the bounds of acquired musical habits; when a
situation changes, new habits and attitudes can be developed that adapt to
it. In pragmatist terms this also means that the musical self is not fixed:
our selves constantly change along with our habits according to the needs
and particulars of the situation, in music as well as in other realms of life.
Authenticity is thus not something inherent to a static subject position, nor
even something that is arrived at through a tedious project of individual
self-realization (cf. Taylor 1989). If there is authenticity involved with
learning, it must be somehow embedded in the continuing learning
process. In fact, to prevent the self from changing would be to prevent
growth, a pedagogical cardinal sin if one takes growth in Deweyan
termsas continuing expansion of the experienced realm of meaning
(e.g., Dewey 1938/LW 13, 1920).
What is crucial is that new habits are called forth by needs that emerge
naturally from the situationnaturally indicating here that the need to
learn stems from the tensions caused by the changes in environment that
present new challenges to ones musicianship. For a practicing musician,
this might simply mean that the need to learn is raised by practical musical
problems-at-hand, as clearly happened in many of the cases described in A
New Classroom Pedagogy. While new musical habits can perhaps be
imposed from the outside to a certain degree, they serve future situations
best when they are elicited by the practical needs of hands-on musicing,
for this better guarantees their openness and flexibility in future
applications. With informal learning, this implies that students should have
a say about what they are expected to learn and how they will proceed in
learning it; and, further, that the teacher be willing and able to provide
them enough opportunities to try out different solutions to such emergent
problems. This amounts to the Deweyan idea of experiential learning, and
it also seems to apply to what took place in many of the projects described
by Green (Green 2008, 91, 110).
In Greens frame of reference, room for students to navigate options is
possible first of all because the students have inner motivation towards
29
learning music of their own choice and in terms that they accept as
authentic for it. Their need to learn more grows out of the practices to
which the students are eagerly and free-willingly committed, inner
motivation propelling them forward to adapt to new musical situations that
arise as a result of their own initiating actions. Like Elliott (1995), Green
(2008, 5660) identifies this continuum of interest as a psychological state
of flow, a condition that emerges when the students ability is
continuously contested by tasks challenging enough to call forth further
involvement (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, 1996). In pedagogical terms, the
teacher is first advised to stand by, observe, and at most help in the setting
of the learning environment: she acts more as a facilitator than an
instructor (cf. Clements 2008). Only later, when the situation has called
forth new ways of adapting to change, she may suggest more focused
practical solutions in order to guide the students towards more structured
challenges.
Authenticity in a New Key

It is in connection with these more structured challenges that a rupture
seems to emerge in this logic of authenticity. In the projects of A New
Classroom Pedagogy, the emphasis was eventually shifted from the
autonomy of haphazard procedures to more systematic work with a preassigned piece of music chosen by the researcher.21 Students were
encouraged to apply their newly acquired skills in copying the song; as an
aid, they were provided with a broken-down version on a CD (Green
2008, 26).22 Thus, despite the relative freedom (e.g., in choosing
instruments), the situation was now more formally controlled: students did
not choose a piece of music to learn (and thus could not really contribute
to its authenticity for their learning), nor were they given entirely free
choice concerning the directions in which to proceed. Instead, the goal of
this stage of the project was clearly articulated: the main undertaking was
to listen to and copy the song . . . using the tracks of isolated riffs as a
guide if desired, in order to make up their own version of it as a band
(26).
While this can be interpreted as a break in the continuum of the
informal approach, the pedagogical intent is clear: to provide the abovementioned structuring that would guide the students initiatives in the
direction of critical musicality (84). In fact, after this more formal stage,
the first, more freewheeling phase was repeated in most project schools,
the idea being that the teacher-framed second stage helps the students to
become more focused when working on the inter-sonic properties of the
30
Chapter Three
music of their own choice. Thus, the first stage of dropping pupils in a
deep end (25) was established as a kind of a shock tactic to awaken
students to the possibility that they can empower themselves to pay
attention to the inter-sonic meanings of music, a skill more critically
developed in the second stage.
It is noteworthy that in the second stage the critical attitude was evoked
with the help of pre-designated lesson materials that partly dictated the
focus of attention, and also by the programmatic choice of the song: the
teachers (and in this case, the researchers) contribution was thus a
determining factor in re-framing the situation for the critical approach. The
method of establishing the learning situation was nevertheless similar in
all three beginning stages, despite the relative differences in teacher input:
in all stages, copying from the CDs was chosen as the launching procedure
for preserving the authenticity of learning, an idea that was based on
Greens earlier research on the learning of popular musicians (Green
2001). In fact, the procedure of copying music from the CD was deemed
so crucial that it seemed to override some of the students ideas of other
possible ways of learning, such as using computers as an aid (Green 2008,
21, 25).23
After the first three stages, students moved into songwriting, with the
idea that the learning from the first three stages could inform more creative
activities. According to Greens report, songwriting turned out to be
highly rewarding for the students. Here, again, informal work was the
beginning phase, and more pedagogically structured tasks followed. In
stage 5, the students were asked to follow models taken from the real
world of popular music (27). The function of the modelsprofessional
bands and peer groupswas to provide an inside view of the songwriting
process by demonstrating how a song can be put together (27). The
real-life groups also acted in the role of teachers after the demonstrations,
a procedure that gave extra encouragement to the students efforts.
In both cases (viz. copying music from CDs and learning to write
songs), the expectation was clearly that the natural situation provided
the means of solving emerging problems, which were then to be applied to
new, more pedagogically structured situations. After their inner motivation
was raised, students would also find more structured tasks enjoyable, as
they wanted to learn more and to put their newly acquired skills to new
uses. Thus the sense of authenticity in learning would be preserved despite
the formality of the more staged situations.
In pedagogical terms, this implies a reverse fading strategy: the teacher
does not fade from the situation, but takes more responsibility as basic
skills are internalized (compare Elliott 1995, 280). The relevance of formal
31
teaching becomes apparent only after students are motivated to learn in a

natural way, propelled forward by the inner rewards of manipulating the
inter-sonic meanings according to (what they at least take to be) authentic
musical practice. The disruption in the student-centered learning process is
thus reframed as a natural development of the students inner urge to learn
more and to utilize their learning with the help of more formally
established aiding structures and concepts. This idea brings to mind
Greens (2001) observation that many of the informally trained musicians
in her earlier study expressed their interest in learning music more
formally after they had already gained a wealth of skills, knowledge and
understanding from informal learning practices with the music of their
own choice.
The idea that the teacher fades in, rather than out, does not have to be
at odds with a pragmatist rationale that takes learning to be a function of
changing situations. The teacher can become as much part of the learning
situation as any other aspect, and formal pedagogy can ride on the
students flow established first in informal settings. However, the need for
more structured teaching must emerge from the dynamics of the situation
in order to build authenticity. One important aspect of this dynamic is the
free interchange between the students when they negotiate the best ways to
proceed in the task. Peer communication is also a central point of
departure in Greens projects, based on her previous observation that, in
informal settings, popular musicians both learn together and efficiently
teach each other. The communicative and organizational habits that
students acquire informally can also later turn out to be beneficial in more
structured situations: in Greens research, groups were indeed able to act
in a more integrated manner afterwards and to negotiate about their cooperative strategies and individual roles. (Green 2008, chapter 6)
Greens research suggests that as long as the more organized tasks are
meaningfully connected to the earlier informal stages of learning, inner
motivation can be preserved and the students focus further targeted to
new challenges. Authenticity, from this standpoint, is not threatened but
transformed: it re-emerges as the quality of the pedagogically structured
situation. In a way, it is transposed into a new key, as the sheer enjoyment
of music encourages the students to pay more appreciative attention to its
inter-sonic meanings. This critical attitude is supported by communicative
skills, on the basis of which one can negotiate informed opinions of
musics meanings. According to Green (8891), this is required for a
balanced, celebratory experience where both the inter-sonic and
delineated meanings of music are taken positively.24
32
Chapter Three
Worlds Found or Made?

One can ask whether the transformation of authenticity in learning can
also transform the musical contents conditions of authenticitywhether,
in the informal practices of learning, a music may be changed to
something different both in its inter-sonic and delineated meanings. It
would be interesting to consider whether the practices of trying to
reproduce real-world music in school can in fact produce new musical
forms indigenous to the school setting, perhaps opening new musical
realities along the way.
In this light, the most interesting phase of the research reported in A
New Classroom Pedagogy was surely the last one (stages 6 and 7), where
informal learning practices were applied to learn Western classical music,
broadly defined (Green 2008, 149).25 In this phase, the informal practices
of popular musicians were used as exploratory vessels to carry the students
to new experiences in musical styles to which they had previously paid
little attention, at least in any positive sensethe music was, for the
majority of them, well lost but, presumably, could be found again.26
Here we come back to the question of what guarantees the authenticity
of learning when the situation is artificially changed. Earlier, the shift was
rationalized by the notion that authenticity in learning was transformed to
a new critical level. In order to be able to assume appreciative perspectives
on the music one enjoys, one can benefit from a situation framed by the
teacher for the needs of critical musicality without losing ones intrinsic
motivation. In Greens study, the motivation developed in the first stage
was preserved through the second stage by simply keeping the focus on
music that the students liked. Live models further helped to target the
students attention in the fourth and fifth stage. Thus, authenticity was not
really challenged by teacher or peer group intervention: meaningful
musical engagement provided the impulse to learn more, and formal
procedures were taken for their practical worth in helping further
involvement. Authenticity of preference, even when transformed to a more
critical level, still provided the red thread running through the continuum
of interest.
However, in the classical stages of Greens research the situation
was radically different. One justifiably wonders whether the music
reportedly not preferred by the majority of the students really provided the
needed authenticity in learning, especially when approached in a way that
does not seem to be natural.27 This litmus test (Green 2006, 111) can
also be seen as critical for Greens theoretical underpinnings: if it warrants
the assumption that learning music can be internally motivated even in
33
situations when its content alienates the students, one can further assume
that authenticity in musical learning can be targeted methodically,
regardless of the students earlier preferences. These preferences, even if
originally hostile, may give way to more critical attitudes that can be
further channelled through playful hands-on involvement with the intersonic meanings of the music in question.
Even if the last stages in Greens research turned out to be more pilot
studies than finished accounts (Green 2008, 151), she does report a change
in the attitudes of many students. Music that was not originally real for
many pupils appeared to become more real for them through tangible
working with its inter-sonic possibilities in informal classroom situations
(150, 168175). Here the establishment of authenticity in learning seemed
to be dependent solely on the carrying over of the motivation from
working with music of the students own choice established in the earlier
stages. Hence, the students seemed to find the informal approach
motivating in general, regardless of the content factor. The authenticity
involved in this approach would not be restricted to any particular musical
content, style, practice, or culture: it could be based on Greens global
factor of musical involvement, which can rise in any kind of music as long
as its natural conditions of learning are satisfied.28
Greens idea seems to be that even if this global factor is taken to be
always there, as a real-world possibility, ideological restrictions may
hinder its emergence. The largely hostile or indifferent attitudes that the
majority of the students projected towards classical music may be
ideologically loaded with a set of negative delineations that replace the
inter-sonic meanings of this music, presenting the latter more as a fetish
than the real thingnot a natural situation from the standpoint of
authenticity in learning (cf. Green 2003).
Not liking a music may actually be merely symptomatic of not liking
what it brings to mind, and in these cases the music may not get the
chance it deserves in its own right. The lack of critical appreciation may
prevent a student from enjoying music on its own terms, and consequently
get in the way of her enjoyment; in this case, the student would not have
access to the flow channel that could be opened through an active
involvement with manipulating and exploring musics inter-sonic
relationships. This hidden, but nevertheless potential meaning can only be
realized in an active dialectic of musicing that has been previously
unrecognized due to the ideological lenses that distort ones perspectives.
Such dialectic is behind all enjoyable involvement with music, and it also
provides a natural way into its more critical appreciation.
34
Chapter Three
Green (2008, 159) also mentions that, especially in stage 6 where the
music was taken from British TV advertisements, its familiar delineations
may have helped to open the door to its inter-sonic possibilities.29 This
seems to suggest that once music is identified in some wayonce put on
the cultural mapit is easier to access through methods that are
motivating to students; that is, when students are able to put a positive (or
at least neutral) tag on classical music, it is also easier to access it
simply as music for its own worth.
Freedom in the use of musical instruments when arranging the pieces
may also lower the ideological threshold. According to Green (161), the
liberal choice of instruments in stages 6 and 7 made possible the use of
sounds that allegedly carried more affirmative delineations for the students
than the ones they heard from the CDs. For instance, the students could
freely add a drumbeat to a classical piecea procedure that many would
probably say changes the idiom, even if the melodic and harmonic content
of the music remained untouched.30
Despite of this room for maneuver, the need to preserve inter-sonic
authenticity remained strong for many students. This was reflected in
attempts to emulate the actual sounds they heard from the CDs, whether
they preferred them sonically or not (perhaps reflecting their newly
acquired critical musicality). This also made possible the use of classical
instruments, which some of the students studied (c. 15%, according to
Green, 150). However, the informal approach also introduced new ways of
approaching these instruments: for instance, many classically-trained
pupils had no previous experience playing by ear (163). Here again a
striving for authenticity seemed to emerge, as there were cases in which it
seemed to be difficult for the students to make a connection between
formal and informal uses of these instruments (163).
Despite these attempts to be true to the sonic characteristics of the
classical recordings, the results of applying the informal approach in
learning the musical works distinguished the student versions from
conventional classical performances. In a similar vein as when dealing
with popular music earlier in the process, mistakes were tolerated, and the
musical flow was kept uninterrupted even if someone was lostnot a
commonplace occurrence in classical music rehearsals.31 Green takes these
observations as suggesting that the students achieved a psychological state
of flow similar to the earlier stages: emphasis was not on details, but on
the general feel of the music (163).
The students also took liberties in their arrangements. Omissions,
inserts, melodic changes, even the composing of new sections were all
signs of transformations by which the students adapted to the new
35
situation (164). In fact, some of these changes were so radical that one
may justifiably ask whether this was the same music any more: whether
the students turned classical pieces into something else, more as result of
their own inclinations, and more suitable to their own skills. According to
Green (169), while some critics may take this kind of appropriation as
submitting to a delusion that classical music is easier to learn than it is, it
is also true that pedagogical simplification of difficult material has always
been commonplace in music education.32 One obvious way of carrying out
this kind of simplification is the process already indicated abovethe
popular arrangement of a classical piece. One of the students interviewed
in Greens study put it this way: [A]ll you need to do is listen to the beats
and stay with it really, and then you find it as easy as anything else. . . . All
the other music things that weve been doing, like its the same really,
sticking with the beats. (169). As this notion was arrived at when
discussing Beethoven, one may justifiably ask whether the idea was really
to be true to the inter-sonic meanings of the piece, or whether new
meanings were picked up from the reservoir that the students had earlier
collected when working with popular music. Thus, at least some of the
student arrangements discussed in Greens study seem to be instances of
turning classical works into popular music. One can ask whether the
students really learned to appreciate the inter-sonic meanings of classical
works as they exist in the real world, or whether they substituted
meanings taken from music that they liked to the original inter-sonic
meanings they did not like. The result could of course be called a hybrid
style, and may be as justified as any artistic utterance, but the main point
here is that identity and thus, presumably, the authenticity of the music
was changed; if the ontological status of music can be transformed
relatively freely without losing its authenticity, the ideal that school music
should be made more like real-world music seems not to qualify as a
necessary criterion for achieving authenticity in learning.
In Media, Res
Be that as may, one of the most important findings of Greens research
is certainly how easily ideological constraints may be mitigated when one
is given a free hand to make music in a way that is intrinsically
motivating.33 It could be further argued that the music class in
comprehensive schooling is one the few places where this is possible in a
formal pedagogical setting. Especially when considering music education
from an egalitarian standpoint (i.e. with the idea that music education
should be accessible to all), the heterogeneous competencies aimed at in a
36
Chapter Three
general music class seem to demand that music should not be approached
as a collection of pre-produced, autonomous, and immutable cultural
formations, but as a dynamic process of creating new meanings from the
resources at hand in a particular cultural environment. In the last decades,
information networks have extended this environment immensely, opening
a global network of creative possibilities. In principle, nothing prevents a
properly equipped music class from utilizing this wealth, as long as it is
acknowledged that almost anything can contribute to the creative process
of learning music. If desired, a music class could be a place where musical
worlds are not merely found, but also created.
The quotes of students cited by Green in the last part of her research
reveal that many students interviewed were actually aware and proud of
the musical transformations that took place in the classical stages. From
this, one can infer that when the students were not inspired by the original
music addressed in stages 6 and 7, they intentionally made it better,
manifesting creative agency and a degree of emancipation (170). One
might also argue that in a contemporary multicultural, mediated, yet
socially responsible democratic culture, where musical communication is
so commonplace that most of it is not even acknowledged by teachers,
students deserve to be given a wide range of possibilities for processing
musical meanings in their own terms.
For Green, the freewheeling attitude towards transforming music
reflects the above-mentioned play impulse at work. Rather than taking the
classical pieces as authoritative cultural texts, the students handled the
pieces with a sense of confidence, making them subject to their own
musical interests. Instead of criticizing this procedure of appropriation as
an inauthentic way of approaching music, the value of which depends on
originality, Green takes the students eagerness as a healthy reminder of
how the lack of improvisation and playfulness in Western post-classical
era music has made its learning anti-musical and distant to why
humans make music in the first place (171; see also Green 2001, 3).34
Green (2008, 171) suggests that by transforming classical music to fit
their own needs, students can empower themselves to become less
alienated from the musics inter-sonic properties and its delineated
associations. This also helps them to rethink their relation to music. The
newly found freedom in transforming music to better suit ones own
situation thus relates to the goal of learning to appreciate it through
critical musicality. Some students in the study reported that their
attitudes towards classical music changed as a result of the process: even if
they would not necessarily listen to more classical works than before, they
now seemed more willing to appreciate the workings of that repertory
37
(174). Thus, even if the students did not perhaps learn to enjoy classical
works in their intended form (that is, as musical art works to be interpreted
with precision and contemplated for their inherent qualities), through
working with such literature, many learned to listen to music in general
more critically. What seemed to emerge as an important idea was that
classical music, as much as any music, can be adapted by anyone to her
own expressive needs in whatever way she finds satisfying without losing
the critical potential. This is surely an important lesson.
Despite the results of her empirical research, Greens more extensive
rationale still seems to involve an underlying tension related to her theory
of musical meaning. The summary at the end of A New Classroom
Pedagogy leaves this tension visible. Green suggests that by paying more
attention to authenticity in learning than to the authenticity of musical
content and, further, by providing the students opportunities for
developing critical musicality, a teacher can motivate them to learn any
kind of musicso long as it is real (176177). While the first two
ideas are clearly understandable in reference to the above-described
emphasis on authenticity that can be transferred from situation to situation
and aided by clever pedagogy, the reality part of the argument remains a
bit troubling. On one hand, reality seems not to be judged according to
musics authenticity, but according to how motivated the students are to
learn it: what is real in music seems to be what students happily enjoy
and want to learn more of. On the other hand the goal of the informal
approach is to provide the students with a doorway into the musics intersonic meanings, and these do not seem to depend logically on the
students inherent motivation or authenticity in learning (180).
Green is by no means a formalist: she clearly emphasizes the value of
meaningful experiences that students can have when they approach music
through some amount of social action, which is both autonomous and cooperative (180). This is the proper way for students to get involved in
direct production of musical inter-sonic meanings (180). At the same
time, she argues that students should be stimulated by whole pieces of
real music (180). The general challenge of new music pedagogy
would be to provide . . . curriculum content that authentically reflects the
world outside the school: that is, real-life music (185). Hence, in
Greens account, reality seems to be at the same time something that
frames music in advance as an object of study and something that can be
used as a criterion of the authenticity of its learningthat is, at the same
time a property of musical content and its learning.
As a pragmatist, I wonder whether Greens empiricist point of
departure, in which music is taken at the same time as objectively existing,
38
Chapter Three
carrying its own meanings for critical listeners to grasp through musical
experience, and as something that is cognitively-culturally constructed in
the process of its learning (musicing), is the best rationale to account for
the ways in which the students actively transform music for their own
situational needs (see also Vkev and Westerlund, 2007). In the more
creative situations described in A New Classroom Pedagogy, musics
meanings seem to elude any clear-cut logical distinctions between its
experienced content and the process of its meaning-formation (and, thus,
of its learning). What the students do in the class seems to be as real as any
song on a CD that they are listening to as long as they make it authentic
this authenticity being provided by their continuing interest in working out
its possibilities. Musical reality seems to be transformed in this process:
the subject is not just the real-life music represented. Music appears as a
living practice that continuously claims new terrain in human life through
the meaning-making processes of its transformation.
In this outlook, musics manner of being real, and thus, the students
manner of representing it as subject to be learned, changes along with the
process of learning: the musicing self is also transformed, continuously
adapting to new creative situations. This change should not be dictated by
any standard of authenticity alien to the needs of learning itself. There are
no a priori limits for what counts as meaningful in musical processes, only
socially and culturally (and thus, ideologically) framed conventions that
can always be negotiated and argued about (but also accepted without
critical consideration). Nevertheless, even if we accept that the ontological
status (or reality) of music may be transformed during the process of
learning, this does not mean that musical meaning would reside entirely in
the mind of an individual subject. There is still an objective locus of
musics meaning, one related to the tangible social-cultural practice of its
transformation, where real people act together in real ways, manipulating
real-world tools and materials with expressive artistic goals for themselves
and others to enjoy.35
Accepting this multi-faceted and mutable ontological status for musical
reality does not imply that music education should be entirely haphazard,
or that we should forget practical guidance in pedagogical situations,
leaving all decisions to the students. As indicated above, teachers can be
as much part of the learning situations as are other significant persons or
things. The point is that musics meanings should be realized in the kind
of musical practice that mediates between different phases of the
continuing learning process, arising naturally from the needs of the
situation. Music, as much as anything else that is experienced as
meaningful, is objectified in this process as the situation is defined in some
39
manner for future orientation: the content of music, or its material

signifier, is examined in this process for its potential for raising new ideas
to be interpreted as habits of action that help us to pass from a problematic
situation to another and, thus, that can be applied to similar cases in the
future.
For instance, when a student picks up the feel of the rhythm section
from a CD or live model and learns to apply it to another musical situation
(e.g., as a drummer or a DJ) what she learns is not something that is
merely copied from the recording, as a given musical reality, but a tool
she can use in future musical situations in order to realize more musical
meanings: the tool is a new habit. The feel can be of course freely
experimented with, mutated, reapplied, even torn apart and re-assembled
in new expressive forms.36 Here, the most important and authentic thing
for the learner is the potential of the feel for realizing future reality, not
its original status as a part of a recording by someone else.37
Nowhere is this experimental attitude on musical potentiality as
lavishly experimented with as in digital music culture, at least if judged in
terms of its accessibility. While musical appropriation has been
commonplace in probably every musical culture in history, the possibility
of using samples of real sound added a new layer of transformative
potential to musical expression in the late 1980s. In the last decade,
rapidly developing (and less expensive) digital technology has truly
revolutionized the musicing (both music making and listening) of
professional and amateur musicians alike; it has produced a wealth of new
tools, which make possible new creative ways of reworking and
transforming music. With these practices, the questions of the authenticity
and ontological status of musical works changes, and new challenges are
presented for theorizing about these matters. For instance, when someone
produces a musical mash-up, a collage assembled from commercially
recorded, sampled and/or electronically produced sounds, freely
circulating whatever assets she finds useful for her expression; when she
utilizes online communities to distribute her ideas to anyone interested;
when someone else, perhaps living on another continent, picks up her
ideas and develops them further, thus making them part of her own
expression; passing her music back to the earlier author, and to other
potentially interested musicers; when new musical communication is built
from such practices, perhaps culminating in an operative musical
collective with a commercial recording contract, the members of which
might continue to live in different parts of the globeall of these
instances exemplify the way ICT may revolutionize the common practices
40
Chapter Three
of musicing.38 It also suggests new ways of thinking about the ownership

and authenticity of music.39
Many more examples could be mentioned of the ways in which the
reality of music can be transformed to suit the expressive needs of
whoever has the access to and interest in digital music tools and
communicative practices. Nevertheless, what counts here is the potential
these practices have for our philosophies, theories, and methods of music
education. I think that by paying more attention to these kinds of practices
we might expand, even transgress, some of the common ways in which
music has been learned, produced, disseminated, and enjoyed in the last
decades. Moreover, and perhaps most significantly, they might challenge
our conventional ways of thinking about the way music can be conceived,
both as an art form and as an educational subject. At present, popular
music pedagogy may offer the best forum for discussing this, but the more
wide reaching general implications of digital music culture should also be
acknowledged. General music education is definitely one of the settings
for experimenting with its creative potentialand also for becoming
aware of its ideological underpinnings.
The garage rock band procedures mapped out by Green (2001) have
not disappeared, of coursesurely they still constitute a major part of how
pop/rock based music is made and enjoyed, even if the musicians no
longer have to keep to traditional instruments and roles.40 However, the
new possibilities introduced by digital music culture suggest that garage
band-based practices point to only one pedagogical approach to popular
music today.
The critical lesson here seems to be that music education in school, at
its best, does not have to merely reflect real-world music. As Green
shows, it can also create new musical realities, perhaps ones more
empowering than rock bands have produced so far. Pragmatism reminds
us that the reality of music education is a point of reference to further
things, things that do not have to remain remote to the students, as long as
the continuum of intrinsic motivation necessary to all authenticity in
learning is guaranteed. This kind of authenticity would affix the students
attention to the potential meaning of the musical tasks at hand as they
orient their musical thinking to the future. While this authenticity can lead
to critical musicality, in the sense that the students may learn to form
balanced judgement[s], allowing considered responses and evaluation of
different musics in relation to a variety of criteria (Green 2008, 89), to
really open the critical potential of music, music education has to
acknowledge its transformative power. Conscious of this power, music
41
educators should seize the potential for musical meaning making wherever
it is found.
References
Allsup, R. 2008. Creating an Educational Framework for Popular Music
in Public Schools: Anticipating the Second-Wave. Visions of
Research in Music Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/
v12n1/vision/1%20AERA%20-%20Allsup.pdf
Ashworth, P. 2007. Electrifying Music. A Guide to Using ICT in Music
Education. http://www.musicalfutures.org.uk/rdProjects_inner_ict.html
Born, G. 2005. On Musical Mediation: Ontology, Technology and
Creativity. Twentieth Century Music 2 (1): 736.
Clements, A. 2008. Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing Methods
through a Change of Paradigm. Visions of Research in Music
Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/3%20A
ERA%20-%20Clements.pdf
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
New York: Harper and Row.
. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.
Dewey, J. The Later Works: 19251953 (LW). In The Collected Works
of John Dewey 18821953, ed. J. A. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
. The Middle Works: 18991924 (MW). In The Collected Works of
John Dewey 18821953, ed. J. A. Boydston. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Elliott, D. J. 1995. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frierson-Campbell, C., ed. 2008. Beyond Lucy Green. Operationalizing
Theories of Informal Music Learning. Visions of Research in Music
Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/
Green, L. 1988. Music on Deaf Ears: Musical Meaning, Ideology,
Education. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
. 1997. Music, Gender, Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 2001. How Popular Musicians Learn. A Way Ahead for Music
Education. Burlington: Ashgate.
. 2003. Why Ideology Is Still Relevant To Music Education Theory.
Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education 2 (2): 321.
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Green2_2.pdf
42
Chapter Three
. 2006. Popular Music Education in and for Itself, and for Other
Music: Current Research in the Classroom. International Journal of
Jackson P. 1998. John Dewey and the Lessons of Art. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Mttnen, P. 1993. Action and Experience: A Naturalistic Approach to
Cognition. PhD diss., University of Helsinki. Annales Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertiones Humanarum Litterarum 64.
. 2008. Pragmatismin nkkulma taiteen tutkimiseen [The Pragmatist
Perspective to Studying Art]. In Pragmatismi filosofiassa ja
yhteiskuntatieteess [Pragmatism in Philosophy and Social Sciences],
eds. E. Kilpinen, O. Kivinen, and S. Pihlstrm, 23156. Helsinki:
Gaudeamus.
Mantere, M. 2008. Musiikin medioituminen [Mediation of Music]. In
Johdatus musiikkifilosofiaan [Introduction to Philosophy of Music].
eds. E. Huovinen, and J. Kuitunen, 13176. Tampere: Vastapaino.
Moore, A. 1993. Rock, the Primary Text: Developing a Musicology of
Rock. London: Ashgate.
NUMU 2008. The Future of Music. http://www.numu.org.uk
Ojala, J., M. Salavuo, M. Ruippo, and O. Parkkila, eds. 2006.
Musiikkikasvatusteknologia [Technology of Music Education].
Keuruu: Suomen musiikkikasvatusteknologian seura.
Petraglia, J. 1998. Reality by Design: The Rhetoric and Technology of
Authenticity in Education. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Regelski, T. 2000. Critical Education: Culturalism and Multiculturalism.
Finnish Journal of Music Education 5 (12): 12047.
Rorty, R. 1972. The World Well Lost. Journal of Philosophy 49: 649
65.
. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shusterman, R. 1997. Taide, elm ja estetiikka. Pragmatistinen filosofia
ja estetiikka [Art, Life and Aesthetics. Pragmatist Philosophy and
Aesthetics]. Tampere: Gaudeamus.
. 2000. Performing Live: Aesthetic Alternatives for the Ends of Art.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
. 2002. Surface and Depth. Dialectics of Criticism and Culture. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Small, C. 1998. Musicking: The Meaning of Performing and Listening.
London: Wesleyan University Press.
Swanwick, K. 1988. Music, Mind and Education. London: Routledge.
43
. 1996. Music Education: Is There Life Beyond School? A Response to

David Elliott. Finnish Journal of Music Education 1 (1): 4146.
Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, T. 2001. Strange Sounds: Music, Technology & Culture. London:
Routledge.
Vkev, L. 2000. Naturalizing Philosophy of Music Education. Finnish
Journal of Music Education 5 (12): 7383. Also published in Action,
Criticism & Theory for Music Education 1 (1). http://act.mayday
group.org/articles/Vakeva1_1.pdf
. 2003. Music Education as Critical Practice: A Naturalist View.
Philosophy of Music Education Review 11 (2): 3348.
. 2004. Kasvatuksen taide ja taidekasvatus. Estetiikan ja
taidekasvatuksen
merkitys
John
Deweyn
naturalistisessa
pragmatismissa [Art of Education and Art education. The Meaning of
Aesthetics and Art Education in John Deweys Naturalist Pragmatism].
PhD diss., University of Oulu. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis. Series E,
Scientiae rerum socialium, 68.
http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514273109/isbn9514273109.pdf
. 2006a. Teaching Popular Music in Finland: What's Up, What's
Ahead? International Journal of Music Education Showcase 24 (2):
12934.
. 2006b. What Can a Philosophy of Music Education Gain From
Naturalist Pragmatism? A Deweyan Approach to Musical Semiosis.
In Music and the Arts. Acta Semiotica Fennica XXIIIApproaches to
Musical Semiotics 10, ed. E. Tarasti, 22432. Imatra and Helsinki:
International Semiotics InstituteSemiotic Society of Finland.
. 2007. Art Education, The Art of Education and the Art of Life:
Considering the Implications of Deweys Later Philosophy to Art and
Music Education. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education 6
(1). http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Vakeva6_1.pdf.
Vkev, L., and H. Westerlund 2007. The Method of Democracy in
Music Education. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education
6 (4): 96108. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Vkev_Westerlund
6_4.pdf
Vattimo, G. 1992. Lpinkyv yhteiskunta [Transparent Society].
Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
Westerlund, H. 2002. Bridging Experience, Action, and Culture in Music
Education. PhD diss., Sibelius Academy. Studia 16. Helsinki: Sibelius
Academy. http://ethesis.siba.fi/ethesis/files/isbn9529658982.pdf
44
Chapter Three
. 2006. Garage Rock Band: A Future Model for Developing Musical

Expertise? International Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 11925.
Westerlund, H., and M-L. Juntunen 2005. Music and Knowledge in
Bodily Experience. In Praxial Music Education: Reflections and
dialogues, ed. D. Elliott, 11222. New York: Oxford University Press.
Notes
1
Previously published in 2009 as The World Well Lost, Found: Reality and
Authenticity in Greens New Classroom Pedagogy in Action, Criticism and
Theory for Music Education 8 (2): 734. Reprinted by permission of the editor.
2
For instance, they do not cover the various ways music is produced,
disseminated, and reproduced in the digital domain, from home studios to remix
internet sites where people offer their beats and loops for creative recycling. Not
all pop/rock music is made in the band format, either, even if its sounds usually
emulate band instrument sounds.
3
This is confirmed by numerous surveys made in the UK and elsewhere, including
those reported in Greens research. Of course, there are differences related to
cultural background, age, previous education, and other factors. Moreover, as
Green (2008, 156) acknowledges, social pressure might encourage those teenagers
who do like classical music to say otherwise when interviewed by a teacherresearcher (the same might apply in their motivation to reveal eclectic popular
tastes).
4
While the analogue has appeared in Western literature at least from 17th century
plays to modern science fiction, it echoes here one of the key images of Richard
Rortys (1972, 1980) pragmatist turn against the realistic mirror conception of
knowledge, viz. the critique towards the common sense realist notion that truth
consists of a one-to-one relation between an idea (or a concept) and its object. Here
the phrase works as a leading idea that encourages probing deeper into the notion
that music could be made real for someone who happily ignores it. It also raises
the question of what is at stake when some part of the musical world is judged to
be more real than another. While I do not want to make too far-fetched
assumptions of Greens use of terminology, I think her work raises interesting
ideas regarding the ontological status of music in education, and the different ways
it could be made an object of learning.
5
In fact, I learned to play rock music in the early 1980s in much the same way that
Green describes in her studies, and found the informal approach of the garage a
lot more motivating (and thus, real) than the formal procedures of music
education.
6
There are of course differences between educational cultures. In the UK and
some other European countries (including Nordic countries), popular music has
been part of both general, vocational, and university-level music education since at
least the early 1970s (Green 2008, 3; Vkev 2006a; Westerlund 2006).
7
By digital music culture, I refer to the practices and procedures applied in
making, disseminating, and consuming music with the aid of digital instruments
45
and tools, and through the information networks which revolutionized these
practices in the late 1990s. While garage rock band practices have been influenced
by digital music culture, the latter has also introduced entirely new approaches.
Making music in a computer environment with virtual instruments, distributing
ones music freely to others in online communities, remixing the music of ones
peers and ones idols online, taking part in conjoint web-based musical projects,
DJing, even downloading music to listen to and to process further in ones
personal computer or mobile device can all be taken as instances of this culture.
These procedures are integral to current popular music and have been for some
time; I also believe that they hold much unexplored pedagogical potential in
conjunction with more traditional pop/rock band practices.
8
I do not mean to indicate that the people involved with Greens research would
be indifferent to this area. However, Green (2008, 48) mentions that only one
teacher in her project integrated and alternated the project strategies with ICT.
Some of the challenges involved are addressed in the materials available at the
project website, www.musicalfutures.org (Ashworth 2007). NUMU, the projects
public platform to engage and motivate students through music, is also an
indication that digital music culture is taken seriously by the developers (NUMU
2008). I am also aware of the rapid expansion of the research in music education
technology, a major portion of which centers on digital music culture (e.g., Ojala et
al. 2006). However, in this chapter, my primary intention is to focus on the
pedagogical issues introduced by this culture as pointers to more general concerns.
9
This seems to resonate with William James notion that reality (and thus
authenticity) simply indicates relation to our emotional and active life (quoted in
Shusterman 2000, 84). From this standpoint, what interests us, what we conceive
with passion, is affirmative (84).
10
This tradition also informs Green (2008, 110), although learning practices tried
out in her study were not based on any theory of child-centeredness or discovery
learning, but on an empirical investigation and analysis of the real-life, informal
learning practices.
11
E.g., when rock versions of classical works are taken as an introduction to the
real thing, as in some Finnish school music books.
12
For an introduction to Greens theoretical standpoint on musical meaning, see
Green (1988, 2006).
13
Whether all inter-sonic meanings in popular music are worth studying is left
somewhat unclear by Green. In any case, she distances herself from value
relativism when she writes that there is better and more worthwhile music,
even if this cuts across styles (Green 2008, 150151).
14
As many pragmatists writing in the arts and education do not (see, e.g.,
Mttnen 2008; Shusterman 1997, 188194, 2002, 203205).
15
One expression of this idea is the critique of culturalism in music education; see
Regelski (2000).
16
In line with Swanwick, Green (2008, 5859) considers music making
universally as a form of play that depends on rehearsal of imagination towards
46
Chapter Three
pure sensory delight in sounds, transcending cultures (Swanwick 1988, 71,

1996).
17
Although Green derives the term partly from the theories of critical education, in
A New Classroom Pedgogy she does not really elaborate it in the terms of
ideological critique, except in the sense that analytical listening to inter-sonic
meanings can lead to a greater awareness of how the music industry works,
examples being that the students can become aware that some popular musicians
mime on their recordings when performing live, and that some of the musicians
work behind the scenes, not taking part in the live performance (Green 2008, 83
84; cf. Green 1988, 1997).
18
For instance, one might ask what is the natural way to learn Beethoven? If
there is such a way, surely it is not based on copying from the CDs and arranging
the music for rock instruments, even if the latter would produce fruitful results. Or,
what would be the natural way to learn music that was originally made as a
conglomeration of loops and breaks in a digital audio workstation?
19
In what follows, I use as a background the Deweyan naturalist pragmatist
notions I have examined in several earlier writings; see e.g., Vkev (2000, 2003,
2004, 2006b, 2007). Again, I do not claim that Greens ideas are based on
naturalist pragmatism; I use the latter as an interpretative framework. Nevertheless,
I do believe that all practical and critical approaches to music education share at
least some pragmatist underpinnings, such as locating the focus of musics
meaning to musical agency (cf. Green 2008, 60).
20
Green (2008, 60) refers to both Smalls (1998) and Elliotts (1995) versions of
the term. In my own writing, I use Elliotts term musicing to refer to such
straightforwardly musical practices as singing, playing musical instruments,
composing, arranging, conducting, dancing to music, etc. Smalls term
musicking opens the field up to more sociological interpretation. I think there is
room for both meanings in the philosophical discussion of music education, but the
difference should be kept in mind.
21
This was the song Word Up by Cameo, a 1980s funk hit. The song was chosen
because it was thought to be in a style broadly familiar to most of the students,
and because, being riff-based, it was easy to remember and to play (Green 2008,
26).
22
In the latter, the songs riff-based structure was divided into separate tracks; the
students were also handed partial worksheets that indicated the note names. (Green
2008, 26.)
23
In the more freewheeling stages, some of the students actually used online
services to obtain lyrics for their chosen songs (Green 2008, 46). The use of sound
loops, MIDI files, video lessons and podcasts was not reported, nor was the use of
web communities.
24
This claim for balance is perhaps not unlike the one framed by Dewey in Art as
Experience. According to Dewey, an experience, or esthetic experience [sic]
emerges from the everyday practical background of experiencing, mediated
through action, when the latter achieves a balance between its pragmatic and
emotional dimensions: when, in other words, the self becomes so concentrated on
47
the task at hand that the inner constitution of the situation is pervaded by a
complete, unique and unifying felt quality, an emotional representation of an
artistic work is consummated (Dewey 1934/LW 10, chapt. 3; Jackson 1998, 7
12; Vkev 2004, chapt. 3.3; Vkev and Westerlund 2007; Westerlund 2002).
25
Not all project schools chose to proceed to this phase: some were able to run it
only for two or three lessons at the end of the term. Nevertheless, this part of the
project represented a bold attempt to test an extreme case of trying to learn
music that most of the students did not like by applying the practices they were
already committed to in other kinds of music (Green 2008, 150).
26
In the stage 6, the music was picked from British TV advertisements: the
implication being that even if the pieces did not really interest the students, most
had at least heard them beforehand. In turn, the repertoire studied in stage 7 was
mostly chosen on the criteria that it would be unfamiliar to the students. The pieces
in stage 6 were copied entirely by ear: in stage 7, the students were also provided a
rehearsal record with broken-down parts, reminiscent of stage 2 (Green 2008,
151153).
27
Taken that for many of the students it does not really seem to be natural, or
authentic, to learn, for example, Beethovens music by ear and to arrange his music
freely for rock instruments. Of course, one might argue that these kinds of
authenticity claims canand even shouldbe contested by music education that
strives for critical understanding of the workings of any music culture.
28
I find this idea at least thematically related to Elliotts (1995) praxialist creed
that all music is, at root, practice, and a musical practice can be learned by anyone
who has access to its meanings, processed through active involvement with music
in a social-cultural setting. For a pragmatist critique of some of the philosophical
implications of this view, see Westerlund (2002), Westerlund and Juntunen (2005)
and Vkev and Westerlund (2007).
29
Actually, the interviews revealed that only some of the pupils identified the
pieces as music from TV (Green 2008, 158). Perhaps a more interesting case of
delineations helping a student to tolerate classical music was that of a student
called Justin (166). Despite his strong personal hostility towards this music, an
attitude that did not really seem to change over the course of the project, Justin
tolerated Fr Elise, and actually produced good stuff with it because of the
personal delineations that remained for him (as with many other students, he had
also played the piece before) (166). As Green suggests (167), another possibility
might be that Justin did not actually assign this piece to the classical category
because he actually liked itthe assumption being, that he classified classical
music simply as music he did not like. This remark takes us back to reconsider the
possibility that perhaps it is not just the identity of a particular work but an entire
musical category that can change as a result of the approach taken.
30
For instance, take the case of Hooked on Classics, a series of albums released
in the early 1980s. The genre can be called classical disco, but few would
probably really locate this music in the classical music category, as it was meant
primarily for the disco floor. Of course, this raises a common issue in critical
musicology: that musics identity may be defined by its function rather than by its
48
Chapter Three
form. Greens argument is clearly that the inter-sonic meanings are an integral part
of the identity of music and at least virtually autonomous of its delineations,
including, I presume, its cultural uses.
31
Also, the original speed of a recording was taken to be an integral part of the
right feel, as in popular music where it usually is marked by the beat (Green
2008, 163).
32
The situation is similar when one first studies the It is easy to play versions of
classical repertoire: the work may not be authentic, but the easier version may offer
valuable first steps to the real thing. The same practice is common in popular
music where different broken-down versions often define the stylistic properties
for a beginning student. As indicated, this procedure was also applied in Greens
research. Of course, a significant difference is that classical music (or much of
Western art music in general) is usually conceived as consisting of original works
of art, the identity of which is for its most important parts relayed by notation,
framing its status as an entity.
33
A critical voice could remark that ideological constraints may not be mitigated,
just neglected. Following Shusterman (2002), I would suggest that there might
always be room for this kind of neglect, as the sheer somatic joy of practicing the
art may in itself be transformative, even transgressive. However, to be conscious of
the dialectic between what Shusterman indicates as arts surface and depth
viz. its aesthetic qualities and ideological conceptionsis more of a safe bet if one
wants to be able to achieve any socially constructive critique through art education.
34
While this might sound harsh, there may be a grain of truth in it, for Western
tradition has certainly defined music ontologically in such a way that this kind of a
free appropriation would be considered at best ignorant; at worst, a major
transgression.
35
This can be also argued on naturalistic premises, where the epistemological
relation of a subject reflecting on an object does not suffice as a rationalization of
meaning. Reality, from this standpoint, is not something we project on our minds
screen, and label with meaning, but something with which we are already
entangled with as living organisms in innumerable ways, as meaningfully mediated
by action. Meaning is from this standpoint a property of action, or more accurately
a habit of action that refers to future possibilities (see, e.g., Mttnen 1993,
2008; Vkev 2006b).
36
This is what happens when breaks are sampled from records, sliced up with
recycling software and reassembled (and often re-mixed) for further use as beats
and loops. It is not only the order of the sound event that changes; often what is
sought in this way is a new feel, one recognized as a potential in the source
material. Of course, this is what drummers and other rhythm section players have
done for ages when composing new patterns: the logic of the creative
transmutation remains the same. Nevertheless, digital tools have enhanced this
creative potential vastly.
37
However, the choice of the source material can also be a critical factor in
musical expression based on recycling. For instance the common practice of
circulating James Brown and Parliament/Funkadelic breaks in 1980s Hip-Hop
49
added an important layer of authenticity with crucial political allusions for those
that wanted to take themin addition to helping to establish a killer groove.
38
This example is based on what I witnessed in the late 1990s when visiting a
commune in the most northern part of Finland where my department was
organizing distance learning. The issue came out of the preliminary discussions
with the students; interestingly, the local teachers and parents seemed to be
unaware of the fact that some of their young were involved with international
online communities of music. The occasion definitely opened my eyes to the
possibilities of musical globalization.
39
An example of how tangled the issues of ownership and authenticity can get in
the digital domain is when a professional act publicly encourages its fans to
download its music freely, in a form of public domain (or Creative Commons)
sound files, ready to be reworked in personal digital audio workstationsand
when it further offers the fans a remix site where they can upload their own efforts
for each other to listen to, discuss, and develop further. A famous promoter for this
kind of open policy, and also a pioneer in the creative transformation of rock as a
digitally produced, disseminated, consumed, and recycled art form, is Nine Inch
Nails (aka NIN) , an industrial metal act built around the creative energy of Trent
Reznor.
40
NIN is again a good example of this, for Reznor produced its early records
largely by himself, using digital instruments along with more traditional rock tools.
This is especially notable in that the parent genre is heavy metal, often criticized
for sticking to traditional models both aesthetically and ideologically. Digital tools
have also influenced the use of guitars, basses and drums in recording and
performing, opening a new wealth of possibilities in sound construction with these
instruments. However, the most fascinating example of the creative dialectic
between old and new ways of producing sound, and one that really cuts across
historical authenticity is probably DJing (or, rather, turntabling) with vinyl records
and the re-appropriation of such practices with new digital turntables and DJ
software.
PART II
CHAPTER FOUR
CATEGORIES AND MUSIC TRANSMISSION1
GREG GATIEN
Lucy Greens (2008) Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New
Classroom Pedagogy gives rise to an interesting corollary. Does the
manner of musics transmission inform our understanding of a musical
category? While categories of music (Western classical, popular, jazz,
etc.) can be difficult to define according to strict musical characteristics, a
better understanding of musical transmissionof how a music is passed
on and learnedmay provide insight into the nature of a musical category
itself. Greens work, which associates informal learning with popular
music practice, presents this possibility. Such an understanding offers
potential for music educators and students to become increasingly clear
about what and how they are teaching and learning.
This essay uses the jazz tradition as a means of exploring the
understanding of a musical category through its modes of transmission.
The jazz tradition has synergies with Greens research because it is a
music that has made the transition from informal to formal realms of
learning.2 The formalization of jazz education, within teaching institutions,
has in recent decades focused more on what has been transmitted than
how that transmission has occurred, affecting, among other things, our
understanding of jazz as a category. This essay proposes that jazz and
popular music can be linked through pedagogy by highlighting their
shared cultural origins and overlapping communities in ways that further
inform the idea of category as a pedagogically-driven construct.
Chronologically, I will begin at the end. Formal Jazz Education3 has
frequently been a controversial topic. Several scholars and performers
have suggested that Jazz Education represents an adopted (or much
adapted) method of transmission, which changes our understanding of the
musical tradition itself.4 The traditional ways of transmitting this music
have been changed, compromised, or subverted to formal methods of
instruction that fit more comfortably in the formal habitat, or are more
efficient (perhaps even more effective, at least in achieving certain results)
54
Chapter Four
in the context of classroom or group settings. The discussion around how

jazz is currently transmitted provides insight into how formal teaching and
learning has affected our understanding of jazz as a musical category.
Jazz is a precursor to popular music as a music that has already shifted
from informal to formal realms of transmission. In doing so, the jazz
tradition has faced certain obstacles. These obstacles are informative in
understanding how Jazz Education became framed as a valid course of
study, and how its accompanying jazz pedagogies were developed. This
context is particularly relevant in relating formal jazz pedagogies to both
informal jazz pedagogies and the pedagogy developed by Green. Jazz is
also an important precursor to popular music as the first music of the West
African Diaspora to move into the formal (institutional) arena. It has
become increasingly important to understand jazzs process of
formalization as other musics from this Diaspora become introduced to
formal music education. It is thus necessary to present some of the
principal motivations behind the efforts to formalize Jazz Education
including establishing legitimacyin order to ultimately view jazz as part
of a broader musical tradition, and understand the potential of linking the
modes of transmission to the music being transmitted
All of this will bring me to the chronological beginning, with a brief
examination of how jazz was transmitted prior to its formalization. The
modes of transmission employed by Green (developed through her study
of popular musicians) are, as mentioned, similar to modes of transmission
utilized by jazz musicians prior to Jazz Education. In showing these
similarities, I focus on select musicians who have emerged as skilled and
valuable jazz practitioners prior to the advent of Jazz Education.5 This
observation serves to demonstrate ways in which Jazz Education has
changed the modes of transmission in the jazz tradition.6 More
importantly, it accounts for my strongest reaction to Greens work. By
establishing the commonalities between the traditional transmission
processes of these two types of music, the issue of musical category
emerges. One side of this requires consideration of the possibility that the
admission of jazz into formal structures was, in fact, the admission of a
broader musical tradition. Another is the possibility that Greens work
might suggest that a category can more aptly be defined by its modes of
transmission than by its musical characteristics.
Attempts to define jazz as a musical category have proven difficult and
prompted much debate. The difficulty of defining jazz has affected Jazz
Education from its inception. As jazz became part of formal education
(alongside its movement into other formal settingsconcert halls, arts
organizations), there became a need to develop an idea of what is to be
55
taught and what kind of music counted as jazz. Much of the controversy
associated with the development of Jazz Education has resulted from the
elusiveness of a categorical definition of jazz. Certain scholars and
educators have viewed jazz as a relatively strict body of more-or-less
canonical works (Americas classical music7). Others viewed any
attempt at strict definition as running contrary to their ideas of jazz
(Deveaux 1998, 485486, 504505).8 In order to frame the controversy, a
brief description of the emergent and predominant pedagogies is useful.
The process by which jazz became an accepted part of music education
curricula has resulted in some generally recognizable pedagogies that are
supported by a wealth of published materials. Many of these pedagogies
can certainly be viewed as emerging from a particular understanding of the
jazz tradition. Equally important, however, are the ways in which these
pedagogies represent a departure from that tradition. Many of the ways of
transmission that have arisen in support of Jazz Education tend to focus on
the teachable aspects of jazz. Among other things, this results in a
premium being placed on an analytical understanding of canonical jazz
improvisers that can be translated into print materials and play-alongs; a
jazz ensemble repertoire that focuses on great works and is largely
transmitted through notation; a history that focuses on a linear progression
and stops when that progression becomes problematic, generally
somewhere in the 1960s.
In North American public schools, these pedagogies typically involve
the use of the jazz ensemble (big band) as the primary vehicle for jazz
instruction. The jazz ensemblethe staffing of which generally adheres to
the model provided by the Count Basie Band (among others)supports
enough students to make reasonable class sizes, and allows for certain
aspects of jazz to be accessed and learned by students: history, theory,
improvisation, certain kinds of reiterative pulse associated with jazz, and
musical independence (when educators are able to follow the one player
per part rule of jazz ensemble staffing). The bulk of teaching and learning
takes place, however, through the rehearsing of repertoire. For better or
worse, it allows music educators to function in ways that are often
indistinguishable from rehearsing other large instrumental ensembles
pedagogies rooted in orchestral and wind band instruction can be used in
jazz ensemble rehearsals, providing some level of comfort to non-jazz
trained music educators (conducting, rehearsing notes and rhythms from a
score, tuning, balancing, blending, and sight-reading all come to mind). In
university-based programs, jazz instruction typically involves discrete
courses in jazz history, jazz theory, jazz improvisation, jazz ensembles
(often large and small), jazz pedagogy, private lessons, jazz aural skills,
56
Chapter Four
jazz composing and arranging, keyboard skills, and transcription and

analysis.
In supporting these pedagogies, there has developed a sizable body of
teaching materials: jazz theory books, jazz history/appreciation texts, jazz
play-along recordings, jazz charts (many written with specific pedagogical
aims: developing improvisational skill, accessing important historical
works, or developing a sense of the jazz canon, appealing to students
through accessing popular tunes or grooves), and how-to-improvise
methods. It has been asserted that these Jazz Education pedagogies, and
their accompanying materials, are largely reflective of an unquestioning
adoption of musicological practices in the codification of jazz practices
and in the construction of a coherent jazz history. Music that is analyzable
according to pre-existing academic methods and ideals receives the lions
share of attention in institutional settings (Walser 1993, 347348).9 The
pedagogies are constructed along the lines of studying great works of great
artists, or preparing students for this study, and the value in the study
comes from the musical attributes of the musicthose things that can be
analyzed.
Writing in 1995, jazz pianist and scholar Ben Sidran provides a sense
of this concern:
In many ways, these are the best of times and the worst of times for jazz.
On the one hand, music schools are turning out thousands of thoroughly
prepared young players who, at an earlier age, are better versed in the
grammar and idioms of jazz than ever before. The recorded evidence
speaks eloquently of the success of our education system . . . On the
other hand, most of the new jazz prodigies dont sound like anybody . . .
Why doesnt todays education lead to the development of style? (Sidran
1995, 3)
Noted jazz performer, composer and educator Bob Brookmeyer echoed

this sentiment in speaking of difficulties in writing for modern musicians:
All of us (jazz composers) have structural problems with solos, where to
put them, how they belong, because the soloists have become so generic
(Ramsey 1999, 92). These two musicians speak to a broad concern that the
creation of a canonical, codified way of understanding and learning jazz
has led to a loss of individuality. Teachers using the same approaches,
students learning the same music, the same patterns, and the same
recordings in the same ways has led to an increasingly generic generation
of musicians.10
From another perspective, jazz pianist and educator Michael Cain,
writing in 2007, states that . . . I found that jazz pedagogy in the
academy and jazz pedagogy among practitioners, as I came to know it,
57
often had very little in common (Cain 2007, 35). Illustrating this
observation, Cain compares the audition processes he has experienced as a
professional jazz musician (processes which Cain rightly asserts can be
understood through and rooted in jazz practices, jazz pedagogy, and jazz
history) and those auditioning processes used in university-based jazz
programs. His comparison results in the observation that the two
processes, although linked somehow through a shared musical tradition,
are not recognizably related. Cain states that:
No jazz school would consider auditioning students the way Jack
DeJohnette and Robin Eubanks audition their players, and yet they are two
musicians most jazz schools would want their graduates to work with.
(Cain 2007, 36)
Where Sidran asserts that institutions are training jazz musicians who
are thoroughly prepared (Sidran 1995, 3), Cain illustrates that this
preparation does not always line up with the expectations of the domain
itself. This disconnect between the academic instruction of jazz musicians
and the practices of tradition-steeped professional jazz musicians11 can be
interpreted as, at least in part, a result of the ways in which the study of
jazz became formalized. Implicit in this observation is the possibility
that through adopting particular ways of teaching the jazz tradition, those
musicians that study long enough have been prepared for a different kind
of music and either need to retrain in the community of musicians, or
make a different kind of music.
Historian Gary Tomlinson speaks of the formalization of jazz as
having followed a European notion of high culture in the creation of a jazz
canon, and that this notion of canon informs the majority of pedagogies
associated with Jazz Education. He states that canonical construction,
largely through its exclusionary function, results in a narrowing of what
can be studied, what can be learned, and how we can teach. Furthermore,
Tomlinson states that the canon, underpinning jazz courses around the
country features,
Exemplars of timeless aesthetic value instead of being understoodas the
European works next door should also be understood but too rarely areas
human utterances valued according to the dialogical situations in which
they were created and are continually recreated. (Tomlinson 1996, 7677)
David Ake, also a pianist, scholar and educator, further articulates this
concern. In examining the formalized study of canonical jazz saxophonist
John Coltranes music, Ake describes how certain aspects of jazz lend
themselves to formal study, while others do not. In this case the earlier
58
Chapter Four
work of Coltrane is teachable (more easily lending itself to analysis and

therefore can be systematized) while his later work, from his avantgarde period, is largely ignored. Ake attributes this decision to the ease
with which Coltranes earlier work fits into the mold of a European
model of music education. Ake makes two observations that are pertinent
to this discussion. The first is that through selectively excluding/ignoring
the later work of Coltrane a type of musical half truth is passed on
from teacher and institution to student (Ake 2002, 145). The second is
that . . . jazz pedagogys classical biases result . . . in a narrower
understanding of what counts as jazz in America today (145).
Robert Walser, like Tomlinson, strongly questions the ways in which
the construction of a jazz canon based upon Western European notions of
analysis and the objectification of certain musical works, affects the
musical tradition. Walser, focusing on the improvisations of Miles Davis,
writes:
The uneasiness many critics display toward Miles Davis mistakes, and
their failure to explain the power of his playing suggest that there are
important gaps in the paradigms of musical analysis and interpretation that
dominate jazz studies. (Walser 1993, 345)
The jazz tradition, although having gained recognition as a music

worthy of study, has arguably reached a position where that study has
become a study of past accomplishments deemed canonically significant.
Guitarist Pat Metheny, in his keynote address at the 2001 IAJE
Convention, expressed reservations about this model in stating:
The attempts to make jazz something more like classical music, like
baroque music for instance, with a defined set of rules and regulations and
boundaries and qualities that MUST be present and observed and respected
at all times, have always made me uncomfortable. (Metheny 2001)12
Keith Jarrett, a jazz musician of comparable achievement to Metheny,

stated a similar concern towards viewing the tradition as a set of past
accomplishments for study and preservation. In asking the question
When did jazz become a theorya thing, not a process; a package, not an
experience?, Jarrett suggests that canon-building changed the tradition
(Jarrett 1996, 36). Jarrett furthers this assertion by saying: Jazz is about
closeness to the material, a personal dance with the material, not the
material itself (36, 102). While Jarretts essay does not focus on the role
of Jazz Education, Walser does make this connection. He argues that the
dominant methods of analyzing and transmitting jazz, adopted from pre-
59
existing practices of analyzing and transmitting Western art music, fail in

helping us understand jazz (Walser 1993, 359).13
Jazz Educations adoption of formal modes of transmission has been
criticized not only for its inadequacies in developing an understanding of
jazz, but for failing to substantively change formal music education. Put
another way, formal music education was viewed as a means of
transmitting jazz rather than jazz viewed as a means of transmitting music.
This is in contrast to Green, who investigates the inclusion of informal
learning practices as a means to recognize, foster and reward a range of
musical skills and knowledge that have not previously been emphasized in
music education (Green 2008, 1). Wayne Bowman wrote in 2004 that:
. . . adding jazz to the curriculum did little to transform the way music
educators conceptualized music, or curriculum (Bowman 2004, 30).
Bringing jazz into the fold of formal music has changed the kind of
music we can study and practice, the kinds of ensembles we offer our
students, the kinds of instruments, and the kinds of histories and theories
we can learn. It has not substantially changed the ways in which we can
study and teach music.
Based upon all of this, it is facile to conclude that Jazz Education got it
wrong. This conclusion, however, would fail to articulate what Jazz
Education represents to music education and how it has changed our ideas
of formal music education. Instead, it is useful to understand the
circumstances under which jazz became formalized. By looking at the
ways in which jazz entered the academy, it becomes possible to see a
larger and longer process at work. This process has not only provided
continued scrutiny of itself and its own practices, but has established the
possibility of a musical tradition other than Western classical music being
accepted into our educational institutions.
The inclusions of jazz into the curricula of Western schools and
universities undoubtedly required compromise. Formal Music Education
was required to acknowledge that jazz was worth learningan
acknowledgment that was problematic in many ways, and took a
considerable amount of time. In 1924, The Etude, the most popular
American music teachers journal, grappled with the jazz issue (in ways
that seem remarkably similar to contemporary concerns over the inclusion
of various popular musics). The magazine emphatically stated that
addressing the jazz problem was not an endorsement of jazz. The only
positive attributes of jazz that the magazines editor seemed to
acknowledge was that its popularity increased the number of students
studying wind instruments (Walser 1999, 4154). A popular textbook,
60
Chapter Four
published in 1941 and used in university music education classes, stated

that:
Jazz and art music are at opposite poles of the musical earth. In most
respects they contradict one another . . . educationally they are
antagonistic . . . [jazz] tears down what the music educator is trying to
build up; and it is because the pupil hears so much more jazz than real
music that his artistic tastes tends to deteriorate. (Dykema and Gehrekens
1941, 203)
There are many personalized accounts that point to the powerful

resistance that jazz faced within academia. One example comes from
Benny Golson, a renowned jazz saxophonist, composer and educator. In
1997, Golson stated:
When I went to college, I could have been expelled for playing jazz. The
official attitude about jazz was not good then. I had to practice my
saxophone in the laundry room of the dormitory at night because I could
not enter college and practice the saxophone as a part of the studies. I had
to major on the clarinet. It seems to me that it was a European thing they
were trying to uphold. (Fisher 2003, 1115)14
While Golson did not offer a date, the experience he described would
have occurred at his Alma Mater, Howard University, between 1947 and
1951 (Kernfeld 1994, 436). Somewhat ironically, Howard Universitys
website boasts that in 1970 it became the first primarily Black university
to institute a jazz studies program.15 Jazz pianist and educator Bill Dobbins
describes a similar experience, roughly twenty years after Golsons
collegiate career:
Those of us who formed the schools (Kent State University between 1964
and 1970) first ongoing jazz ensemble were thrown out of practice rooms,
prohibited from signing out school instruments to play jazz and, in general,
strongly discouraged from having anything to do with Americas greatest
musical contribution to world culture. (Dobbins 1988, 30)
The idea of including jazz in the practice rooms, classrooms, boardrooms, rehearsal halls, and performance spaces of educational institutions
was clearly controversial. The University of North Texas, which is
credited with having the first jazz major, would not initially use the word
jazz in its calendar, calling it Dance Band instead (Gennari 2006,
213).
Wrapped up in these illustrations of the resistance that jazz faced
(which are neither extraordinary nor universal) from formal music
61
education are notions of art music, race, and values. For the purposes of
this discussion, it is enough to recognize that these were significant
obstacles for early jazz educators to negotiate. Not only does this partially
account for ways in which the development of jazz education can be
described as haphazard (Porter 1989, 137), but it also helps in
understanding the ways in which it unfolded. Undoubtedly, those advocating
the inclusion of jazz in formal education responded to specific obstacles in
ways that must inform our understanding of the resulting emphases we
now see in Jazz Education. Issues of cultural significance (legitimacy),
racial equality and tolerance, and popularity emerge as central motivating
factors.
Leonard Feather, whose work at New Yorks New School for Social
Research in the 1940s is considered a landmark in jazz education, stated
that one of his principal, vital objectives in giving these classes was the
inclusion in the students minds of an acceptance and appreciation of the
black mans central role in jazz (Feather 1981, 21). Feather communicates
an idea that gained currency over time: jazz was useful to schools because
it provided a venue through which African-American achievement could
be justly celebrated.
In late 1957 the Lenox School of Jazz was founded. The Lenox School
lasted for four summers and was an outgrowth of an academically oriented
lecture series (begun several years earlier) dedicated to a discussion of
jazz. The intent of the lecture series was to demonstrate that jazz is a
significant contribution to American culture (Niccoli 1951, 18). The
Lenox School of Jazz retained this idea as part of its objectives, stating in
its 1957 brochure that, among other things, it would offer students a point
of view toward jazz as a significant and vital art form of our time.16 This
is a good example of jazz making a case for it being worthy of study as
high art, refuting deep-seated notions that it is some lower form of music.
The Lenox School has been described as a first of its kind institution
aimed at establishing an academic basis for the study of jazz performance,
theory, and history (Gennari 2006, 210). The curriculum at Lenox, while
involving small ensembles and a unique approach to private instruction
(students were often deliberately assigned to master jazz musicians who
played different instruments to avoid direct imitation), would be palatable
to most music schoolsthat is to say jazz-specific classes in history,
theory, composition, and improvisation were offered. Perhaps it is not
coincidental that the 1967 Tanglewood Symposium also took place in
Lenox. This symposium concluded, among other things (including that
popular music ought to be studied in school), that jazz should be an
important component of American music education (Porter 1989, 134).
62
Chapter Four
Many of the current practices associated with Jazz Education can be

linked with this need to legitimize the music, either as a form of high art or
as a means of developing racial tolerance in a racially intolerant society, in
order for it to gain acceptance. Western classical music tools of analysis
were an obvious and highly effective way of demonstrating the intricacies
of jazz in ways that were irrefutable to formal institutions. Walser writes
that it seems natural enough that people who are trying to win more
respect for the music they love should do so by making comparisons with
the most prestigious music around, classical music (Walser 1993, 347).
The fact that jazz instruction was being modeled upon a Western classical
music framework must have also been just as obvious.
It is also demonstrable that factors of economics and popular demand
were involved. Educational institutions could view jazz as a way to meet a
particular demand, and thereby increase enrolment and revenue (Murphy
1994, 35). Jazz scholar John Gennari states that the societal changes of the
1960sa shifting jazz audience, a shrinking jazz audience, fundamental
changes to the ways in which Americans occupied their leisure time
(television, for example), increasing awareness of issues surrounding civil
rights, among otherswas a boon to jazz education (Gennari 2006,
213). Professional jazz musicians, faced with these changes in the 1960s,
could view formal education as a means of supplementing their income.
Established musicians, aware that their music was popular among collegeaged students, discovered that universities were among the most lucrative
venues for their work.17 Colleges and universities began meeting this
demandboth through presenting jazz performances on campus and
developing curricula that included some study of the jazz tradition.
Establishing the legitimacy and value of jazz took precedence over
establishing the ways in which it would be/should be transmitted to
students. The transfer of Western ideas regarding teaching method, canon
construction, and analytical models into Jazz Education was largely
unquestioned (Walser 1993, 348).18 Establishing jazz as good for society,
good for business, and as art music worthy of inclusion alongside the
Western canon seems to have required the favoring of teaching
methodologies that were familiar and accepted. This set of decisions lay
the groundwork for the complexity and controversy that would surround
the questions what are we teaching? and why are we teaching this?
If the social upheaval of the 1960s created favorable conditions for
institutional jazz education, the 1970s is often seen as the decade in which
jazz became an accepted reality in formal educational settings.19 Given this
timeline, along with the benefit and curiosity of hindsight, it is irresistible
to ask why jazz was the African-American other music chosen for
63
inclusion. While we have seen that considerable effort has been expended
to confer the status of art music on jazz, it is reasonable to suggest that
by the 1970s African-American music included other types, and that
jazz had been eclipsed in popularity by several of them. It is equally
reasonable to suggest that the blues would have been considered of equal
historical significance to jazz and therefore just as worthy of formal
study.20 Jazz was selected (instead of blues, soul, R&B, or rock) for
reasons that seem to have included emergent concerns over its future as a
musical tradition.
Cannonball Adderley, an alto saxophonist who gained prominence
through his association with Miles Davis and continued leading his own
groups into the 1970s, began his career as a music educator in Florida. In
1969, Cannonball addressed the question of why jazz would be the
African-American music to enter formal music education.21 In an
interview with Leonard Feather, he stated that:
Although theres more interest in performing music today than ever before,
the standards for performance are probably lower than ever. When I was a
kid, I knew I had to be a pretty good saxophone player to get a job . . .
Today, though, a kid may be playing guitar just for his own enjoyment,
then find that someone who doesnt play any better than he does has just
earned $5,000,000 with a couple of records. Theres not enough public
admiration for truly great artistry. The only ones who are lionized and
revered are the old men, like Pablo Casals. People select these institutions
to idolize rather than the artistic level to emulate. Were hoping, with our
college tours to stimulate young musicians into wanting to improve
themselves. (Cannonball 1973, 32)
Cannonball expresses the widely held view that his musical tradition
represented and required significant musical accomplishment. He also
demonstrates that the very same upheaval that represented a boon to jazz
education in the 1960s was a threat to the economics of being a jazz
musician, and therefore a threat to the survival of his musical tradition. In
dealing with these issues, Cannonball made the logical conclusion that the
future of jazz could be secured through education. His desire to see his
musical traditions and practices preserved can be read as a foreshadowing
of the ideas presented by Wynton Marsalis, a jazz musician closely
associated with the neo-classical view of jazz.
Neo-classicism arose after the 1970s. It clearly supposes a classicized
tradition for its own referential existence, and therefore is committed to a
canonical vision of jazz and its supporting Jazz Education. Marsalis, an
eloquent and well-positioned jazz musician and educator, has served as a
lightning rod for the neo-classical view of jazz based on statements like:
64
Chapter Four
People think Im trying to say jazz is greater than pop music. I dont have
to say that, thats obvious. But I dont even think about it that way. The
two musics say totally different things. Jazz is not pop music, thats all.
(Zabor and Garbarini 1999, 340)22
Marsalis would get more specific about his views in a piece written in
1988 for the New York Times, writing that rock isnt jazz and new age
isnt jazz, and neither are pop or third stream. There may be much that is
good in all of them, but they arent jazz (Marsalis 1999, 335). Like
Adderley, Marsalis identified popular genres as threatening to the future
of jazz. Marsalis perceived the threat not simply as jazz being eclipsed by
more popular types (easier and more lucrative, in the view of Adderley)
of American-born musics, but also as a blurring of boundaries between
types of music. Pop musicians performing at jazz festivals capitalize on
the cultural cache of an association with art music while audiences are
misled into believing they have experienced quality art-music, all of which
serves to dilute and diminish the real music. Marsalis, often maligned
for presenting a narrow definition of jazz, presents a view of jazz that is
essential for a canonical understanding. He makes an emphatic case for
what gets included and what gets left out. As the focus of neo-classicism
and its associated controversy, Marsalis has instigated much valuable
debate.
Adderley is equally useful for jazz educators and scholars in rethinking
the idea of what gets included. As examples of jazz musicians who
turned to educational settings as a source of work, members of the
Cannonball Adderley Quintet (in the late 1960s) developed a seminar on
jazz and black-oriented music that was delivered on university campuses
(Wilson 1972, 13).23 Cannonballs seminar, while maintaining a focus on
jazz, was promoted as a two-day program of lectures, seminars and
demonstrations on black music (Wilson 1969). Black music was
defined as music created by black people and, because the seminar
explored the relationships between popular music and jazz, can be
interpreted as the American part of the West African Diaspora. Adderley
aimed to incorporate musicians from outside the jazz idiom as part of the
seminar, and considered jazz to be an aspect of a larger field of musical
study. In 1969 he expressed a desire that these seminars would set a
precedent with jazz so that other areas of black music can be explored as
well (Gleason 1969, 59). While it would be inaccurate to suggest that
Adderley would support the notion that jazz and popular music were the
same musical traditions (he stated the opposite on many occasions), these
seminars espouse a notion that jazz and popular musics have a shared
ancestry. This leads to the notion that while each type of American-born
65
Diaspora music (jazz, soul, funk, R&B, rock, country and western, pop,
etc.) can be understood (and therefore taught) as a discrete tradition, each
is also part of a larger, shared musical and cultural tradition. When the jazz
tradition was admitted into the academic arena perhaps, as Cannonball had
hoped and Greens work might indicate, jazz set a precedent by which this
larger tradition also gained, even if tacitly, a foothold.
We can understand that the formalization of jazz pedagogies emerged
out of utility and in ways that accommodated the prevailing values and
priorities of the institutions involved. Jazz Education has ultimately
functioned in ways that have substantively impacted our institutions and
the music itself. While the impact of Jazz Education has often and
justifiably been framed negatively, its very existence (along with the
accompanying controversies) has likely informed the kinds of thinking
about music and music education that lead to the sort of work Lucy Green
has produced. Likewise, in order for Greens work to have greater
meaning for Jazz Education, we must place formal jazz pedagogies into
context with the modes of transmission relied upon by jazz before its
formalization.
Prior to Jazz Education, as mentioned above, jazz was transmitted in
ways that are demonstrably similar to those described by Lucy Green.
Students did not have access to books or printed music that codified the
process of developing fluency, and therefore were left to their own
devices. Sonny Rollins, in writing a foreword to John Fordhams book
Jazz, states:
Nothing like this was available for my generation when we were growing
up. We had to pick up what we could when we could and where we could.
It was mainly recordings in those days until we were old enough to be
admitted to nightclubs . . . (Rollins 1994)
The informal transmission of jazz is largely documented through oral

histories and personal accounts. Interaction between jazz students and jazz
teachers was not common or required (although by no means unknown),
and tended to be in the form of one-on-one instruction often instigated by
the aspiring youngster. There are many examples of young jazz musicians
studying with older jazz musiciansJohnny Hodges getting lessons with
Sidney Bechet; young bebop musicians receiving insights from Dizzy
Gillespie; Lee Konitzs studies with Lennie Tristano; Sonny Rollins and
John Coltranes experiences with Thelonious Monkbut fewer examples
of study that occurred as either initial or regular instruction. Lennie
Tristano, a rare jazz musician whose reputation is balanced between his
accomplishments as a performer and as an educator, worked primarily
66
Chapter Four
with advanced students. There are numerous examples of celebrated jazz

musicians who began with non-jazz music instruction, often in formal
classroom settings, including many of the musicians mentioned or quoted
in this essay.
Green states that jazz musicians have traditionally learned under the
guidance of their eldersapprenticeship trainingwhereby young
musicians are introduced, and explicitly trained or just generally helped by
an individual adult or a community of expertise (Green 2008, 6).
Greens observation is intended to distinguish the learning practices of
popular musicians from those used by jazz musicians. This is a commonly
held view, and can be supported with several examples. As a distinguishing
element between jazz and popular music, however, two points must be
considered. The first is that this distinction often fails to account for initial
learning processes that jazz musicians engaged in prior to their interactions
with elder jazz musicians. The second is that the role assumed by the jazz
elder often resembles the role of the teacher in Greens pedagogy.
As one example, Rollins refers to formative experiences he had with
Thelonious Monk and Bud Powell. Rollins describes these experiences as
taking place in the context of playing or rehearsing, but nonetheless
ascribes formative educational value to them. Many jazz musicians speak
of their interactions with elders in ways that, while not contradicting
Greens statement, indicate an absence of explicit instruction in favor of
an experience heavy approach to the sharing of expertise. The following
exchange between Rollins and George Goodman provides one example: I
had wanted to ask Rollins what he learned from Monk. He answered me in
a word: Everything. What was it that Monk taught him? Nothing.
(Goodman 1999, 84). Rollins provided a more detailed description of his
apprenticeship with Monk:
Every day after school I would go to Thelonious Monks place and practice
with his band. He never really told me what to play, because I guess he
respected my playing. But I learned a lot from Monk just hanging out with
him (Nisenson 2000, 31).
On one level, it is clear that in order for Rollins to function in this kind
of instructional setting, he needed to have certain fundamental skills in
placeMonk did not need to teach him saxophone fingerings, for
example. On another level, it is clear that working with Monk seems to
have addressed all aspects of Rollins musicianship. We can conclude that
learning through doing was a guiding principle of this kind of
pedagogical apprenticeship, reinforced by the experiences John Coltrane
also had with Monk. According to Coltrane, Monk would simply start
67
playing something, maybe just one of his tunes, over and over again
until Coltrane would get it (Porter 2001, 108). This instruction took
place at a time in Coltranes life when he was also musically advanced.24
Most examples of jazz apprenticeships with which I am familiar
(including Louis Armstrong with King Oliver, Coleman Hawkins with
Louis Armstrong, Don Byas with Art Tatum, Miles Davis with Charlie
Parker, and Cannonball Adderley with Miles Davis) seem to have required
that certain fluencies be developed at an earlier stage and rarely account
for the beginning stages of learning.25 On the other hand, the role of the
teacher in Greens pedagogy, largely removed from hands-on instruction,
can be seen, at least loosely, in the role assumed by Monk. This kind of
mentoring role is also common in the ways many other esteemed jazz
musicians led (or continue to lead) their groups and interacted with
younger musicians.26
How did jazz musicians acquire fundamental skills that allowed them
to enter into productive learning situations with elder musicians? Coltrane,
Rollins, and many other jazz musicians, seem to have acquired these skills
largely through aural processes (primarily listening to and playing along
with recordings), and often in the context of peer groups (along the lines
described by Lucy Green). There is ample evidence of this, most of it
anecdotal, scattered through a variety of source materialbiographies,
trade journal interviews, and histories. Including Johnny Hodges and
Harry Carney, John Coltrane and Benny Golson, or Sonny Rollins and the
rest of the Sugar Hill Gang,27 there are many examples of aspiring
young musicians getting together outside of school to listen to and learn
from the recordings they admired, as well as practice together. Benny
Golson provides an articulate example of this practice:
And it was an empirical process, trial and error, bouncing off of one
another. We imitated others, but that wasnt the total end. We were highly
eclectic. How could there be anything else? You know, we bought the
records. We listened to them. I copied solos. But we used that as a basis,
intuitively. We didnt know what we were doing, but we set up our own
infrastructure upon which we could build things in the future. (Golson and
Merod 1998, 37)
Hand-in-hand with this kind of self-training came a broaderone

might say culturalstudy of the musical tradition. Following musical
trends, adopting dress codes, language patterns, and sensibilities could be
included, something that is evident in another quote from Sonny Rollins:
68
Chapter Four
We used to follow Coleman Hawkins all around. He was my idol and just
being in his company was thrilling for me. He lived in elegant style,
driving a new Cadillac and always dressing really well. I admired his sense
of style almost as much as I did his playing . . . We learned a lot about
what it meant to be a jazz musician. (Nisenson 2000, 3031)
The role of the elder, therefore, can be expanded to include certain

ideas involving cultureimitation of dress, lifestyle, speech, character
that would seem to be true for todays aspiring pop musician as much as it
was true for young jazz musicians. It also seems that whether
apprenticeship comes in the form of playing in groups with elders, or
playing along with recordings of those elders, the apprenticeship phase is a
key element to the transmission of both traditions. The jazz tradition may
well be distinct from popular music in that the learning process in jazz is
often overtly viewed as continuing well into a jazz musicians career, as he
or she moves into professional groups playing under the direction of older
musicians. Perhaps this is a result of a longer apprenticeship stage in jazz,
or the frequent intermingling of generations within jazz bands. Perhaps
even these observations are subtle and easily blurred distinctions.
The commonalities in the transmission practices of these two traditions
lead me to question the use of particular categories in discussing what
kinds of music we are teaching. In relation to jazz, pedagogical issues have
emerged as a result of the construction of a canonical vision of the
category. This category-building, made necessary by the institutionalization
of the music, forced the issues of not only what will be taught, but how
those things will be taught. If, for example, Keith Jarretts idea is to be
consideredjazz is not the material itself, but the musicians dance
with the materialour constructs of category need reconsideration.
Of all the categories of music, popular seems the most clearly
described and therefore the least problematic. Its title allows for the
inclusion of music regardless of connotations of style or instrumentation
or culture. Berry Gordy Jr., the founder of Motown Records, called his
music pop in order to avoid being categorized (Robinson 2008, 310).
We ought to be able to identify popular music simply by asking the
question is it popular? Perhaps because of the inherent practicality of
this title, however, it falls short of being useful in identifying specific
musical practices and associated methods of teaching and learning. Issues
of what can be included and what cannot are not addressed by the
category.
Greens work is remarkably unaffected by this observation, as her
pedagogy, for the most part, does not rely on a prescriptive definition of
popular music, but rather on the musical understandings of those
69
involved in the transmission-process. In her pedagogy, the connotations

associated with the term popular music are left largely in the hands of
the learners and teachers. Her pedagogy does, however, emerge from a
study of pop musicians, so the methods of transmission that she uses are
rooted in an interpretation of what is popular music.28 Jazz, and the
impossibility of defining it based upon a set of musical characteristics,
provides an example of how complex this issue can become. Rather than
transfer these difficulties across genres, it may be useful, if not inevitable
to rethink categories as they relate to music education.
Jazz and popular music are complex references that undoubtedly
mean different things to different people. As Green demonstrates, the
same holds true for classical music. She shows that students enter the
classroom with definite sets of pre-conceptions regarding classical music
that are often different than those held by their teachers and parents. Her
work also illustrates that those pre-conceptions can break down through
experiencelargely in Chapter 7 (thinking of Justins story on page 166
regarding Fr Elise, Madelines heartwarming description of finding a
bit more joy in it on page 170, but also the reporting on stages 6 and 7).
Perhaps this is evidence that exposure to non-familiar genres of music
leads to tolerance of those genres, but it also demonstrates that the
categories might break down when listeners become doers. This
breakdown does not seem unusual. Duke Ellington is frequently cited as
an example of a musician with little use for categories. On one occasion,
Ellington stated: I dont write jazz, I write Negro folk music (Jewell
1986, 22). Other jazz musicians have expressed a similar sentiment. Max
Roach, in a powerful essay written in 1972, stated that jazz, a term he
ultimately rejected,
is the cultural expression of Africans who are dispersed on this North
American continent. It derives in a continuing line from the musical and
cultural traditions of Africa. We must recognize what those traditions are,
what it is we are doing musically, how we learn our music, how it pleases
and has meaning, and what its significance is. (Roach 1999, 308)
Roach encouraged not only that the learning processes associated with
his musical tradition need to be upheld, but that musicians needed to
cleanse their minds of
false categories which are not basic to us and which divide us rather than
unite us. They are misnomers: jazz music, rhythm and blues, rock and roll,
gospel, spirituals, blues, folk music. Regardless of what they are called,
they are various expressions of black music, black culture itself, the
expression of Africans in the diaspora. (309)
70
Chapter Four
Roach uses cultural heritage, not racial propriety, as a means of

establishing a category that has more meaning, more pedagogical utility,
and can be more easily defined and understood. The ways of learning and
understanding are included in his definition of the category. One might
conclude that the category would not exist separated from its traditions.
Randy Weston, a jazz pianist, states that prior to knowing what being a
musician was, he thought jazz was the music of the black people: free,
creative, and swinging. His understanding of this category seems to have
changed with experience, in part noting that classical influences became
increasingly apparent to him in jazz, but also in his own exploration of the
cultural roots of jazz:
I have decided to search for the roots of jazz, of gospel music, of calypso
and of Latin musicall the different music by different people with dark
skins spread out all through the New World, producing everything from
Bossa Nova to Aretha Franklin, from Ray Charles to Charlie Parker. There
is a definite link between all those people. Theyre all black, but there is
another something else, too, and I think that other link between them is
rhythm, a beat. (Taylor 1993, 2939)
In the context of the above quotes, it makes a great deal of sense that
popular musicians would have similar methods of transmission to those of
pre-Jazz Education jazz musicians. While it is possible that these
similarities are purely coincidental or the result of similar circumstances
(having to learn music outside the walls of academia), the kinds of music
being discussed, through a common heritage, also have substantial and
fundamental links. First among these links would be a deep emphasis on
groove. Others would include certain notions of function, social and
cultural connotations/meanings, histories, and non-Western ideas of
technique and timbre. The history of popular music would start at
basically the same time, with basically the same people, and in basically
the same place as the history of jazz. It is untenable to suggest that jazz
and popular music are the same, but this is not really the point. They are
part of the same musical traditionmaybe branches of the same family
tree. Therefore, jazz and its relationship to the academy has meaning to
popular music and Greens work can certainly have meaning for jazz.
I am inclined to give Jazz Education some credit for creating not only a
space in our institutions for other music, but also for providing much
needed discourse on the ideas of what counts, what we are teaching, and
how we are teaching it. It seems possible, if not demonstrable, that Jazz
Education and its accompanying controversies functioned as an earlier
version of bringing non-traditional ideas into formal structures steeped
in tradition, as Cannonball had hoped. This neither downplays Jazz
71
Educations other contributions nor diminishes Greens pedagogy. Greens

work, from this perspective, seems to represent something significant: the
inclusion of an other music (in this case a music from the West African
Diaspora) primarily through the modes of instruction associated with that
other music.
A cynic might wonder if certain modes of transmission can exist
within our academic structures. Surely there are valid reasons why, to
paraphrase Michael Cain, no jazz school would adopt the auditioning
process or rehearsal techniques of working, even canonical, jazz musicians
(Cain 2007, 36). Perhaps the kind of teaching and learning described by
Green will be uncomfortable in institutions, which may prove poor
substitutes for basements, garages, and clubs. Perhaps opening our schools
to these ways of teaching these kinds of music will negatively affect our
treasured yet commercially fragile musical traditions. All of these issues,
and surely many more, will provide for interesting conversations, research,
and decision-making.
Perhaps its because I recognize and identify with her pedagogy that
Lucy Greens work seems rich in common sense. Perhaps for these same
reasons, I might be inclined to read too much into her work. It indicates
awareness that the methods of transmission must now be considered a
crucial part of the music being transmitted. From my perspective, this
appears as a shift, as in jazz we have more focused on learning things that
canonical jazz musicians seemed to know, rather than learning things in
the ways that those musicians had learned. The later stages of Greens
projectthe classical music phasedemonstrates that the transmission of
musical material can be viewed as more important than the material. This
seems to resonate with ideas presented in this essaynotions that, at least
within certain musical traditions, the process can take priority over the
product. Taken into the difficult realm of category, all of this leads me to
wonder if our notions of category can, in fact, be better dealt with through
modes of transmission. Whether the piece is Fr Elise, Take The A
Train, or Cameo, the ways students approach learning the music might
have more to do with its categorization than its composer. For educational
purposes, what kind of music it is might be more accurately defined
through understanding how it was learned and for what reasons.
Returning to my areas of jazz and Jazz Education, a wholesale return
to pre-Jazz Education modes of transmission is clearly impossible.
Nonetheless, Greens pedagogy offers worthwhile challenges and
opportunities to Jazz Educators, which I expect will prompt further
discussions around the jazz canon and the ways in which it is constructed,
preserved and transmitted. These discussions, particularly those focused
72
Chapter Four
on and emerging from Jazz Education, may involve the challenge of

broadening of our ideas of category, particularly as popular musics enter
our formal institutions. In many ways, all of this seems a very long time
coming as Cannonball Adderley and Max Roach, to name but two, were
discussing the importance of studying music of the West African Diaspora
almost forty years ago.
A broader understanding of categories for pedagogical purposes,
linked to cultural systems of knowing and valuing music, where our more
discrete categories are viewed as branches (branches that can intertwine)
that inform our modes of musical transmission, in many ways (like
Greens pedagogy), just seems like common sense. Many would agree
with Derek Scotts preface to Greens book, in which he states that a
relativistic outlook has replaced the universal perspective of modernism
(cited in Green 2008, vii) and, as a result, we increasingly view music as
deriving its meaning from its context. It seems entirely logical, and likely,
that our pedagogies will be one of the crucial aspects that reflect this shift.
What this could mean for jazz is impossible to predict, although it might
present new ways of determining what counts and what doesnt count
practices might count more than the results of those practices. It might
lead to a particular understanding of jazz that is not rooted in debates of
definition, but in particular ways of making and learning music using a
variety of materials, the diversity of which can be understood, transmitted,
and linked through culture as much as through canon. Whatever might
follow, Lucy Green, through her pedagogy, has given us much to consider.
References
Ake, D. 2002. Jazz Cultures. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Bash, L., and J. Kuzmich. 1985. A Survey of Jazz Education Research:
Recommendations for Future Researchers. Council for Research in
Music Education Bulletin 82: 1428.
Beale, C. 2000. Jazz Education. In The Oxford Companion to Jazz, ed.
B. Kernfeld, 75665. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowman, W. 2004. Pop Goes . . . ? Taking Pop Music Seriously. In
Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and Music Education, ed. C. X.
Rodriguez, 22950. Reston: MENC.
Cain, M. 2007. Redefining the Other: Teaching Delight in Cultural
Variety. Journal for Music-in-Education 1: 3539.
Cannonball 1973. Downbeat, June 21, 13+.
73
Deveaux, S. 1998. Constructing the Jazz Tradition. In The Jazz Cadence

of American Culture, ed. R. G. OMeally, 483512. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Dobbins, B. 1988. Jazz and Academica: Street Music in the Ivory
Tower. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education
Spring 1988: 3041.
Dykema, P. W., and K. Gehrekens. 1941. The Teaching and Administration
of High School Music. Boston: C. C. Birchard & Company.
Feather, L. 1981. How Jazz Education Began. Jazz Educators Journal
February/March 1981: 2021.
Fisher, L. 2003. A Conversation with Benny Golson. Jazz Research
Proceedings Yearbook. Kansas: IAJE, 1115.
Gennari, J. 2006. Blowin Hot and Cool: Jazz and Its Critics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gleason, R. J. 1969. The Rhythm Section, New York Post, July 29.
Golson, B., and J. Merod. 1998. Forward Motion: An Interview with
Benny Golson. In The Jazz Cadence of American Culture, ed. R. G.
OMeally, 32-61. New York: Columbia University Press.
Goodman, G. 1999. Sonny Rollins at Sixty-Eight. Atlantic Monthly July
1999: 8288.
Green, L. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New
Classroom Pedagogy. Burlington: Ashgate.
Jarrett, K. 1996. The Virtual Jazz Age: A Survivor Manual. Musician
March 1996: 36, 102.
Jewell, D. 1986. Duke: A Portrait of Duke Ellington. London: Pavilion
Books Ltd.
Jones, L. (A. Baraka) 1967. Jazz and the White Critic. In Black Music,
1120. New York: William Morrow.
Kernfeld, B., ed. 1994. Benny Golson. In New Grove Dictionary of Jazz.
New York: St. Martins Press.
Marsalis, W. 1999. The Neoclassical Agenda. In Keeping Time:
Readings in Jazz History, ed. R. Walser, 33439. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Metheny, P. 2001. Keynote Address to IAJE Convention.
http://www.patmetheny.com/writings.cfm
Murphy, D. 1994. Jazz Studies in American Schools and Colleges: A
Brief History. Jazz Educators Journal March 1994: 3438.
Niccoli, R. A. 1951. Stearn Conducts Jazz Panel Series. Downbeat 18:
18.
Nisenson, E. 2000. Open Sky: Sonny Rollins and His World of
Improvisation. New York: St. Martins Press.
74
Chapter Four
Porter, E. 2002. What Is This Thing Called Jazz? African American

Musicians as Artists, Critics, and Activists. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Porter, L. 1989. Jazz in American Education Today. Journal of The
College Music Symposium 29: 13439.
. 2001. John Coltrane: His Life and Music. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Ramsey, D. 1999. Before and After: Bob Brookmeyer Searches for the
Truth. Jazz Times, May 1999: 9193, 213.
Roach, M. 1999. Beyond Categories. In Keeping Time: Readings in Jazz
History, ed. R. Walser, 30514. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, L. 2008. It Happened in Hitsville. Vanity Fair December
2008: 304315, 32628.
Rollins, S. 1994. Forward. In Jazz, ed. J. Fordham. London: Doris
Kindersley Ltd.
Sales, G. 1984. Jazz: Americas Classical Music. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Scott, D. B. 2008. General Editors Preface. In Music, Informal
Learning and the School: A New Classroom Pedagogy, authored by L.
Green, vii. Burlington: Ashgate.
Sidran, B. 1995. Talking Jazz: An Oral History. New York: Da Capo
Press.
Taylor, A. 1993. Notes and Tones: Musician to Musician Interviews. New
York: Da Capo Press.
Tomlinson, G. 1996. Cultural Dialogics and Jazz: A White Historian
Signifies. In Disciplining Music: Musicology And Its Canons, eds. K.
Bergeron and P. V. Bohlman, 6494. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Walser, R. 1993. Out of Notes: Signification, Interpretation, and the
Problem of Miles Davis. The Musical Quarterly 77 (2): 34365.
. 1999. Where the Etude Stands on Jazz. In Keeping Time: Readings
in Jazz History, ed. R. Walser, 4154. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wilson, J. S. 1969. The New York Times, November 12.
Wilson, P. 1972. Conversing with Cannonball. Downbeat, June 22 1972,
1213.
Zabor, R., and V. Garbarini. 1999. Wynton vs. Herbie: The Purist and the
Crossbreeder Duke it Out. Reprinted In Soul Craft, and Cultural
Hierarchy. In Keeping Time: Readings in Jazz History, ed. Robert
Walser, 33951. New York: Oxford University Press.
75
Notes
1
Previously published in 2009 as Categories and Music Transmission in Action,
Criticism and Theory for Music Education 8 (2): 94119. Reprinted by permission
of the editor.
2
Largely following Greens example, I will use formal and informal simply to
distinguish transmission practices that occur inside (formal) and outside (informal)
of schools and universities. I do not intend the use of informal to imply casual.
3
I will use capital letters throughout this chapter to distinguish institutionalized, or
formal, Jazz Education from informal jazz education.
4
These scholars and performers include Ben Sidran, David Ake, Scott Deveaux,
Michael Cain, and Robert Walser.
5
This is to indicate that my examples should not be taken as definitive. My limited
selection undoubtedly excludes many musicians that would better fit another
model, and excludes other musicians who have come along in the post-Jazz
Education world. I am only using some examples that account for my response.
6
There are other factors that have undoubtedly affected and altered the
transmission of the jazz traditionthe recording industry, being one examplebut
I will focus only on the role of Jazz Education.
7
Americas Classical Music is included in the title of Grover Sales 1984
textbook, but is also closely associated with the celebrated jazz pianist and
educator Dr. Billy Taylor.
8
Also useful for grasping the implications of definition on jazz pedagogies are
Eric Porter (2002, 287334) and David Ake (2002, 112145).
9
Gary Tomlinson also addresses this in his article Cultural Dialogics and Jazz: A
White Historian Signifies (Tomlinson 1996, 7477).
10
This idea is also briefly discussed by Charles Beale in his essay Jazz
Education (2000, 757).
11
Both Jack DeJohnette and Robin Eubanks are deeply rooted in the pre-Jazz
Education jazz tradition primarily, though not exclusively, through their musical
associations with canonical jazz musicians who pre-date Jazz Education.
12
http://www.patmetheny.com/writings.cfm (Pat Methenys official website).
13
On this page Walser also states the work of Miles Davis seems to repudiate
conventional notions of aesthetic distance and insists that music is less a thing than
an activity. This further supports the sentiment of Jarrett that jazz is more a way
than a thing.
14
While taking place on March 1, 1997, this interview was not published until
2003.
15
http://www.coas.howard.edu/music/academics/degree_programs/jazz_studies.html
16
Its also interesting to note that the Lenox School, given its deliberate attempt to
place students in contact with working professional musicians, in some ways is
similar to stage 5 of Greens book. The brochure referenced can be seen at
http://www.jazzdiscography.com/Lenox/brochure.htm.
17
Gennari, on page 212 of his book (2006), points out that a 1966 Billboard poll
found that Dave Brubeck, Miles Davis, Modern Jazz Quintet, Gerry Mulligan, Stan
76
Chapter Four
Kenton, and Duke Ellington were among the most popular musicians for college
students.
18
As Tomlinson points out in his essay (Cultural Dialogics), critic and historian
Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones) did question the transfer of Eurocentric notions into
the jazz tradition in his 1967 article Jazz and the White Critic. On page 18 of this
article, Baraka wrote that dating back to the 1940s the white middle-brow critic . .
. was already trying to formalize and finally institutionalize it. It is a hideous idea.
The music was already in danger of being forced into that junk pile of admirable
objects and data the West knows as culture.
19
Murphy (1994) summarizes a generally accepted reading of this history where
the 1970s was the decade when the idea of including jazz in formal music
education settings became generally accepted and acceptable. Another is found in
Bash and Kuzmich (1985), who state that Jazz Education is essentially a product
of the 1970s and usually associated with the formation of the National Association
of Jazz Educators (NAJE) in 1968 on p. 14.
20
These ideas emerged from a long discussion of this essay with my colleague,
Michael Cain.
21
It would be impossible to fully answer why jazz. Cannonballs comments and
the following discussion of preservation and protection is only intended to raise
one particular aspect of why jazz, and lead into the idea of formal structures as
protective of a canonical structure.
22
The article from which this quote is taken is a fascinating exchange between
Marsalis and Herbie Hancock. It should be noted that Marsalis quickly retreated
from his assertion that jazz was superior to pop music.
23
At the peak of his activity, Cannonball probably presented this seminar about
100 times in a yearby the time of this interview, Cannonballs group was
noticing a decline in university interest due to an increase in the number of jazz
programs at universities. Interestingly, Cannonball is asked if the teaching of jazz
in academic institutions risks over-formalizing the music, indicating that this
was a concern as early as 1972.
24
My use of the term elder should be qualified. Monk was only thirteen years
older than Rollins and nine years older than Coltrane. Im using this term to
connote both the experience of the older musician and the esteem in which he (and
in this essay, they are all hes) is held. Thinking purely in terms of chronology,
this term can be misleading.
25
I am not familiar with the sources used by Green to support her view of the
apprenticeship model in jazz transmission. My examples are intended purely to
demonstrate another interpretation of apprenticeship in the jazz tradition, not
refute Greens.
26
As examples, both Sonny Rollins and Miles Davis have been known to give very
little direction to members of their bands, seemingly preferring musicians to
develop their intuition, their ears, and their own sensibilities rather than through
direct instruction. Nisenson (2000) mentions this on page 7, but it can be
documented in other sources.
27
77
The Sugar Hill Gang included Rollins, Jackie McLean, Walter Bishop, Kenny
Drew, and Art Taylor (among others), who would all become notable jazz
musicians.
28
Wayne Bowman (2004), on pages 3137, provides a very useful examination of
the complexity of popular music as a category.
CHAPTER FIVE
BOOMTOWN MUSIC EDUCATION
AND THE NEED FOR AUTHENTICITY:
INFORMAL LEARNING PUT INTO PRACTICE
IN SWEDISH POST-COMPULSORY MUSIC
EDUCATION1
SIDSEL KARLSEN
Introduction
Whilst the inclusion of popular music and popular musicians informal
learning practices into formal, school-based music education is a quite
recent topic on the international music education agenda, these issues have
been debated for several decades within the music education communities
of the Nordic countries. Efforts have been made to shed light on this area
from theoretical, research-based and practical perspectives. For example,
as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s, Benum (1978) and Ruud (1983)
discussed formal and informal arenas for music learning in terms of
intentional and functional music education. The discussion was, among
other things, tied to the emerging popular music culture, and the potential
overlapping and intersection of the two educational forms was studied.
Furthermore, through early ethnographic studies of rock bands conducted
within the fields of musicology, anthropology, and cultural studies
(Berkaak and Ruud 1994; Forns et al. 1995), the level of general
knowledge about popular musicians musical development and modes of
learning was increased. Likewise, a wide range of teaching material from
the past 25 years serves to illustrate how popular music and its related
ways of learning have been introduced into Nordic music education
classrooms.2
80
Chapter Five
Many of the topics that have been dealt with within the Nordic
countries have recently been actualised and brought to the attention of an
international audience by Green (2002, 2008), who, through her research
into popular musicians learning practices, and the subsequent development
and implementation of a classroom pedagogy based on this research, has
showed how knowledge about the learning of music in informal contexts
can be utilised within music education in the lower and middle levels of
the compulsory school system. While Green has generally been acclaimed
for, among other things, developing a pedagogy that is responsive towards
youth cultures (Clements 2008) and suited to strengthening already
existing music education programmes (Heuser 2008), critical voices have
also been raised, pointing to the dangers of absenting the role of the
teacher (Georgii-Hemming 2009) and to the challenges of enhancing
critical dialogue and consciousness in an approach that mainly takes the
adolescents own favourite music as a point of departure (Allsup 2008).
Scholars have also debated whether informal approaches may still be
considered or perceived as informal when being converted into a pedagogy
and taking place within the framework of a school (Sexton 2009).
Although popular music has been included in compulsory school
music education in the Nordic countries for decades, institutions for higher
education have generally been slower in opening their doors for popular
musicians and facilitating for their specific needs. However, in recent
years, a more open approach to popular music within post-compulsory
schooling has appeared, and in Sweden approaches related to those utilised
in Greens pedagogy have been developed within the framework of a
university-based higher music education programme, called BoomTown
Music Education.
BoomTown Music Education (hereafter abbreviated BoomTown or
BTME) is a 2-year higher music education programme for rock musicians,
which is connected to the School of Music in Pite, Lule University of
Technology, and situated in the southern part of Sweden in the town of
Borlnge (BoomTown 2009). The programme is research-based in the
sense that its working methods and pedagogical philosophy have been
developed on the basis of the work of two Swedish music education
scholars, namely Anna-Karin Gullberg and K.-G. Johansson. While
Gullberg (2002) investigated the musical learning and socialisation of rock
musicians, Johansson (2002) looked into such musicians strategies when
playing by ear (for further accounts of these studies, see below). Their
knowledge and findings, combined with the practical implementation of a
socio-culturally oriented view on learning (Lave and Wenger 1991; Slj
BoomTown Music Education and the Need for Authenticity
81
2000), have provided the grounds for what has become a successful and
steadily expanding popular music education programme.
The aim of this chapter is to problematise the BoomTown pedagogy,
focusing especially on its self-claimed informality and authenticity.
Further, I wish to relate this problematisation to one of the broader issues
brought up in the current, international debate on the inclusion of popular
music and informal learning practices in school-based music education,
namely that of the informal approaches ability to remain informal when
included in formal education. In order to open up the field for the reader, I
will first give a more detailed account of the research upon which BTME
has been developed as well as a description of the education, its aims,
philosophy and working methods. Furthermore, the education program
will be analysed through Folkestads (2006) four-point definition of
aspects of formal and informal learning as well as Hargreaves et al.s
(2003) globe model of opportunities in music education, in order to
expose some of the tensions between the formal and informal modes found
within it. Next, I will report my own experiences from visiting BTME, and
discuss my impressions in relation to theories of authenticity. Finally, an
effort will be made to extract some of the findings from the analysis of
BoomTown in order to, as mentioned above, contribute to the broader
international debate.
The Foundations of BoomTownResearch and Rationale

Despite the general acceptance of popular music and its related ways
of learning found within the larger Nordic music education community
from the late 1970s onwards, most research at the doctoral level continued
to focus on more conventional forms of music education. According to
Olsson (2005), the focus of the doctoral dissertations published in the
period from 1995 to 2005 largely concerned the interaction between
learner, teacher and the educational subject-matter (Olsson 2005, 22)
within formal, rather traditional school contexts.3 However, the research
community at the School of Music in Pite, Lule University of
Technology, Sweden offered two interesting exceptions, namely the works
of Gullberg (2002) and Johansson (2002), mentioned above. In the
following, I will give a further description of their studies by relating their
respective research questions, design, methodology and findings.
82
Chapter Five
Strategies among Ear Players in Rock Music

As already indicated, Johanssons (2002, see also Johansson 2004)
study concerned rock musicians approaches to playing by ear, and the
explicit aim was to describe and explain strategies used by rock
musicians to hear and play chord progressions when playing unfamiliar
rock songs by ear (Johansson 2002, 14). The study was designed using an
experimental set-up in which six musicians, all accomplished players of
typical rock-related instruments (bass, keyboard and guitar) and styles,
were asked to play along to three different rock songs, which were
unfamiliar to them and written and recorded especially for the study. The
three songs were of increasing difficulty with respect to chord
progressions, going from a very simple song using chords in a way that
would make it possible for an experienced ear player in the rock genre to
play it by ear without problems to a very difficult song that would as
much as possible avoid all harmonic clichs or conventions in rock music
(99). The participants playing was recorded on tape and video and they
were also interviewed after having played the songs.
By analysing the interviews as well as the audio and videotapes, the
researcher was able to extract two main types of learning strategies,
namely listening strategies and playing strategies, each with individual
variations. For example, strategies could involve listening for well-known
harmonic formulas or the bass part and deducing the chord from this, or
playing chords or melodic figures or playing intuitively by means of
instant learning. In summing up his findings, Johansson concluded,
perhaps not so surprisingly, that playing by ear is first and foremost
learned through playing by ear. Furthermore, learning to play by ear also
happens style by style, by becoming familiar with specific clichs,
harmonic formulas and other style-related traits.
Johanssons research can in many ways be said to have built further on
the work of Lilliestam (1995). While the latter was one of the first Nordic
researchers to investigate processes of ear playing and to describe the three
basic and equally important activities necessary for learning within this
modenamely listening, practising, and performingthe former
(Johansson 2002) shows how the processes of learning to play by ear not
only follow certain general steps, but are also style and genre specific and
hence contextually dependent.
83
Musical Learning and Socialisation among Rock Musicians

Gullbergs (2002, see also Gullberg and Brndstrm 2004) study
focused on musical learning and socialisation among rock musicians, and
the overarching aim of her study was to show how different kinds of
musicians have learned to play, understand and value rock music via
informal as well as formal modes, and how this learning is related to
institutional and non-institutional learning environments (Gullberg 2002,
11). Her research was designed as three separate sub-studies, each with its
own focus and methodology. While the first study was a studio set-up in
which two different rock bands, one institutional (formed by students of
a University School of Music) and one non-institutional (a more regular
garage band), were asked to rehearse and record a song that was
unfamiliar to them, the second study concerned how higher music
education students, as well as other student groups, valued the two
recordings that were made in study number one (11). In the third substudy, eight professional rock and pop musicians were interviewed about
the learning processes they followed in becoming a musician and
developing musical idealsall seen in relation to institutional and noninstitutional learning environments.
Overall, Gullbergs findings in many ways resembled those of Green
(2002), showing that rock musicians learning mainly took place through
solitary listening, copying and playing, and also through collective, peerbased activities while playing in a band. While institutional settings were
perceived by the interviewees as good at offering training and knowledge
on an intra-musical level (Gullberg 2002, 202), a portion of the intermusical and the majority of the extra-musical knowledge needed in order
to become a rock musician were primarily learned by active participation
in the non-institutional music life. Consequently, the musicians
interviewed in Gullbergs study who had made it into the University
School of Music did not find that kind of academic music education
satisfactory.
In summing up her findings, Gullberg wrote: If knowledge of informal
learning in music and a curious, open-minded and outgoing personality are
not encouraged within the music colleges, these people will search for
other pedagogical possibilities than the music teacher programmes (201).
Since the learning processes and strategies of the rock musicians she
interviewed, and the context they needed for their further musical and
professional development, seemed to differ significantly from what was
allowed for and offered within the institutions of higher music education,
84
Chapter Five
Gullberg predicted that change would be needed if rock musicians were to

want to remain part of the Academies of Music.
Shortly after defending their dissertations in 2002, Anna-Karin
Gullberg and K.-G. Johansson had the opportunity to contribute to
developing an alternative higher music education that took rock
musicians specific needs into account through what has now become
BTME.
Introducing the BoomTown Music Education Programme

BTME is a 2-year-long higher education programme for young
musicians playing rock and related genres such as pop, hip-hop and heavy
metal. According to the schools website, it combines the advantages of
formal music education with the strengths of informal learning
(BoomTown 2009). The aims of the programme are presented as: (a) to
offer a process-oriented university education for bands and musicians of
rock music and related styles, on the musics own terms; (b) to emphasise
music-making in groups and attend to peer-directed learning and aural
traditions; (c) to welcome a multiplicity of musics and let the students, to a
great extent, create their own learning environments, formulate their own
knowledge and skill-related endsand even choose the means by which
to reach them; (d) to support the enhancement of musical knowledge by
offering courses in songcrafting, sound engineering and entrepreneurship;
and (e) to offer cognitive tools for understanding ones own operations and
encourage creativity and autonomy in thoughts and deeds (BoomTown
2009).
Those applying to the programme are primarily already-existing bands,
and during the entrance exams the focus is more on originality and
personal expression than on technical skills or knowledge of a certain kind
of repertoire. When accepted, each band gets its own rehearsal room, to
which the band members have 24-hour access. However, this is not a
rehearsal room of the old conservatory style, it is also a fully equipped
recording studio, so that the students always have the chance to record,
mix and remix their work. The importance of process is emphasised
throughout the programme, and instead of having ready-made ends and
means, these are, as pointed out above, decided by each student for him or
herself.4 With this freedom comes the responsibility for assessing whether
or not you are progressing according to your plan, and to what extent you
have reached your goals.5 The opportunity for choosing ones own means
and ends also implies that the musicians who are accepted into the
program may decide to absorb themselves completely in one specific
85
musical style. They can thus avoid becoming stylistically diverse,

something which might otherwise often be required if attending more
traditional performance-based or music-teacher training programmes.
Furthermore, BTME employs no regular teachers, and the selection of
supervisors, speakers, guest musicians and pedagogues is customised
according to the needs of the students.
The Educational Philosophy of BoomTown

The educational philosophy behind BTME is built on a socio-cultural
perspective (Lave and Wenger 1991; Slj 2000) which emphasises the
situated nature of learning and the development of knowledge as relational
and contextual. Along with explaining in more detail the two interrelated
theoretical perspectives underlying the BoomTown philosophy, efforts
will be made to show how these perspectives are related to the research of
Johansson (2002) and Gullberg (2002), and how the theory and research,
combined, have been utilised for developing the BoomTown philosophy
and environment.
In the epistemological perspectives of Lave and Wenger (1991),
learning is seen to come about through individuals legitimate peripheral
participation in specific communities of practice. Learning is not
perceived as acquisition of knowledge, and the practices have no
persons positioned as teachers; rather knowledge enhancement is
assumed to happen when the communities members relate to its activities,
identities and artefacts. Furthermore, newcomers will often be introduced
to the practice and little by little reach the stage of full participation (37)
by observing the conduct of old-timers. A central task for the newcomer is
to learn how to behave within a particular discourse and negotiate ways of
being a person in a particular communal context. In Lave and Wengers
words, learning to become a legitimate participant in a community
involves learning how to talk (and be silent) in the manner of full
participants (105). In short, their epistemology emphasises learning as
situated, in other words as an integral part of generative social practice in
the lived-in world (35) and changing locations and perspectives, either by
participating in several social practices or adopting several positions
within one particular community of practice, is seen as part of actors
learning trajectories, developing identities and forms of membership
(36).
As with Lave and Wenger (1991), Slj (2000) emphasises the situated
nature of knowledge and the necessity of participating in specific social
practices in order to access the knowledge integral to and inherent in those
86
Chapter Five
practices. However, in more specific ways than the scholars referred to

above, he shows how human knowledge, insights, conventions and ideas
are built into apparatus (82), and hence how artefacts, including
intellectual tools,6 gain a crucial role in a community of practices
mediation of knowledge. Furthermore, Slj considers language as
humanitys mediating tool par excellence, and highlights its distinctive
role in processes of knowledge development:
Language is the most unique component in human knowledge-building
and, more generally, in our ability to gather experiences and to
communicate these to one another. Words and linguistic statements
mediate the surrounding world to us and make it appear as meaningful. By
communicating with others, we are introduced to ways of designating and
describing the world which are functional, and which enable our interplay
with fellow human beings in various activities. (8485)
Consequently, in order for learning to take place, including within a

community of practice, it is of utmost importance that its members are
offered opportunities to communicate and share thoughts, feelings, ideas
and experiences.
Johanssons (2002) research shows how playing by ear is situated
knowledge in the sense that it can only be learned by doing it in context.
Also, the clichs and formulas learnedthe intellectual-musical tools
are style-specific and thereby contextually (and communally) dependent.
As a consequence, the BoomTown students are offered opportunities for
immersing themselves completely in the musical style of their choice.
Since their ways of learning music are mainly ear-based, learning is
probably also most effectively performed when each student is allowed to
engage directly and heavily in his or her germane music. Furthermore,
Gullbergs (2002) research emphasises the solitary as well as the peer and
group-based development of knowledge among popular musicians, and
also how much of their learning takes place in communities of practice,
such as the band or bands to which they belong or the larger rock scene.
Hence, instead of creating a more traditional educational practice, with
ready-made classes and regular teachers, BoomTown is very much
structured as an educational community of practice. Old-timers, in the
sense of professional and experienced musicians and producers, are
brought in as examples of individuals who have reached the stage of full
participation in the rock community, and the students learn by engaging
with themsocially and musically. In addition, the students are allowed to
use quite a lot of time in what is perhaps their most significant musicrelated community of practicethe band. The physical context of
BoomTown is equipped with style-specific artefacts, in other words the
87
electronic equipment needed to play certain popular genres, and the insight
that language is crucial for the development of knowledgeindividually
as well as communallyis operationalised into making the regular writing
of a diary the programmes most important obligatory task. The diarywriting serves two purposes: firstly, it is seen as a way of letting the
students come to grips with their own thoughts, judgements and ways of
approaching the world; secondly, it is utilised as a means and a point of
departure for group reflection, in order to develop, jointly, awareness of
how different forms of music-related learning and creative processes
impact on the students own music making.
BoomTown as Seen in a Theoretical Perspective

Formal, Informal or Something in Between?
In an attempt to sum up the basic criteria of formal and informal
learning situations, Folkestad (2006, 141142) acknowledges four
determining aspects, namely: (1) the situationdoes the learning take
place inside or outside institutional settings; (2) the learning styleis the
music learned through playing by written notation or by ear; (3)
ownershipwho owns the decision of the activity, the learners or the
teachers; and (4) intentionalityis the mind directed towards learning
how to play or towards playing?
Applying these criteria to BoomTown, it is evident how this education,
at least at first glance, may be claimed to function primarily in an informal
mode, especially where the latter three aspects are concerned. Firstly, the
most common learning style among the BoomTown students is, because of
the stylistic traits and traditions of the music they play, to a great extent
ear-based. While it of course can be claimed that the chord charts and
different kinds of tab notation used for writing down and remembering
rock music may count as written notation, the music is not mainly learnt
by playing, for example, notes written on a score, such as within the
Western classical tradition, and the amount of time spent playing by ear is
considerable.
Secondly, efforts are made throughout the programme to ensure that
the students maintain ownership of the activities. This is evident in how
the students choose means and ends as well as assess their own work, but
is also seen in the decision to customise the staff according to the students
needs and thereby avoid having regularly employed teachers. The
consequent lack of long-lasting teacher-student relationships might
minimise the risk of teachers owning activities as well as students (the
latter sometimes being a danger of more master-apprenticeship oriented
88
Chapter Five
teaching and learning practices). Nevertheless, BoomTown is still an

educational program, which means that the students also have to meet
certain criteria and participate in certain activities that are set and decided
by administrators and staff. Hence, ownership is not entirely in the
students hands, even though it is perhaps more so than in many other
kinds of higher music education.
Thirdly, while the aim of the BoomTown students is certainly to
enhance their skills as musicians, it seems that the intention might be
directed more towards playing and reflecting on playing within a musical
framework rather than towards learning how to play through more
traditional forms of rehearsing and within a pedagogical framework. Still,
it is hard to say anything about students intentions without having
interviewed them with this in mind; and besides, what is the BoomTown
educational philosophy if not a pedagogical framework?
Finally, although BTME, at least to a certain extent, facilitates
informal learning practices, there is no doubt that when it comes to the
first of Folkestads four aspectssituation inside or outside institutional
settingsthis Swedish educational programme is formal and located
safely within the framework of a university. The fact that it is a university
programme is even utilised as part of its marketing to attract potential
students.
When comparing BTME to Hargreaves et al.s (2003, 158) globe
model7 of opportunities in music education, we arrive at approximately
the same answers as above: BTME offers professional training of
performing musicians, and, although the students assess themselves, there
are examinations, among other means through public performances.
Hence, the programme can be placed on the formal side of the globe
leaning towards the statutory, in-school side. However, the learning that
takes place within the framework of BoomTown can also be characterised
as largely self-directed and third environment8 related, something which
places the programme on the informal and elective, outside-school
part of the globe. Relating to the discussion above, a relevant question to
ask in this regard is whether the learning is actually experienced by the
students as informal and self-directed when someone has already decided
for them, by designing the educational environment, that these should be
the learning conditions. Nevertheless, from theoretical comparison BTME
appears as it is marketed on its homepage, namely as combining the
strengths of informal learning with the advantages of formal education:
neither formal nor informalrather something in between.
89
Experiences from Visiting BoomTown

In the previous section, I discussed BoomTowns informality in
relation to two different models or theoretical points of departure. In the
following, I will provide the basis for a discussion of its authenticity by
sharing my experiences from visiting the school.9 In the spring of 2008, I
had the good fortune of visiting BTME and meeting some of its
administrators and students. I recall having two main impressions from
this trip.
Firstly, I was immediately impressed by the quantity of gear that was
available, understood as all kinds of technical equipment designed for the
recording, making and mixing of music. Not only did each band have its
own rehearsal room/recording studioin addition, the school was about to
build a large studio containing several sub-studios, with the ability to
produce digital as well as analogue recordings. There was also a studio
especially designed to meet the needs of hip-hoppers. All in all, these
technological artefacts made the creation and performance of a vast variety
of pop and rock-related styles possible.
Secondly, when I met the students, they were very keen to emphasise
the way in which their education differed from the traditional conservatory
style of educating musicians. Phrases like this is something completely
different, I would never have chosen to attend the conservatory or any
kinds of traditional university music courses or this education allows
me to do my own thing, musically speaking were common. Curious to
know more about their everyday lives as students, I asked them what an
ordinary day would look like. Interestingly, they replied with examples
that strongly reminded me of my own experiences as a student within the
traditional conservatory system. Most of the time they practised their main
instrument, either alone, in their regular band, or with other fellow
students. They would then attend lectures, classes and instrumental
lessons, and occasionally participate in larger performances organised by
the school. In addition, they would keep up a busy musical life outside of
the school itself. When I replied that their descriptions of the everyday
life of a BoomTown music student reminded me very much of my own
education as a classical singer, they sounded absolutely horrified: No
way, your studies must have been completely different, it cannot be
compared to our form of education.
90
Chapter Five
BoomTown and the Need for Authenticity

In general, I consider bringing experiences from informal learning
practices into post-compulsory music education as useful and necessary.
However, from my own experiences as well as previous research (e.g.
Kvale and Nielsen 1999; Nerland 2004) I know that such practices already
exist within the more traditional conservatory system. Why is it, then,
that the conservatory environmentdespite having its own informality
did not seem meaningful to the BoomTown students?
In my opinion, the success of BTME lies not only in building on
informal learning practices; it is also to be found in the way that the school
is marketed as offering an authentic, alternative and non-institutional
education, and probably also in that the learning environment is
experienced as such by the students who choose to enrol in the
programme. Taylor (1991) reminds us that one of the most powerful
discourses of modernity is that of authenticity and the necessity of
cultivating an authentic selfan identity. He further connects authenticity
with freedom: Authenticity is itself an idea of freedom; it involves my
finding the design of my life myself, against the demands of external
conformity (6768). Furthermore, as Ruud (1997) points out, the notion
of authenticity is inevitably connected to music and to the interrelationship
between music and identity.
To the BoomTown students, the conservatory tradition obviously
represented a most unwanted instance of external conformity, while the
BTME learning environment was something they could identify with, an
educational umbrella under which they felt that they could freely
explore and articulate their own musical identities and thereby learn
music. Whether or not BoomTown really is authentic, or what a definition
of authenticity in this regard might imply, is perhaps of lesser significance.
The important thing for the students was that it fulfilled their need for
authenticity and corresponded with their musical identities.
In a quite recent contribution, Wenger (2006) connects identity,
learning, meaningfulness and education, or in his terms social learning
systems, in the following way: I argue that when it comes to the
production of meaningfulness, learning is subsumed under identity and [I
argue] that social learning systems provide the context for this process
(17). In other words, in order to be experienced as meaningful, an
educational context must exist, which takes into account the close and
interwoven connections between identity and learning. This includes
offering students the opportunity to be socialised into communities of
practice which correspond with their identitiesmusical or otherwise.
91
Looking once again into the environment of BoomTown, it is evident

how this programme enables such a socialisation, among other things by
(1) letting the students participate in several popular music communities
of practiceeither the band or the larger group of students; (2) bringing
in old-timers (experienced professionals) who can act as role models and
guides for the newcomers (the students) on their way into the larger
popular music community; (3) being equipped with popular music stylespecific gearalso known as artefactswhich mediates much of the
knowledge necessary for mastering the particular popular music practices;
and (4) training the students in mastering the style and practice-specific
language by letting them reflect, extensively, on their own music making
and creative development.
In other words, BoomTown is a learning environment which is
experienced as authentic and meaningful by popular music students
because it takes into account their identity as popular musicians, and
provides them with the tools to become such and to work efficiently
within the wider popular music communities of practice.
Conclusion
While the aim of this chapter was to problematise the BoomTown
education from the perspectives of informality and authenticity, I will in
this last section extract some insights gained through these efforts and
address one of the key topics brought up in the debate surrounding
Greens (2008) work, namely whether informal approaches will still
remain, or continue to be perceived as, informal when included or
converted into a pedagogy (Sexton 2009).
As can be seen from the application of the formal/informal criteria to
the BoomTown environment above, this particular programme is situated
somewhere in between these two poles, being mainly built on principles
found within informal arenas, but still unable to escape its formality.
Similar outcomes would probably have been arrived at if a parallel
analysis had been undertaken on Greens pedagogy. However, in relation
to the perceived meaningfulness and outcome of music education, whether
on the post-compulsory or compulsory level, the question of formal or
informal might be irrelevantor at least not the right one to ask. Rather,
we should ask how we might create meaningful learning environments in
terms of fulfilling students need for authenticity, and corresponding with
as well as contributing to developing their identities. In this, mixing
features from the formal as well as informal arenas for learning seems a
92
Chapter Five
fruitful place to start, trusting that they will complement and enrich, rather
than defeat, each other.
References
Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1994. Observational Techniques. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln, 37792. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Allsup, R. E. 2008. Creating an Educational Framework for Popular
Music in Public Schools: Anticipating the Second-Wave. Visions of
Research in Music Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/
~vrme/v12n1/ vision/1%20AERA%20-%20Allsup.pdf
Balsnes, A. 2009. lre i kor. Belcanto som praksisfellesskap [Learning
in Choir. Belcanto as a Community of Practice]. PhD diss., Norwegian
Academy of Music.
Benum, I. 1978. Musikkpedagogiske aspekter [Aspects of Music
Education]. Norsk Musikktidsskrift 3: 12130.
Berkaak, O. A., and E. Ruud. 1994. Sunwheels. Fortellinger om et
rockeband [Sunwheels. Stories About a Rock Band]. Oslo:
BoomTown. 2009. BoomTown Music Education. Accessed June 24,
2009. http://www.boomtown.nu.
Clements, A. C. 2008. Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing Methods
through a Change of Paradigm. Visions of Research in Music
Education 12.
http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/3%20AERA%20%20Clements.pdf
vs Formal and Informal Ways of Learning. British Journal of Music
Education 23 (2): 13545.
Forns, J., U. Lindberg, and O. Sernhede. 1995. In Garageland. Youth and
Culture in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.
Georgii-Hemming, E. 2009. Informal Musical Practices in School? Some
Critical Reflections from a Swedish Perspective. Paper presented at
the 2nd Reflective Conservatoire Conference: Building Connections,
London, UK, March 2009.
93
Gullberg, A.-K. 2002. Skolvgen eller garagevgen. Studier av musikalisk

socialisation [By Learning or Doing. Studies in the Socialisation of
Music]. PhD diss., Lule University of Technology.
Gullberg, A.-K., and S. Brandstrm. 2004. Formal and Non-Formal
Music Learning amongst Rock Musicians. In The Music Practitioner.
Research for the Music Performer, Teacher and Listener, ed. J.
Davidson, 16174. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hargreaves D. J., N. A. Marshall, and S. C. North. 2003. Music
Education in the Twenty-First Century: A Psychological Perspective.
British Journal of Music Education 20 (2): 14763.
Heuser, F. 2008. Encouraging Change: Incorporating Aural and Informal
Learning Processes in an Introductory Music Education Course.
Visions of Research in Music Education 12. http://wwwusr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/4%20AERA%20-%20Heuser.pdf
Johansson, K.-G. 2002. Can You Hear What Theyre Playing? A Study of
Strategies Among Ear Players in Rock Music. PhD diss., Lule
University of Technology.
. 2004. What Chord Was That? A Study of Strategies Among Ear
Players in Rock Music. Research Studies in Music Education 23 (1):
94101.
Karlsen, S., and S. Brandstrm. 2008. Exploring the Music Festival as a
Music Educational Project. International Journal of Music Education
26 (4): 36373.
Kvale, S., and K. Nielsen. 1999. Mesterlre: lring som social praksis
[Master-Apprenticeship: Learning as Social Practice]. Copenhagen:
Hans Reitzel.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral
Lebler, D. 2007. Student-as-Master? Reflections on a Learning
Innovation in Popular Music Pedagogy. International Journal of
Lilliestam, L. 1995. Gehrsmusik: blues, rock och muntlig tradering
[Playing by Ear: Blues, Rock and Oral Tradition]. Gothenburg:
Akademifrlaget.
Nerland, M. 2004. Instrumentalundervisning som kulturell praksis [Music
Instrument Teaching as Cultural Practice]. PhD diss., Norwegian
Academy of Music.
Olsson, B. 2005. Scandinavian Research on Music Educationits Scope
of Ideas and Present Status. In RAIMEProceedings of the Eighth
International Symposium, ed. B. Olsson, 1526. Gothenburg:
ArtMonitor.
94
Chapter Five
Ruud E. 1983. Musikken, vrt nye rusmiddel? [Music, Our New

Intoxicant?]. Oslo: Norsk Musikforlag.
. 1997. Musikk og identitet [Music and Identity]. Oslo:
Salavuo, M. 2006. Open and Informal Online Communities as Forums of
Collaborative Musical Activities and Learning. British Journal of
Sexton, F. 2009. Informal Learning: A Way to Raise the Attainment of
Boys at Key Stage 3? Paper presented at the 2nd Reflective
Conservatoire Conference: Building Connections, London, UK, March
2009.
Slj, R. 2000. Lrande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv
[Learning in Practice. A Sociocultural Perspective]. Stockholm:
Prisma.
Sderman, J. 2007. Rap(p) i kften. Hiphopmusikers konstnrliga och
pedagogiska strategier [Verbally Fa(s)t. Hip-Hop Musicians Artistic
and Educational Strategies]. PhD diss., Lund University.
Taylor, C. 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. London: Harvard University
Press.
12631.
Wenger, E. 2006. Learning for a Small Planet. http://www.ewenger.com.
Westerlund, H. 2006. Garage Rock Bands: A Future Model for
Education 24 (2): 11925.
Wingstedt J. 2008. Making Music Mean. On Functions of, and Knowledge
about, Narrative Music in Multimedia. PhD diss., Lule University of
Technology.
Notes
1
Previously published in 2010 as BoomTown Music Education and the Need for
AuthenticityInformal Learning put into Practice in Swedish Post-Compulsory
Music Education in British Journal of Music Education 27 (1): 3546. Reprinted
by permission of the publisher Cambridge University Press.
2
Most of the scholarly contributions in this area as well as the teaching material
have been written in Nordic languages and have therefore been largely unavailable
to an international audience. For earlier attempts at communicating this Nordic
approach internationally, see for example, Folkestad (2006), Vkev (2006) or
Westerlund (2006).
95
In later years, the scope of Scandinavian music education research has been
widely expanded, and nowadays studies can be found which investigate, for
example, hip-hop musicians educational strategies (Sderman 2007); learning
among music festival attendees (Karlsen and Brndstrm 2008); musical online
communities as an arena for development of musical skills and knowledge
(Salavuo 2006); the learning of musical conventions and codes through computer
games (Wingstedt 2008); and the local choir as a medium for socialisation
(Balsnes 2009).
4
The ends and means are not only related to the students individual goals, but also
to the shared goals of the musical group to which they belongthe band.
5
Similar approaches are also utilised in a popular music programme in one
Australian conservatorium (Lebler 2007).
6
Slj (2000) defines as intellectual tools models that constitute resources for
thinking (102). Examples of such tools in a musical context may be clichs, scales
or fixed harmonic formulas.
7
In an article about music education in the 21st century, Hargreaves et al. (2003)
draw up a globe model of opportunities in music education with three main
bipolar dimensions. The vertical dimension distinguishes between formal and
informal opportunities (158) so that the northern part of the globe is reserved
paths that lead to qualifications and careers while the southern part represents
informal opportunities. The horizontal dimension distinguishes between statutory
and elective provision, in other words the western side is dedicated to inschool provision in all its forms (158) while the eastern side denotes all
opportunities selected by the students themselves. Finally, two circles exist, an
inner and an outer, which represent generalist and specialist opportunities
respectively.
8
The authors define third environment as social contexts in which musical
learning takes place in the absence of parents or teachers (Hargreaves et al. 2003,
157).
9
I was not visiting BoomTown for the purpose of conducting research. Hence, the
experiences and observations made were informal and not subject to any strict
methodological procedures. However, explained in research terms, the
observations made could be classified as conducted by a peripheral-memberresearcher (Adler and Adler 1994, 379).
CHAPTER SIX
MUSIC EDUCATION: A PERSONAL MATTER?
EXAMINING THE CURRENT DISCOURSES
OF MUSIC EDUCATION IN SWEDEN1
EVA GEORGII-HEMMING
AND MARIA WESTVALL
Introduction
There has been a trend in a number of countries over the last 10 years to
develop pedagogical strategies for the classroom informed by musical
learning and engagement in informal contexts, usually beyond the school.
Informal pedagogical strategies have been regarded as a tool for increasing
students motivation for, participation in, and inclusion within music
education in schools. However, experiences from music education in
Sweden, stretching back over a considerable number of years, suggest
caution in making such assumptions.
One objective with an informal pedagogical approach is to emphasise
the individual students personal experiences and his/her freedom to
choose. Although Swedish music teachers general intention is to take
account of the students own music, studies have shown that this
purpose is not fulfilled, since not all students musical lifeworlds are
represented. Swedish students generally enjoy music in schools, but at the
same time they find the subject to be old-fashioned and lacking in range of
genres (Skolverket 2004a, 2004b). Accordingly, not all students feel their
musical preferences are included in music education.
Studies concerning music education in Sweden also reveal that there is
a focus on musical activities, skills and reproduction, rather than on the
development of artistic and creative competencies by means of activities
such as composition and improvisation (Georgii-Hemming 2005; GeorgiiHemming and Westvall 2010).
98
Chapter Six
In addition, recent studies demonstrate that music teaching often lacks

direction (Georgii-Hemming 2005; Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010).
It could be debated whether this is due to a sharp focus on individual
students interests and personal development, supplemented with an
openly formulated curriculum. This raises questions concerning the role of
the teacher in learning processes.
Although educational researchers and national evaluators of education
agree that a variety of students personal experiences should be included in
the school context, questions are raised concerning whether music
education has become too limited in relation to repertoire, content and
teaching methods. For that reason, the main issue in the ongoing debate on
a national level is whether the objectives of participation, inclusion and
democratic values are achieved through the current Swedish approach to
music education (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010).
Music Education in Sweden: A Brief History

Over the past 40 years the music curriculum in Sweden has undergone
major changes. These have been described as a transition from School
Music to Music in School (Stlhammar 1995). This transition
represents a shift from music as being a distinctive school subject towards
a subject with a significant inclusion of students own musical experiences
and preferences from outside of school. The shift does not exclusively
concern music education, as there is an increased emphasis on democratic
values and students participation in the general curriculum.
Music as a school subject achieved its subject status in 1955. Prior to
this the subject was called singing. Singing was dominated by hymns and
aimed at strengthening church singing, morale and national identity
(Sandberg 2006; Stlhammar 1995). In the 1960s, a 9-year compulsory
comprehensive school education was introduced for all children.
Previously, in the 1946 School Commissions report (SOU 1948:27),
which laid the foundations for this reform, the role of education to support
democratic values was emphasised. Advocating a progressive interpretation
of citizenship education, it was said that school had to pay attention to
childrens participation and inclusion. At the same time the School
Commission claimed that democratic teaching should have an objective
and scientific basis. Therefore the primary focus of music education,
according to the first curriculum, was on aesthetic education with the
starting point in Western classical music. The subject focused on sightreading music, singing in harmony and knowledge of Western music
history (Lgr 62; Stlhammar 1995).
Music Education: A Personal Matter?
99
As a result of the emergence of popular music and youth culture during

the 1960s, the curriculum was revised in 1969. The new curriculum took
the first step away from traditional music education and music teachers
were encouraged to use teenage music (Lgr 69; Sandberg 2006). The
repertoire was further widened in the subsequent national curriculum (Lgr
80). This curriculum was designed around three main themes: To play
together, To create music, and Music in society and the world. The latest
curriculum was introduced in 1994 and revised in 2000 (Lpo 94; Kursplan
2000). In this curriculum, the role of music as a means of creating identity
and for personal development is emphasised, and the core of the subject is
defined as the act of playing together.
Since the 1990s, a decentralised education system has been introduced.
This means that teachers can teach in a variety of ways based on centrally
defined criteria. Thus, there can be a great deal of variation in music
education between schools, resulting from differences in resources in
individual schools, individual teachers knowledge, or prioritisations
(Englund 2005; Forsberg 2000).
Music Education in Sweden Today

Content and Design of Lessons
Large group singing and playing in pop and rock bands dominate
Swedish music education, according to both research studies (GeorgiiHemming 2005) and the national evaluation from 2003 (Skolverket 2004a,
2004b, 2005). The musical material is derived from pop and rock genres,
and teachers are striving for as much authenticity as possible in their
teaching. One can never escape the fact that a school is an institution with
some, more or less, defined frameworks and conditions. Despite this, it
appears that music teachers in Sweden are striving to create an experience
of music and playing music which is as close to the musical practice
outside of school as possible.
Usually, the students are relatively free to choose which songs they
wish to play, and with which students to play or form a band. The
process resembles as far as possible the methods of pop and rock bands;
basically listen, test and play. Students have the opportunity to make their
own musical decisions and cooperate with one another, and the music
learning is mainly peer-directed. Singing and playing can be said to be the
content, the method as well as the objective (Lilliestam 1995, 2001;
Georgii-Hemming 2005).
The teaching reflects the aims of the curriculum, which emphasises
practical skills in singing and playing (Kursplan 2000). The importance of
100
Chapter Six
teaching and learning being rooted in the individual students needs and
motivation is reinforced in openly formulated documents that do not
regulate teaching strategies and curriculum content in detail. The idea is
that the teacher should, together with students and according to local
conditions, plan and implement the teaching and learning that goes on in
the classroom. Recent research studies reveal that the implementation of
music education varies greatly between individual schools. Furthermore,
there are few music teachers that use the texts available in different
guidance documents, which are supposed to form the starting point for
teaching. Instead, they design their own curriculum based upon
openness towards students leisure music and the individual competencies
of the teachers (Ericsson 2001; Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010;
Skolverket 2007, 34).

Music Teachers Goals and Ambitions
When music teachers are asked what their teaching should give to the
student, ideas of personal and social development dominate, rather than
musical communication and experience. The teachers want musically
engaged students who extend this interest beyond the scope of an
educational institution and apply it to individual or cultural needs
(Georgii-Hemming 2005, 2006; Skolverket 2004a, 2004b). The function
and use of music is playing, a skilled process with its foundation built
upon practice (Elliott 2005; Varky 2001).
Music as a phenomenon is not a focus, and music is certainly not seen
as an autonomous object. However, the meaning of music is perceived as a
unique source for personal and social development. Therefore every
student must be respected, learn to cooperate, be given opportunities to
find their identity and become a fulfilled human being with selfconfidence. They must also be made aware ofand take responsibility
forwhat he or she learns, and discover their own abilities and the
potential value of aesthetic knowledge. Music is the uniting link between
these ambitions. Music and human experiences belong together; through
positive musical experiences human beings can feel joy and solidarity,
develop self-esteem and discover that different forms of knowledge have a
value (Georgii-Hemming 2005; Skolverket 2007).
101

What is Not Being Prioritised?
It appears that singing and playing mainly pop and rock music
dominates music teaching in Sweden. Western Classical music, jazz, folk
music or music from other cultures is only marginally integrated into the
curriculum. The selection of styles within the pop and rock genres is also
limited.
Popular music today is a large and global musical field that can contain
both old and new music, from traditional bands to music produced through
different types of digital technology. Regardless of whether students or
teachers choose the repertoire, it often involves music that students know
well. Despite the intentions of the curriculum, few teachers actively work
towards teaching in a way that reflects several cultural and musical
fieldsirrespective of whether they work in a school in a larger or smaller
city or in a school with or without ethnic diversity (Kursplan 2000). A new
form of school music based on easy-to-play pop and rock songs seems to
have emerged. This includes both current hits (e.g. Im Yours by Jason
Mraz), traditional songs (e.g. Tom Dooley) and also songs by groups
such as Creedence Clearwater Revival, Kiss and Oasis (Karlsson and
Karlsson 2009).
Even though some music teachers utilise computers in their classes
(e.g. sequencer programmes) and allow students to mix music or work
with DJ equipment, these instances are mainly an exception. Particular
teaching strategies for creating music with the help of digital media are
rare, as are discussions about the role of music in advertisements, films,
dance and movement. Activities where music listening is the focus are
also scarce.
Creative work involving music is emphasised in the compulsory
comprehensive school curriculum (Kursplan 2000). One can of course
argue that playing covers based on existing music is a creative process, but
the artistic aspects of music in terms of creating new music, using sounds
for interpretation, composing or improvising have had little impact on the
teaching (Skolverket 2007; Thavenius 2002). Teachers provide students
with opportunities to create their own music, and the teaching schedules
are flexible enough to allow sufficient time for this. However, few
students actually take advantage of this opportunity and few teachers
apply it. Creating is not a central goal (Georgii-Hemming 2005, 2006).
Repertoire, content and teaching methods are thus relatively limited. The
reasons given by music teachers for why music creation does not occur
include: that groups are too large, a lack of time, space, instruments, and,
102
Chapter Six
chiefly, a lack of computers. Teachers also argue that it is a matter of

prioritisation (Skolverket 2007). These perceived barriers often do not
exist in upper secondary school (for students aged 1619), but studies
suggest that lessons are still similar to those of compulsory comprehensive
schools (for students aged 716). However, the reasons given for why
there is often a lack of inclusion of music from various cultures and music
listening are expressed differently. It seems that the primary goal is for
every student to be offered the opportunity to discover his/her own
musical preferences rather than widening their knowledge about different
forms of music and different ways of engaging with music. Teachers
speak of music lessons as the students breathing space in the everyday
school environment. The central aspect expressed is that students should
be able to experience joy and comfort, that they are shown respect, and
that they will be given opportunities to succeed in their attempts. Positive
experiences in a comfortable environment are therefore seen as more
important than encouraging students to play music from other cultures or
to compose their own music (Georgii-Hemming 2005, 2006).
General Principles behind the Implementation

of Informal Music Pedagogy
Motives for implementing informal pedagogy in schools often stem from a
desire to compensate for limitations in the content or methodology of the
formal curriculum (Jeffs and Smith 1990). Furthermore, informal music
pedagogy may be a way to address some students lack of engagement
with music education in schools.
The idea is that through informal music pedagogy, students will be
empowered to influence and control the content, as well as the pace, of
their own learning. The students choose the music they want to practise
and perform, and it is learnt by listening and aural copying rather than
from notation. This form of education takes place through self-directed
learning, peer-directed learning and group learning, yet with moderate
involvement from the teacher. This is considered to provide the students
with a sense of recognition and a greater ownership of their learning
experiences. The expectation is also that students will gradually become
aware of other music genres outside their own experience. Therefore,
informal education aims to offer students opportunities to try out new
things, take risks and extend their experiences (Green 2008).
So far, these objectives mainly concern what is happening in the
schools. In the general debate concerning informal learning practices,
there are, however, also issues and objectives discussed which go beyond
103
school (Green 2008). This has also been discussed by Wright (2008),
whowith reference to Freire (1972) and Folkestad (2006)argues that
through drawing on informal learning and inclusion in music pedagogy,
students will have the potential to develop their social consciousness. In
line with the principles mentioned above, informal music pedagogy has a
broader range and scope which stretches beyond the classroom. It intends
to provide students with opportunities to participate in their societies as
active citizens, both on a musical and more general level. This is a part of
the students life-long learning processes, including a preparation for
democratic decision-making. It emphasises the importance of recognising
other peoples views and opinions respectfully, and equally of being
treated with respect by others. If informal music pedagogy will in practice
facilitate these aspirations, students have the potential to benefit from
personal, musical as well as social development within the framework of
compulsory music education.
Opportunities and Issues with Individualised

and Informal Music Pedagogy
There are significant issues related to the inclusion of informal
practices in school. Experiences from music education in Sweden today
raise questions regarding the process of learning, the roles and functions of
music and education, as well as the role and function of the teacher in the
students learning processes.
The thoughts and reflections that are currently arising in music
education in Sweden can be described as originating from an ambition to
acknowledge students musical interests and experiences. What are the
musical, pedagogical and democratic consequences of this? Who and what
are included in the reality of this pedagogy? Is this music pedagogical
strategy leading to participation, inclusion and emancipation?
Opinions among music pedagogues and music researchers are many
and varied, but no one argues that schools ought to re-introduce a
curriculum which is entirely teacher-directed or excludes popular culture.
Rather, questions arise concerning whether education has become too
individualised and informal, andif this is the casewhether there may
be a more useful balance between the informal and formal learning
situation; between the everyday and the unfamiliar. Can there be a
teaching context that can include childrens and young peoples lifeworlds
as well as broaden them, without becoming normative? (Boman 2002;
Zackari and Modigh 2000).
104
Chapter Six
Music Education in School and Students Motivation

A highly legitimate motive stated for the use of informal teaching
strategies is to increase students engagement with and motivation for
music education in school (Folkestad 2006; Green 2001, 2008).
The image of Swedish students motivation that has emerged through
the national evaluation and previous research is partly contradictory.
Students enjoy music as a subject and appreciate being able to play music
in groups (Skolverket 2004b). Music curricula have increasingly become
characterised by current music culture, andat least parts ofpopular
music are being integrated into the subject (see above Karlsson and
Karlsson 2009). Despite this, it appears that students experience the
subject as old-fashioned and as lacking breadth of genres (Skolverket
2004a). Variations between different schools are large, but it can equally
be assumed that variations within the subject in a school are small
(Skolverket 2004b).
The Role of the Teacher in Individualised

and Informal (Music) Pedagogy
Connecting with students experiences is a difficult task in a time of a
multitude of norms, values, symbolic codes, and cultural and social
backgrounds. Variations become endless (Giddens 1991). Many argue that
in order to facilitate students personal development as individuals and to
nurture them towards responsible citizenship, which are the main aims of
schools, supervised and individualised pedagogy appears to be the only
solution. Individualisation in terms of individual projects has had a major
impact on schools in general. This demands that teachers possess a wide
range of knowledge in order for the supervision of projects to be adequate.
If there is a lack of knowledge and competence, students risk being left to
their own perceptions and experiences (Madsen 2002).
Madsen (2002) argues that the idea of teachers as supervisors and
students as seekers out of knowledge leads to teachers simply becoming
administrators of students work. Teaching is not simply about the
transmission of information, but also about individuals actively
constructing ideas of the world through interaction between the known and
the unknown. In order to create new knowledge, an active dialogue
between teacher and student, between student and studentbased upon
awareness and understanding is required. Teachers must therefore be able
to comprehend students experiences, understanding, and thinking in order
to be able to deliberately challenge them (Madsen 2002).
105
Sociologist and youth researcher Ove Sernhede (2006) also argues that
the necessary abstraction and reflection processes of knowledge
development are made more complicated if boundaries between school
and everyday life become too blurred. Instead, he states that school must
be allowed to become a designated space for learning, if it is to be a place
where young people feel that their realities are being taken seriously.
School must be an arena for vital discussions concerning life where
students, teachers and experienced adults meet, discuss and challenge
preconceived beliefs, opinions and prejudices. The teachers task is to
make the classroom a platform for democratic discussion and equal
participation and to ensure that everyones voice will be heard, considered
and recognised.
In a recently conducted study of student music teachers perceptions of
their ongoing teacher education (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010),
some criticism of music education in compulsory comprehensive school
emerged. Student teachers who participated in the study had, at the time of
data collection, undertaken placement in schools on six occasions. As a
result of these experiences, student teachers argued that music education in
school lacked progression of knowledge. The perceptions of the student
teachers were that teachers plodded along without awareness of goals
and without considering the curriculum. Instead, what actually happened
during the lessons appeared to be influenced by what the teachers had
always done and by spontaneous conversations with students (GeorgiiHemming and Westvall 2010).
The opinions that music lessons were characterised by temporary
solutions and improvised discussions, influenced by makeshift trends and
a kind of what shall we do today? methodology, have been confirmed in
the results from the national evaluation. The evaluation stated that
teaching tended to be short-term in character, as well as unplanned and
populist (Skolverket 2004b).
As discussed earlier, the curriculum for music education is open as
well as non-linear in character. Goals related to social and personal
development are emphasised ahead of musical knowledge. This makes
local variations possible, which is also one of the aims with the
decentralised education system. This chapter does not allow sufficient
space to discuss the political and ideological reasons behind this
development. However, it is impossible to completely ignore the fact that
the character of music is situated and that every educational situation is
unique. The scope for local influence and variation can be viewed as
positive in a school where the music subject has strong traditions, is a part
of the local identity, and is an appreciated and integrated part of a wider
106
Chapter Six
context (Ericsson 2002). The fact that teachers and students can select
working methods and educational content according to their own situation
can increase general satisfaction.
A counter-argument to the above is that development of musical
knowledge and skills demands repetition, continuity and practice aligned
with deliberately well-structured material that gradually increases in
complexity. An open and non-linear curriculum also results in difficulties
with grading and issues with creating a nationally comparable education,
which complicates student mobility. A student who wants or has to change
school should be able to recognise teaching methods and content, as well
as have the relevant knowledge required to participate in the activities
(Skolverket 2007).
Participation and Inclusion

Teaching methods, activities and educational strategies that belong to
ideas of informal learning are not only aimed at connecting with students
experiences in everyday life. Participation and inclusionin and beyond
schoolare important goals of informal learning (Green 2008; Wright
2008).
Previous cultural hierarchies between high and low have, if not
entirely dissolved, at least adopted a different shape (Sernhede 2006).
Many music teachers in Sweden are connecting with students music
preferences, leisure-related knowledge and interests (Bergman 2009;
Stlhammar 2006). The problem is that this mainly appears to benefit
those students who play instruments during leisure-time (Skolverket
2004a, 2004b). The national evaluation has not investigated the instruments,
genres or experiential contexts to which this applies. However,
experiences from pop and rock bands were partly useful in school,
whereas skills in creating music with the aid of computers or mixing
music were not at all reflected in the grading. The national evaluation also
stressed that the majority of those who missed computers for musicmaking were boys from an ethnic background (Skolverket 2004b).
Thus, the ambition to connect with students is not inclusive of all
groups of students (Stlhammar 2006). These issues have ethnic as well as
socio-economic dimensions (Lundberg et al. 2003).
This problematic situation has been confirmed, complicated and
amplified in a recent thesis within musicology (Bergman 2009). In this
ethnographic study, a group of youths were studied both in school and
during leisure time from 2002 to 2005, as they attended the Swedish
school years 79 (aged approximately 1315). During this period music
107
lessons occurred in uniform gender groups and were based on students

forming bands and rehearsing songs. Experiences from informal contexts,
e.g. playing in bands, were thus nurtured. However, it is problematic that
these experiences were valued considerably higher than skill in playing an
instrument which did not belong to a traditional rock band setup, e.g.
saxophone or violin.
The music teacher in the study aimed for working in accordance with
informal strategies, and to connect with student interests. This strategy led
to vaguely structured lessons designed by questions along the lines of
who wants. . .? or what do you want. . .? The result was that dominant
students controlled content and design, and they also had the courage to
try out different instruments. Quiet students, on the other hand, remained
quiet, and furthermore those who did not have experience in playing an
instrument did not dare to try. Differences and problems also increased as
the years went on.
In addition to ethnic, socio-economic and social issues, the study also
highlights gender-related problems. According to Bergman (2009), boys
who did not play electric guitar, bass or drums lost interest and started
skipping classes during the last year. The uniform gender groups led to the
girls developing a traditionally feminine position during the classes.
Although they had a go get it kind of attitude in other mixed gender
groups in school, they appeared insecure and with low self-esteem during
the music lessons.
A critical reflection of whom and what is included in music education
should contain topics that encompass students with a personal interest in
music, as well as those lacking such interest. It is not necessarily a positive
thing that students with a personal engagement in music have their
experiences included in the lessons. Music can represent and give rise to
identities (Bennett 2000; Frith 2002), as well as be a way to explore and
visualise life experiences (Ruud 1996). Music has a strong connection
with independence and personal integrity (Ericsson 2002; Stlhammar
2006). For those young people to whom certain music is an important and
active part of these processes, a teaching strategy connecting closely to
students can turn students private projects into school projects. What was
previously private, and perhaps also secluded, could instead become
valued as a public qualification (Skolverket 2004b).
108
Chapter Six
Future Music Education: Emancipation

and Multiculturalism
So far, this chapter has highlighted the conception that informal and
individualised strategies do not necessarily result in motivation,
participation and inclusion. There have been music education issues
closely related to the knowledge development and content of the subject,
and misgivings about progression, as well as concern that the areas of
music creativity, composition and music listening are not highly
prioritised in music education in Sweden.
We have also stressed the fact that decentralisation and an increase in
individualisation have resulted in large differences between schools. As a
result of a sharp focus on individual students interests and an openly
formulated curriculumas well as where (music) education is situated,
i.e. the context and traditions of the individual school combined with the
participants experiencesit is possible to speak of music education in
Sweden in terms of local cultures.
Sernhede (2006) draws a parallel between this development trend and a
general increase in ideas of distinctiveness, as well as what is sometimes
referred to as tribalisation (Maffesoli 1988), which can lead to problems
like marginalisation and class segregation. Sernhede argues that it is
unfortunate if schools are contributing to a strengthening of these
segregating tendencies.
Furthermore, this relates to considerations of the democratic task of
schools to develop tolerance and understanding between geographic,
ethnic, social and musical cultures; to facilitate meetings between people
of different generations, genders, and between those who have different
interests. Young people in todays society neither adopt nor grow without
reflection into their parents life choices, cultures or a particular traditional
canon. Meaning and goals must be created and reconstructed by the
individual (Sernhede 2006). If schools succeed in their democratic task
they will not only develop responsible, aware and unprejudiced citizens;
students will also be able to find alternative and multiple identities,
lifeworlds and choicesreferred to as emancipation in critical pedagogy
(cf. Freire 1972; Wright 2008).
The problems associated with an individually or locally rooted music
education are connected with the relationship between local, global and
media functions in these processes. Media is an important inspiration in
young peoples identity construction. Media teaches people what values
are considered to be important, and what lifestyles are possible and
desirable. It is sometimes said that young people live in a global music
109
culture, where through media they both encounter and can conquer
different genres and cultures (Skolverket 2004b).
Even though we cannot, in this context, further examine this complex
issue, it is necessary to stress that cultural multitude and the role models it
produces has actually decreased through globalisation (Bauman 2000,
2001; Giddens 1990, 1991; Lundberg et al. 2003; Smiers 2003). It is
therefore necessary for schools and teacher education to develop a
professional awareness concerning issues related to the role that media
plays in young peoples lives. Undoubtedly, music education needs to
address and include popular culture, but it should also contain a critical
and sound discussion concerning popular culture and media. In that way,
music learning has the potential to contribute to a thriving community and
will encourage solidarity, acceptance and awareness within the framework
of compulsory music education (Georgii-Hemming and Westvall 2010).
School is undoubtedly a part of society, as is popular culture.
Consequently, schools need to strive towards an understanding of this
culture. Students also need to be able to have their own experiences of
musicphysically, intellectually and emotionallyand be given
opportunities to understand cultural processes and structures in society, as
well as in educational settings (Ruud 1997). Thus, a central issue is what
functions and roles music education, as part of compulsory school, will
and can have in the future.
It may no longer be productive to strive for schools to become more
informal, and further parallel students everyday lives (Sernhede 2006).
Personal development and construction of meaning both occur through
encounters between the known and the unknown (Gadamer 1997; Ziehe
1993). Sernhede argues that young people lack confidence in the current
school system. Not because of too much alienation, but because schools
let them do whatever they want (Sernhede 2006, 15). Instead of
deliberately structured and formalised learning, large parts of music
education are currently characterised by informal pedagogical strategies.
The original development that influenced current Swedish education had
democratic ambitions, but Sernhede (2006) argues that the resulting
practices today do not lead to liberation and emancipation. In order to
contribute to young peoples identity processes and to provide
opportunities to construct coherence and meaning, schools need to
represent a meeting place where questions can be asked from different
perspectives.
110
Chapter Six
Conclusion
Music is a personal matter, in the sense that music is created, perceived
and experienced by individual humans. In schools, there are students with
many and variousas well as few and limitedmusical experiences.
Students may have stronger or weaker personal relationships with music,
in many different ways. Professional music educators can and must
respect, understand and relate to this. Teachers have an ethical, moral and
democratic responsibility to help students to construct meaning and
develop their social and cultural foundations so that they will be prepared
to meet, understand and collaborate with other people from a multitude of
cultures in the broadest sense. If the responsibility for music education
content and activities is left completely to the students, we risk failing not
only these students, but also music itself and the meaning that music can
have for people.
Informal pedagogy can be a way ahead for music education.
However, informal learning in schools is a part of formal education and
must therefore be supplemented and supported by formal learning.
Schools are, and should be, an active arena for democratic processes in the
broadest sense. It is an important challenge for music educators to reach
out and include students in active musicianship within the framework of
compulsory music education. The functions and uses of music should no
longer mean simply a socialisation into a dominant cultureeither lofty or
everydaybut should instead contain a dialogue, and an exchange
organised, initiated and guided by the teacher. This dialogue between
different experiences should be respectful, critical, playful, musical and
educational; musical creativity in different forms could contribute to the
development of individuals as well as the development of society. Music
education could be an exciting encounter between the familiar and the
unfamiliar, between the individual and the collective, and an opportunity
for the local and the global to meet. Music education is both a personal as
well as a collective matter.
References
Bauman, Z. 2000. Globalization. The Human Consequences. New York:
Columbia University Press.
. 2001. The Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bennett, A. 2000. Popular Music and Youth Culture: Music, Identity, and
Place. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
111
Bergman, . 2009. Vxa upp med musik: ungdomars musikanvndande i

skolan och p fritiden [Growing Up with Music. Young Peoples Use
of Music in School and During Leisure Time]. PhD diss., University of
Gothenburg.
Boman, Y. 2002. Utbildningspolitik i det andra moderna. Om skolans
normativa villkor [Educational Policy in Second Modernity. On the
Normative Conditions of Education]. PhD diss., University of rebro.
Elliott, D., ed. 2005. Praxial Music Education: Reflections and Dialogues.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Englund, T. 2005. Lroplanens och skolkunskapens politiska dimension
[Curriculum as a Political Problem]. Gteborg: Daidalos.
Ericsson, C. 2001. Skolans musikverksamhet som offentligt rum: en
diskussion av Thomas Ziehes begrepp i ljuset av en empirisk studie
[The Schools Music Activities as Public Space: a Discussion of
Thomas Ziehes Concepts in the Light of an Empirical Study] Nordisk
musikkpedagogisk forskning 5: 6373.
. 2002. Frn guidad visning till shopping och frstrdd tillgnelse:
moderniserade villkor fr ungdomars musikaliska lrande [From
Guided Exhibition to Shopping and Preoccupied Assimilation:
Modernised Conditions for Adolescents Musical Learning]. PhD diss.,
Lund University.
vs Formal and Informal Ways of Learning. British Journal of Music
Education 23: 13545.
Forsberg, E. 2000. Elevinflytandets mnga ansikten [The Many Faces of
School Student Impact]. PhD diss., Uppsala University.
Freire, P. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Frith, S. 2002 [1996]. Performing Rites. On the Value of Popular Music.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Gadamer, H.-G. 1997 [1960]. Sanning och metod. I urval. [Wahrheit und
Methode. Grundzgeeiner philosophischen Hermeneutik.]. Gteborg:
Daidalos.
Georgii-Hemming, E. 2005. Berttelsen under deras ftter: fem
musiklrares livshistorier. [The Story Beneath Their Feet. Five Music
Teachers Life Histories]. PhD diss., rebro University.
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-109.
. 2006. Personal Experiences and Professional Strategies. Music
Education Research 8: 21736.
Georgii-Hemming, E., and M. Westvall. 2010. Teaching Music in Our
Time. A Study of Student Teachers Reflections on Participation,
112
Chapter Six
Inclusion and the Right to Musical Development in their School-Based

Music Teacher Education. Music Education Research 12 (4): 35367.
Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity in
association with Blackwell.
. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern
Age. Cambridge: Polity.
Green, L. 2001. How Popular Musicians Learn. A Way Ahead for Music
Education. Aldershot: Ashgate
Jeffs T., and M. Smith, eds. 1990. Using Informal Education: An
Alternative to Casework, Teaching and Control? Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Karlsson C., and S. Karlsson. 2009. Lagom svra och hyfsat moderna. En
underskning av spelrepertoaren i skolar 79 [Not Too Difficult and
Quite Modern. A Study of Repertoire in Compulsory Music Education
Amongst 13 to 15 Year-Old Pupils]. Bachelor thesis in Music
Education, rebro University.
Kursplan 2000. Kursplan och betygskriterier i musik fr grundskolan
[Syllabus and Assessment Criteria in Music for Compulsory School].
Stockholm: Skolverket. http://www3.skolverket.se/ki03/front.aspx?
Lgr 62. Lroplan fr grundskolan 1962. Allmn del [Core Curriculum for
Compulsory School 1962]. Skolverstyrelsens skriftserie 60.
Stockholm: SO frlaget.
Compulsory School 1969]. Stockholm: Liber Utbildningsfrlaget.
Compulsory School 1980]. Stockholm: Liber Utbildningsfrlaget.
Lilliestam, L. 1995. Gehrsmusik. Blues, rock och muntlig tradering
[Playing by Ear: Blues, Rock and Oral Tradition]. Gteborg:
Akademifrlaget.
. 2001. En ddsmetall-hardcore-hrdrocksgrej, det r jttesvrt att
frklara. Gteborgska gymnasister tnker och talar om musik. [A
Deathmetal-Hardcore-Hardrock-Thing, it is Really Difficult to
Explain. Upper Secondary School Students from Gothenburg Reflect
on and Talk about Music]. Gothenburg: Institutionen fr
musikvetenskap, Gothenburg University.
Lpo 94. Lroplan fr det obligatoriska skolvsendet 1994 [Curriculum for
Compulsory School 1994]. Skolverket. Stockholm: Fritzes.
113
Lundberg, D., K. Malm, and O. Ronstrm. 2003. Music, Media,

Multiculture: Changing Music Landscapes. Stockholm: Svenskt
visarkiv. http://www.visarkiv.se/mmm/
Madsen, T. 2002. terupprtta lraren! [Reestablish the Teacher!]
Pedagogiska Magasinet 3: 5459.
Maffesoli, M. 1988. Jeux De Masques. Postmodern Tribalism. Design
Issues IV (1 & 2, Special Issues): 14151.
Ruud, E. 1996. Musikk og verdier. Musikkpedagogiske essays [Music and
Values. Music Educational Essays]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
. 1997. Musikk og identitet [Music and identity]. Oslo:
Sandberg, R. 2006. Skolan som kulturell mtesplats [School as Cultural
Meeting Place]. In Uttryck, intryck, avtryck. Lrande, estetiska
uttrycksformer och forskning [Expressions, Impressions, Imprints.
Learning, Aesthetic Expression and Research], ed. U. P. Lundgren,
3565. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrdet.
http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/Rapport%204.2006.pdf
Sernhede O. 2006. Skolan och populrkulturen [School and Popular
Culture]. In Uttryck, intryck, avtryck: Lrande, estetiska
uttrycksformer och forskning [Expressions, Impressions, Imprints.
Learning, Aesthetic Expression and Research], ed. U. P. Lundgren,
1119. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrdet.
http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/Rapport%204.2006.pdf
Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education]. 2004a. National
Evaluation of the Compulsory School in 2003. A Summary Main
Report. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1404
. 2004b. Nationell utvrdering av grundskolan 2003. Bild, hem- och
konsumentkunskap, idrott och hlsa, musik och sljd [National
Evaluation of the Compulsory School in 2003. Subject Report].
http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1385
. 2005. Grundskolans mnen i ljuset av Nationella utvrderingen 2003
[Subjects in Compulsory School in the Light of the National
Evaluation]. http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1497
. 2007. Musik En samtalsguide om kunskap, arbetsstt och bedmning
[Musica Guide for Conversations about Knowledge, Ways of
Working and Assessment].
http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=1889.
Smiers, J. 2003. Arts under Pressure: Promoting Cultural Diversity in the
Age of Globalization. London: Zed Books.
SOU 1948:27. 1946 rs skolkommisions betnkande med frslag till
riktlinjer fr det svenska skolvsendets utveckling [The 1946 School
114
Chapter Six
Commissions Suggestions for Guidelines Regarding the Development

of the Swedish School System].
Stlhammar, B. 1995. Samspel. Grundskola musikskola i samverkan: en
studie av den pedagogiska och musikaliska interaktionen i en
klassrumssituation. [Interplay. School and Music School in
Collaboration: A Study of Pedagogic and Musical Interaction in a
Classroom Situation]. PhD diss., Gothenburg University.
. 2006. Musical Identities and Music Education. Aachen: Shaker.
Thavenius, J. 2002. Den goda kulturen och det fria skapandet: diskurser
om kultur i skolan [The Good Culture and the Free Creation:
Discourses on Culture in School]. Malm: Malm Hgskola,
Lrarutbildningen.
http://www.lut.mah.se/publikationer/utbrapp1302.pdf
Varky, . 2001. Musikk for alt (og alle): Om musikksyn i norsk
grunnskole [Music for Everything (and Everyone): On the View of
Music in Norwegian Compulsory School]. PhD diss., University of
Oslo.
Wright, R. 2008. Thinking Globally, Acting Locally: Informal Learning
and Social Justice in Music Education. Music Education as Liberatory
Education. Paper presented at the International Society of Music
Education, World Conference, Bologna, July 2008.
Zackari, G., and F. Modigh. 2000. Vrdegrundsboken. Om samtal fr
demokrati i skolan [The Book of Values. On Conversations for
Democracy in School]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet,
Regeringskansliet. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/22393.
Ziehe, T. 1993. Kulturanalyser. Ungdom, utbildning, modernitet [Cultural
Analyses. Youth, Education, Modernity]. Stockholm/Stehag:
Symposion.
Notes
1
Previously published in 2010 as Music Educationa Personal Matter?

Examining the Current Discourses of Music Education in Sweden in British
Journal of Music Education 27 (1): 2133. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher Cambridge University Press.
PART III
CHAPTER SEVEN
INFORMAL LEARNING IN MUSIC:
EMERGING ROLES OF TEACHERS
AND STUDENTS1
CARLOS XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
It was a pleasure to read Lucy Greens new book Music, Informal

Learning and the School (2008), in which she consolidates many ideas
presented in her previous writings. While there is little doubt of the
timeliness and significance of her approach, the epistemological and
pedagogical issues it raises should be addressed to better understand how
we might provide more relevant, engaging public school music instruction.
When we question how well we have designed music curricula, and how
well we have prepared our teachers to implement them (Williams 2007),
we must take into account the nature and organization of music learning as
it occurs beyond the classroom, and for this perspective we are deeply
indebted to Green. Her ideas resonate with the growing support for more
creative thinking in the classroom. If we construe creativity as a three-part
process of considering expected outcomes, rejecting them, then exploring
alternatives (Ackoff and Greenberg 2008), informal learning shows great
promise for revitalizing the creative aspects of music education. However,
we are yet in the infancy stage of our inquiry, with so many new questions
arising from the emergent literature. Therefore, in this chapter I present
several problems with informal learning that I have encountered in my
own fieldworkspecifically, the new roles for teachers in informal
learning, and providing informal learning experiences to students who
have substantive skill as formal musicians. These problems are discussed
in the context of my experiences with pre-service music educators at the
university, and with a rock band at a local urban high school.
118
Chapter Seven
Informal Learning and Musicality

I cannot proceed without first addressing the issue of musicality. How
one conceptualizes musicality shapes everything else one does in the
profession (Rodriguez 2004). I find increasing acceptance of this term in
my discussions with peer researchers and educators because it
encompasses a broad range of traditional and emergent skills and
sensitivities, even while there seems to be some flexibility in its use by
these groups (Jaffurs 2004). What it means when we call someone
musical is rarely the sum of the relatively few factors we can measure
accurately, therefore present in the school curriculum. For example, music
literacy, in the traditional sense, refers to ones ability to see symbols and
convert them into sounds, and to hear sounds and convert them into
symbols. However, we expect quite a bit more from the musically literate
than these decoding/encoding notational skills, such as extended
vocabularies for describing music, stylistic sensitivity across historically
and ethnically diverse musical cultures, the ability and willingness to
articulate musical preferences, understanding of the multidisciplinary
nature of music, a knack for playing instruments and/or singing, some
creative facility, and a well-developed conception of the place that music
holds in ones life. In the end, music literacy is probably something more
than what we typically teach to, and musicality is surely quite a bit more
as well.
If I may propose my own conception of musicality: it is ones
demonstration of explicit and implicit skills and understandings to
communicate musical ideas. I believe Greens proposal of a critical
musicality is consistent with my conception, in that students develop
conscious awareness of their ability to express something of themselves
through music. It is a process of extending their personalities through the
musiccomposing and performing in such a way that it identifies the
music as uniquely theirs. This process of individualization is not a typical
goal of traditional music instruction, so I believe we must look beyond our
current teaching practices to more fully develop musicality in students. It
has been suggested that there are clear intersections in formal and informal
musical learning (Jaffurs 2006), thus we might do well to explore these
intersections as means of helping students more fully develop their
musicality.
Informal Learning in Music: Emerging Roles of Teachers and Students 119
Teaching for Informal Learning

The more familiar I become with informal learning, the more I
recognize its formal qualities. The most basic learning process of listening
to and copying recordings becomes more efficient with experience as
musicians gradually acquire skill in predicting and remembering changes,
audiating through chord progressions without having to play them, and so
forth. These thinking skills culminate in the ability to hear the music once
and be able to play it, which in turn strengthens the transfer and linkage
between mental rehearsal and physical execution. These attainments
suggest that there is a system of rules and connections that cumulatively
produce sharpened perception, expanded musical memory, and improved
dexterity. However, the process is not a pre-ordinate series of steps that is
understood separately from the music itself, nor deliberately taught by
someone who has already mastered themthus, perhaps, its nature as
informal. It is common of musicians playing by ear, taking its shape from
the collective musical materials from which it arises. Informal learning is
thus aligned with critical pedagogy in so far as musical attainments are
stimulated and mediated by the music itself. This is a hallmark of critical
pedagogyallowing concepts and skills to emerge from engagement in
the materials themselves (Abrahams 2005).
However, because informal learning is not algorithmic does not mean
that it is not structured. While use of the term formal implies that the
learning contains hierarchically organized levels of mastery, and is
controlled by more experienced participants, these two features may be
present in informal learning as well. In formal instructional settings, a preordinate series of instructional steps allows teachers to control learning
and efficiently identify problems in the process. In informal learning, the
teacher relinquishes this control and enters into a more flexible and
dynamic relationship with the learner, yet a plan for instruction must still
be negotiated between teachers and students. The activities of copying
recordings, improvising, composing, and performing on an instrument (or
singing) each invoke steps, even if they happen to be material-, context-,
and learner-specific, and even if they are mostly hidden. Experienced
teachers naturally desire to bring these steps to the fore. From their
standpoint, what does it mean to understand informal learning in music? I
believe it means they are cognizant of its sequence of competencies, and
are able to re-organize or re-frame these competencies to promote
learning. This is what we otherwise train teachers to do, and what we
expect them to believe they can do. To repeat a question one of my pre-
120
Chapter Seven
service music education students asked, why bring informal learning into a
classroom if you do not want a teacher to direct the process?
To use a familiar example in childrens musical development, we do
not really teach children how to learn songs, but we can document what
naturally occurs in learning songs by first systematically observing, then
describing, then formulating stages in song acquisition (Davidson,
McKemon and Gardner 1981; Welch, Sargent and White 1998). We then
use these findings to formulate an instructional sequence that teachers use
to teach songs to children. This is the functional relationship between
research and practice, which permits music educators to believe that they
can control and maximize learningtwo responsibilities that characterize
the American educational system.
However, teachers must make a substantial shift in informal learning,
such that they must become experts in helping students make things
happen for themselves. Even if this scenario of music teachers and
students interacting as co-teachers and co-learners is the hallmark of
critical pedagogy (Abrahams 2005), it does drastically redefine what it
means to prepare music teachers. When my students are introduced to the
concept of informal learning through a series of readings, asked to identify
possible points of interaction with formal learning, and then required to
present a sample lesson in class, approximately half of them do so with
extreme awkwardness, and some even with hostility. These students feel
very threatened by the idea that their own education, which has shaped
their high musical standards and made them who they are, has somehow
been devalued. In my experience, this is a common reaction for in-service
teachers as well, even if they do acknowledge the importance of meeting
their students ever-changing needs for musical knowledge and skills.
Frustration arises when teachers are not able to accommodate something
presumptively a best practice into their existing teaching schemas.
Informal Learning with Formally-Trained Students

Recently, I have experienced joys and concerns observing and assisting
a rock band at a local high school. They have curricular music, meaning
that one entire period per day is devoted to practicing to provide
accompaniment for the pop vocal ensemble that meets at the same time in
a different rehearsal room. The line-up is guitar, bass, keyboard, and
drums, and the players are male. We have been working on four new
songs. My comments here describe the students trying to learn precomposed music rather than composing their own.
Each member has been playing violin, cello, or double bass since
junior high school, making this group different than others I have observed
in an informal learning context. This formal study has been accompanied
by their interest in popular music, and while they have each been
developing skills in playing by ear on electric guitar, bass, keyboard, and
drums, this is the first time any of them has played in a group. I began by
asking the music teacher to provide me with CD recordings and scores for
each piece. I passed along the recordings to the band members early one
week, and then met with them several days later to check on their
progress. I was quite surprised to find that they had not even listened to the
recordings, but had used the scores to block out their parts. As the bass
player, Josh, described it when I questioned him: Its so much easier to
get the basic part down . . . you know, we just look at the music . . . you
can check the key . . . or find out where any changes are . . . then try to
remember them as you play. As for the chord progression, Josh was not
interested in working on the fingering until he heard the recording, since
. . . the recording tells you how it sounds . . . its not the same as the
music[al score] . . . So then, what was the score for? Its just a way to
find out how many verses . . . and to look at the cues . . . Upon further
investigation I determined that each player had gone through roughly this
same process. In fact, they did it together. We discussed as a group if they
could obtain the same information by simply listening to the recording.
The guitarist, David, replied: Its just too slow . . . you end up listening
so many times, and then the song gets really . . . boring.
I watched and listened as the band members copied the CD recordings
over several rehearsal sessions. The drummer, Austen, appeared to have
the least experience on his new instrument, and took the most time
learning his part. He was not able to develop a sense of how the music
went by looking at the scorein his defense, it contained less information
for drums than for the pitched instrumentsand began listening to the CD
recordings before the other members. He expressed resentment over the
score-reading stage, but tolerated it since it was something everyone else
in the group was doing. I sensed that he complied because he didnt want
to fall behind in the learning of the music, and because, for the reason
band members are often compelled to act (Inglis 2006), it reinforced his
identification with the band.
The protocol described here is quite different from that used by
informal learners who do not have developed notational skills. These band
members use notation to learn music quickly and efficiently, and are
advantaged by very sharp musical ears, no doubt the result of intensive
music involvement. Further, their enjoyment of the music, obviously
122
Chapter Seven
regulated by their familiarity with it (Sluckin, Hargreaves and Colman

1982), is short-lived. Allowed to choose their own path, they attempt to
learn the music at a macro-level as quickly as possible, and attend to the
various micro-levels later. This trend is the reverse of how Lucy Green
and others have observed self-regulated novices approach similar musical
tasks, and on this point, Green invokes the developmental theory of
Swanwick and Tillman (1986), who support her contention that novice
learners are initially primarily immersed in the immediate sonic qualities
of musical materials (71, footnote).
If the sophistication of ones notational skills mediates ones initial
selection of surface or structural aspects to learn music, then informal
learning environments are perhaps even more diverse with respect to peer
learning and cooperation than it is tempting to assume. We should be
prepared for informal learning opportunities to attract former and current
band, choir, or orchestra students looking for more creative and flexible
music making, as well as students who do not participate in performance
ensembles or take private lessons because they dislike the repertory that
accompanies these traditions. How might these groups interact,
particularly if the pace, style, and organization of learning are determined
by students?
The keyboardist, Julian, is the most accomplished musician in the
group, but he is highly introverted, and I question whether he even enjoys
playing the raucous pop classics the group was assigned. Considering his
behavior, he is a textbook case of an introvert with a lower threshold of
arousal, compared to the remaining members, who are all extroverts
(Kemp 1996). They admire his more advanced musical skills, but also his
freedom and courage to be highly individual in dress, hairstyle, and
mannerisms. He certainly does not desire this leadership role.
The song Do You Want to Dance? begins with narration as the
group, minus drums, plays chords in rhythmic unison. Because they were
not together with their timing, I asked Julian to nod his head as he played
the chords on the keyboard, for David and Josh to follow. He did so, but
with little assertiveness, and it did not bring them together. I demonstrated.
He tried again and it really got no better. He was very frustrated since it
seemed like it should be an easy task. Julian and I practiced jumping
forward from a standing position, in order to feel the anacrusis of the
downbeat. He then tried to transfer this feeling to the head up motion.
The head nodding seemed to work a bit better, but I think he felt selfconscious over the amount of effort it expended. I am continually
surprised by how poorly I can predict what tasks will be easy or difficult
for us as a working group.
I try to divide my efforts between helping where and how I think they
need help, and listening to how they would like me to help them. Josh and
David are the best at articulating how they want me to help them. Josh
plays me licks he has worked out as embellishments, ostensibly to obtain
approval to use them, but I suspect he really just enjoys playing and
having me listen. David has very good chops on the guitar, but lacks
confidence, so he wants me to create solos for him to imitate. Austen, a bit
younger than the rest, continually talks and is not really sure how I might
best assist him or the group. Working with all of them at once is
exhausting. The foregoing observations demonstrate that my interactions
with the group can be unsettling if, despite our best efforts to communicate
with each other, my mentoring efforts do not coincide with their
mentoring needs.
Preferences and Technique

Differences in personal taste create obstacles that we must navigate
through. One of the songs features a highly syncopated bass line pattern,
in the style of electric funk. In the first run-through, Austen was not
playing the kick drum in time with the bass, but was instead kicking on the
downbeat, which is a quite natural way for novice drummers to play. The
result was a muddy bottom to the sound, with the kick drum and the bass
guitar just a sixteenth note apart. I asked Austen to try aligning his right
foot with the bass guitar part. He asked why, and I replied that it created a
cleaner-sounding bottom and also resolved some tempo problems, i.e., his
tendency to drag. He replied that he didnt know what I meant about the
cleaner-sounding bottom and didnt think he was slowing down while
playing. I was tempted to suggest using a click track or strobe to prevail
my point, but understood that this was not the best direction to go. To my
relief, Josh suggested a click track, which solved the tempo problem but
not the muddiness. This episode brought back a memory from several
years ago of my daughter playing Zwans Mary Star of the Sea, whose
opening song featured a drumming part that I found ludicrous. Using
frenetic cymbal and drum combinations in a grandiose style I might have
expected in the final few bars, the drummer played in this way relentlessly
through the entire song. My daughter commented that the drums were her
favorite aspect, because he played with so much passion. I understood that
what I had experienced then, and what I was experiencing now, was a
difference in what we considered good. I was thus happy to have amended
the tempo problem, and let Austen play his drums in the manner he
thought best.
124
Chapter Seven
To what degree is it beneficial for teachers to attempt to influence the

students personal musical preferences? Perhaps to the degree that they are
willing to have their own preferences changed. This perspective is
challenging for teachers who believe they are competent by virtue of
possessing highly evolved standards for musical thinking and behavior.
For now, I am content to let my standards float about the rehearsal space,
sneaking them into student-initiated discussions as needed. For example,
David could not find out how to get a 1960s rock and roll sound out of
his chording and strumming, primarily because he was playing barred
chords in such a way that he was dampening the highest strings,
strumming only the inner four strings of the guitar using a mix of neck and
bridge pickups, and filtering his signal through an impressively complex
maze of compressors, distortion boxes, and master volumes. The resulting
sound was characteristic of a style that developed in the 1990sa very
mid-rangy, sustained sound. Together we worked to achieve what guitarist
Todd Rundgren called that kind of dry, upfront, unembellished sound
from the pre-pedal days [to] get the effect of being plugged directly into
the amp (Gress 2008, 122). In this case, David was less concerned that I
preferred the new sound for the song style, and more interested in the
various technical adjustments needed to produce exactly the sound we
were searching for.
As a corollary to the previous point, an essential component of an
electric musicians craft is tone. I have always worked on my tone as hard
as I have worked on my right and left hand technique. So when I, in effect,
deconstruct someone elses tone, I consider it a highly personal matter.
Davids current set-up represents his progress in searching for his sound.
Josh appears even more conscious of his choices, typically bringing three
basses to practice. Julian has an electronic keyboard that has sampling
capabilities, and I hear him exploring its endless possibilities between
songs, but he prefers one basic electric piano sound, as if to proclaim that
he does not want to orchestrate the music with instruments the group
doesnt actually have. Austen is quite impressionable and is searching for
his own voice on the drums. He is sensitive about his abilities and
claims he needs to practice outside of band rehearsal. He currently does
not have a favorite drummer. We are collectively quite keen on helping
him find one.
Final Reflection
My experiences with pre-service music educators and high school
students generate questions about my future role as an advocate for
informal learning. As the primary source of my information and

inspiration, Lucy Green makes informal learning seem attractive, timely,
and meaningful to our larger aims as music educators. While I am mostly
encouraged by the reactions of my students to informal learning
experiences, they give rise to the instructional problems I have addressed
in this chapter. I find that students engaged in informal learning focus
much of their attention on testing and evaluating ways to communicate
musical ideas, and while I believe this practice is essential to musicality, it
represents a dramatic departure from the purposes and processes of formal
music education, so much so that I find myself struggling with the
intricacies of moment-to-moment interactions, while I question my role in
the formation and appreciation of student preferences. I understand how
critical it is to provide the right type of guidance at the right time so as not
to constrain their progress. I believe teachers need more concise
recommendations on how to provide freedom and direction while
remaining compassionate and resourceful leaders, even as longstanding
rules for teaching are replaced with newer, mostly untested ones.
My exchanges with high school musicians who have strong formal
music backgrounds suggests that informal learning pedagogy requires
more flexibility and intensiveness than I had previously imagined. While
informal learning environments may provide more accessible and varied
musical experiences than traditional music ensembles, students with
significant prior notational and practicing abilities tend to bring those
skills with them, reducing the informality of the environment. However,
because creative decision-making is not a significant part of formal music
education, formally-trained students display a heavy reliance on
guidelines. They are conditioned to being told what to do, and adopting
someone elses ideas of how the music should go, such that they are often
not adequately prepared for the individual freedoms informal learning
provides. When they are confronted with problems to solve, they often
resort to strategies acquired from formal music training, since this is what
they know. In this sense, my formally-trained students and I share a
similar challengeto develop new ways to address new problems. One
area for future research would be to study the give-and-take of informal
and formal learning systems to determine how they can be mutually
supportive. To be sure, if we empower students and teachers with greater
decision-making power in the content and procedures of learning, we must
better prepare them for this challenge and responsibility, suggesting
educational changes that reach far beyond music.
126
Chapter Seven
References
Abrahams, F. 2005. The Application of Critical Pedagogy to Music
Teaching and Learning. Visions of Research in Music Education 6.
http://users.rider.edu/~vrme/special_edition/vision/Abrahams_2005.pdf
Ackoff, R. L., and D. Greenberg. 2008. Turning Learning Right Side Up:
Putting Education Back on Track. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education.
Davidson, L., P. McKemon, and H. Gardner. 1981. The Acquisition of
Song: A Developmental Approach. In Documentary Report of the
Ann Arbor Symposium. Reston: Music Educators National Conference.
Green, L. 2008. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New
Classroom Pedagogy. Burlington: Ashgate.
Gress, J. 2008. Todd Rundgren Returns to the Arena [interview]. Guitar
Player 42 (10): 11691.
Inglis, I. 2006. The Politics of Nomenclature. Journal of Popular Music
Studies 18 (1): 317.
Jaffurs, S. E. 2004. Developing Musicality: Formal and Informal
Learning Practices. Action, Theory, and Criticism for Music
Education 3 (3). http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Jaffurs3_3.pdf
. 2006. The Intersection of Formal and Informal Learning Practices.
International Journal of Community Music Volume D.
Kemp, A. E. 1996. The Musical Temperament: Psychology and
Personality of Musicians. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rodriguez, C. X. 2004. Popular Music in Music Education: Toward a
New Conception of Musicality. In Bridging the Gap: Popular Music
and Music Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 1327. Reston: MENC.
Sluckin, W., D. J. Hargreaves, and A. M. Colman. 1982. Some
Experimental Studies of Familiarity and Liking. Bulletin of the British
Psychological Society 35: 18994.
Swanwick, K., and J. Tillman. 1986. The Sequence of Musical
Development: A Study of Childrens Composition. British Journal of
Welch, G. F., D. C. Sargent, and P. J. White. 1998. The Role of
Linguistic Dominance in the Acquisition of Song. Research Studies in
Williams, D. 2007. What Are Music Educators Doing and How Well Are
We Doing It? Music Educators Journal 94 (1): 1823.
Notes
1
Previously published in 2009 as Informal Learning in Music: Emerging Roles of

Teachers and Students in Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education 8 (2):
3545. Reprinted by permission of the editor.
CHAPTER EIGHT
IMPROVISATION AS AN INFORMAL MUSIC
LEARNING PROCESS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION1
PANAGIOTIS KANELLOPOULOS
AND RUTH WRIGHT
START: Playing music
Are you creating anything?
Yes
No
Are you enjoying it?
Executing
Yes
No
Executing
Exploring: Are you being drawn into discovery?
Yes
No
TRANSCENDENCE
Listen again: Have you discovered anything?
Are you satisfied?
Yes
No
End point
Go to start
Yes
No
Good!
..
Chapter Eight
130
Are you teaching?
No
Yes
Shuffle and deal your cards
Retire!
Received anything?
No
Yes
Shuffle and deal again
Learn
Have you been able to see anything?
Yes
No
Develop
No
Listen: have you been able to listen?
Yes
Imagine
Continue
No
Imagine
Yes
Continue
A PROCESS THAT ENABLED ME TO IMAGINE
Fig 8-1. Stephens [student at a music university department] flowchart

I had never thought before that children can create music, not because I
underestimate them, not at all, but because I just hadnt thought that this
was possible (basically, I did not even believe that I myself could ever
play, even the tiniest thing) . . . Now, not only do I know that they are able
to play, but I feel quite confident that I know of ways to encourage them to
do so. (From the diary of Antonia, student at an early childhood education
department)
In searching for sounds and for the responses that are attached to them, and
conducting this process within the medium of collective music-making
itself, a musician has to remain keenly aware of the human relationships
towards both the material and the fellow musicians (Prvost 2004, 84).
Improvisation as an Informal Music Learning Process
131
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the role of music
improvisation in music teacher education. We will present the results of a
study conducted in two Greek universities with student teachers, which
aimed firstly to investigate the sense in which improvisation might be
conceived of as an informal music education process, and secondly the
effects of such a course in free improvisation on student teachers
perceptions of themselves as musicians, music as a school subject, and
children as musicians. Our study is based on data from the reflective
diaries or learning journals of 91 trainee teachers kept as part of their
participation in an improvisation university module. We would argue here
that improvisation, as a particular type of informal music learning process,
has an important role to play in fostering the qualities required of teachers
to work with informal pedagogies in music education. Furthermore, we
would suggest that such musical experiences might gradually lead to the
development of a critical perspective on both music education theories and
practices. Improvisation might emerge as a moment and a practice of
rupture with the linearity of progress, working against the reification of
knowledge and glorification of received information. The findings suggest
that improvisation might offer a route for creating an intimate, powerful,
evolving dialogue between students identities as learners, their attitudes
towards children and their creative potential, and the interrelationships of
the notions of expressive technique and culture, thus becoming an act of
transcendence (Allsup 1997, 81). Such experiences for pupils and
teachers alike might further extend the social and personal effectiveness of
informal learning as music pedagogy. We will finally argue that the data
collected in this study allow us to support the view that improvisation as a
mode of informal music learning in teacher education might be a
subversive force against the dominance of the rationalist, performative
educational ideology that permeates the training of teachers. Some years
ago Ross warned that The robots are coming: a new breed of teachers
programmed to deliver art as a business plan, to package culture as a
commodityin short, to consign the childrens zest to oblivion (Ross
1998, 212). As Kushner characteristically observes,
Ive lost count of the number of music performances I have observed with
children standing in embarrassed compliance, heads bowed, while public
audiences thrill to their private accomplishments. The real object of these
tests is the performance of the teacher which is somehow aggregated into
the performance of a school which is, itself, aggregated into performance
132
Chapter Eight
league tables comparing one school with many thousands of others.
(Kushner 2004, 207)
Against this context, improvisation might function, after Kushner

(2004), as a petit falsificationas a transformative experience and a
pedagogically subversive mode of action, playing an important role in the
education of both music and early childhood teachers.
The Wider Context

Currently, governments assert the need to reshape conceptions of
learning to equip populations with the knowledge, skills and innovative
potential required to compete in 21st century knowledge economies
(OECD 2007). This has led to the development and implementation of
new forms of educational capitalism that cultivate a new spirit of enterprise
and the enterprise curriculum, give a new emphasis to the entrepreneurial
subject, encourage teaching for giftedness and creativity, prioritize
accelerated and personal learning, and lend weight to consumer-citizens
and a new ethic of self-presentation and self-promotion. (Peters 2009, 41)
Against the increasing pressure to view education as a mechanism for

the production of profitable inequalities and of exploitable human
capital, we feel that there is a need to help our students to be able to
develop a critical attitude towards the politics of globalization and the
customer-based societal structure: Fundamental questions must be
raised about what knowledge is produced, by whom, for whose interests,
and toward what ends (Gaventa 1993, 40)we need, in other words, to
be conscious of how capitalist logic exploits openness and child-centered
education (which were outcomes of the emancipatory movements of the
1960s), resulting in an enseignement de lignorance, (see Misha 1999).
We therefore suggest that it is imperative to work towards modes of
research and pedagogical practice that support a democratic school that
does not surrender to corporate logic.
The seemingly a-political perspectives put forward by many pedagogic
publications, including some in music education, tend to function as
discourses that legitimize the currently dominant educational practices and
policies. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the UK currently appears to
be leading Europe in returning to a 19th century model of education,
governed by the demands of economic relations and the employment
requirements of industry. In Greece, third way moderate neoconservative educational politics dominated the years 19972002 (Grollios
and Kaskaris 2003; see for example, Ministry of National Education and
133
Religion Affairs 1997), preparing the way for an even more forceful
attempt (from 2004 onwards, intensified to an unparalleled degree as this
chapter is being writtenDecember 2010see Athanasiou 2010;
Benveniste 2010; Theotokas 2010) to rationalize the education process,
rendering Universities accountable to the so-called needs of the
societythis rhetoric is used to mask the unconditional surrender of
education to the rules of the market (see for example, Psycharis 2009).
This restructuring of the schooling and education systems across the
world is part of the ideological and policy offensive by neo-liberal
Capital (Hill 2003).
Within this context, there is increasing emphasis on linearity of
development and predictability of results, at the expense of creative
practice at all levels of the education process (Paynter 2000; Prentice
2000). From a sociological perspective, one could identify an increasing
rationalisation of education, whereby the emphasis is upon arriving at
absolute efficiency in every field of human activity. Lyotard (1984) and
Ball (2003) have spoken separately of this in terms of performativity or
the subsumption of education to the efficient functioning of the social
system. However, the danger of efficiency technique when applied to
education is that we may lose important elements, and they may be those
very elements that define our humanity.
Informal Learning
Awareness has grown during the last 30 years that important learning
occurs in situations other than the classroom (Bailey and Doubleday 1990;
Colley et al. 2003; Eraut 2000; Rice 1985; Sefton-Green and Soep 2007).
Such learning has been described variously as non-formal or informal,
drawing a distinction between this kind of learning and formal learning.
Formal learning may be described as that which occurs in a traditional
pedagogic environment, where clarity of goals and procedures are clearly
defined in advance and where learning results in certification or
assessment. Non-formal learning occurs outside traditional learning
environments, is not the result of deliberation and does not normally result
in certification (Eraut 2000). It is important to note here however that aural
and oral modes of learning should not automatically be thought of as
informal just on the basis of their difference from the formality of
traditional western models of learning (Nettl 2007). In his critique of the
theoretical rationale that underpins Greens (2008a) study of informal
musical learning processes as classroom music pedagogy, Allsup (2008)
argued for the need to draw a distinction between informal learning and
134
Chapter Eight
informalism, emphasised that researchers must be careful not to make

equivalent the notion of informal learning ipso facto with that of popular
music (3) and maintained that informality does not automatically lead to
openness and to the transformation of classrooms into spaces for the
development of democratic thinking and practice. Folkestad (2006, 135)
has also suggested that: Formalinformal should not be regarded as a
dichotomy, but rather as the two poles of a continuum; in most learning
situations, both these aspects of learning are in various degrees present and
interacting. We suggest that informal learning could be understood as a
deliberate attempt to be immersed in intense situations of non-formal
learning, and therefore results in the creation of non-traditional social
learning environments, combining interactive, non-linear and self-directed
processes. Thus, the introduction of informal learning in music education
raises interesting questions regarding definition of the term informal in
pedagogic contexts in music, the extent to which informal learning is or is
not linked to particular musical genres, and the potential of informal
learning to facilitate openness and democracy in classrooms.
Greens (2002, 2008a) development of a classroom music pedagogy
based on informal learning practices of popular musicians has had farreaching impact upon the practices of music education in schools in
England. The core aim of her approach, explained in detail in Greens
most recent book (2008a) has been to document and explore the processes
through which pupils learn when presented with an approach based on
such informal popular music learning practices. Informal learning as the
preferred pedagogic modality in music education was the basis of the
Musical Futures Hertfordshire action research project. In it Green
introduced pedagogy based on the common processes used by some
popular musicians in their music making to classroom music lessons (see
Green 2002, 2008a). Often referred to as an informal pedagogy, it
locates production and development of musical knowledge with the pupils
themselves. Among its features are that learners choose the music they
learn themselves, that it is learnt by listening and copying rather than from
notation, and that learning takes place in groups, with skills and
knowledge acquired according to individual need, and that the musical
areas of performing, composing, improvising and listening are integrated
with the emphasis on creativity.
Teachers roles changed significantly in Greens approach. The first
two or three lessons in the first project involved pupils making a cover
version of a song they brought in as an audio recording, for which teachers
were asked to: establish ground rules for behaviour, set the task going at
each stage, and then stand back and observe what the pupils were doing
135
(Green 2008a, 24). This element of Greens work has been taken out of
context by some critics who have assumed that such was the role of
teachers throughout, yet Green clearly specified that:
During this time teachers were asked to attempt to take on and empathize
with pupils perspectives and the goals that pupils set for themselves, then
to begin to diagnose pupils needs in relation to those goals. After, and
only after, this period, they were to offer suggestions and act as musical
models through demonstration, so as to help pupils reach the goals that
they had set for themselves. (Green 2008a, 2425)
This led to a new type of pedagogy which involved teaching in a

responsive, rather than directive way; metaphorically taking the learners
by the hand, getting inside their head and asking What do they want to
achieve now, this minute, and what is the main thing they need to achieve
it? In this way, the teacher sits alongside the learner and is to a large
extent a learner herself. (Green 2008a, 34.) Teachers are not intended to
disappear from learning contexts but to operate as teacher students, as
advocated by critical pedagogues.
This approach may hold significant potential for the extension of
openness and democracy in music classrooms, but it also presents
significant challenges to the development of teacher education. It may
require very different qualities of music teachers entering the profession in
the future. In the context of a recent discussion Green (2008b) emphasised
the need of prospective music teachers to develop musical skills which
will enable them to work intensely and effectively by employing informal
music-making strategies, such as being able to aurally copy music from a
recording of any kind of music the students brought in, as well as from the
provided curriculum materials; being able to suggest how pupils can
improve their instrumental skills, ensemble skills, compositional and
improvisational skills; being able to link the informal strategies to the
schools formal curriculum (6). Adding these comments to the issues
raised by Green qua the qualities required of teachers to work effectively
with her conception of informal pedagogy in music opens a rich field of
research. Important questions are raised, which posit the need for further
research into how non-traditional modes of musical practice might form an
integral part of teacher education.
Informal Learning and Critical Pedagogy

It is extremely important to note that the notion of informal learning
has been used both as a descriptive and as an evaluative term in hugely
136
Chapter Eight
disparate contexts, informed by different, even conflicting, educational/

philosophical/ideological underpinnings. For example, its use in EU
political agenda is overwhelmingly workplace oriented (Straka 2004, 5).
Informal and non-formal learning, their measurement and quantification,
are valued for their potential to improve economic competitiveness by
increasing skills and employability of workers (5). Thus emphasis is
placed upon vocational-related skills, their measurement and development,
as well as on the role of the University in this regard.
However, this may not be the only way to look at informal learning.
During the 1970s it was associated with radical social-democratic models
of non-formal education in the southern hemisphere that became popular
in the North through various (feminist, anti-racist, working class) radical
educational projects and as the basis of socio-cultural and situated
theories of learning (Straka 2004, 4). Advocates of critical pedagogy have
long sought to develop a model in which learning and teaching exist in a
dialogic relationship. Based on notions of critical theory derived from the
ideas of Marx, Horkheimer and Adorno (Pongratz 2005), Marcuse (1991)
and the work of those such as Apple (2005), Freire (1970), Giroux (1983a,
1983b, 1985, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c, 1997, Giroux and McLaren 1994), and
McLaren (2006), they acknowledge the value of students lived
experiences to their learning and advocate a commensurate change in the
power balance in classrooms. Teachers are to be no longer the sole founts
of knowledge in classrooms, their jobs are no longer to fill the empty
vessels of their students minds (following what Freire [1970] described as
a banking model). Instead, both teacher and students are to be regarded
as having something to learn and something to teach. Using that
knowledge as a conduit to new learning results in a change of perception
for both students and their teachers (Abrahams 2005).
We would argue that the work of Lucy Green (2008a) in the UK,
which emphasized students lived musical experiences as the foundation
of their musical explorations and placed teacher and student in a new,
more egalitarian and dialogic relationship to previous modes of music
education, has much in common with the aims of critical pedagogy. We
would further suggest that immersion in improvisation as a core element
of music teacher education might do much to prepare teachers to work in
such ways with students.
The data we present in the following section of this chapter illustrate
the ways in which free improvisation as a significant element of music
teacher education might equip student teachers with the skills required to
work in such ways in music education. The data also illustrates resonances
between Greens identified characteristics of informal learning in music
137
and the practice of improvisation. It is argued here that teachers who have
been seriously concerned with the value of improvisation in music
education might proceed to develop a teaching approach where deep
involvement in improvisatory music-making further demolishes
preconceptions according to which children are fed with information
and skills through a process that is cut off from musical creation and
moves further towards dialogic respectful learning situations in music
education.
Introducing the Study

A study was undertaken in two Greek universities (a University Music
Department and a University Department of Early Childhood Education)
with 91 student teachers during the period 20032007. During this period
all the students were involved in a free improvisation course designed as
part of their teacher education programme. As part of the assessment for
the course, the students were required to produce reflective accounts/diaries
recording thoughts, questions, impressions and feelings related to their
participatory experience in the improvisations made in the class. It was
also suggested that they record their possible perceptions of how this
experience might influence their ways of thinking as future teachers.
Recordings were made of work in progress and some students
supplemented their written diaries with illustrations. The form of these
journals/diaries was not dictated in advance; hence the data collected took
various forms: diary-like regular entries, summative reflective prose, and
in some cases cartoon-like representations and conceptual rivers. These
different types of written accounts formed the data source drawn upon by
the researchers to answer the following research questions:
(1) To what extent can free improvisation be termed an informal music
making practice?
(2) What are students perceptions of the nature and organisation of
music making and creativity in this improvisatory setting?
(3) To what extent did this improvisatory music-making facilitate
openness and democratic musical practice?
Methodology
This study adopts a narrative approach to tell the stories of the thoughts
and feelings of two groups of student teachers as they experienced a
course in improvisation. Narrative is becoming a widely adopted approach
to the study of human action, and its value has recently begun to be
138
Chapter Eight
acknowledged within the field of music education as well (Benedict 2007;

Georgii-Hemming 2007; McCarthy 2007). It is an interpretive paradigm
used primarily in the social sciences and employs storytelling
methodology. It is the story that becomes the object of study, with the aim
of understanding how individuals or groups of individuals understand
events in their lives (Clandinin 2007). Ethnographic techniques are used to
gather data, capturing the subjects story and focusing on how individuals
or groups make sense of events and actions in their lives. Situated within a
postmodernist stance, the narrative approach emphasises that knowledge is
socially constructed, value-laden, and based on multiple perspectives.
Thus stories are taken as being constitutive of reality and as such as
playing a crucial role in the researchers understanding of the subjects
construction of reality. This is not a kind of research that aims at the
advancement of abstract theoretical knowledge, nor does it attempt to
provide holistic accounts of how things are within a particular setting.
Rather, it retains a strong educative component, using a way of data
gathering that is at the same time a means for enabling students to actively
reflect on their learning experiences (see also Benedict 2007). And, as
Maxine Greene has asserted, we are currently becoming increasingly
aware of the knowledge potential that inheres in the pursuing of narrative
inquiry and also of the connection between narrative and the growth of
identity, of the importance of shaping our own stories and, at the same
time, opening ourselves to other stories in all their variety and their
different degrees of articulatedness (Greene 1995, 186).
The diaries were kept as a required assessment element while students
were studying the module Improvisation in Music Education. One of the
authors was the module leader. During this course, students were involved
in free small and whole group improvisations, semi-structured
improvisations, group improvisational composing based on a variety of
ideas and stimuli (e.g. the work of John Paynter, see Paynter 1992), and
reading and discussion of relevant literature, as well as in ongoing group
discussions of the work developed and the issues that emerged.2
Sometimes children also attended the sessions and improvised alongside
the students. This was an attempt to begin working with small groups of
young children within the protective environment of the university
classroom; these formative experiences were becoming the basis for
creating a link between the study of relevant music education literature
and the personal experience of creating improvisations. This course did
not aim at teaching models for applying improvisation in the classroom. It
involved students in a process intended to develop their musical selves and
to begin realising the importance of improvisation for their own relationship
139
to music. Asking the students to keep diaries was aiming at creating a

place for reflection, through which the students could be able to form and
explore their own ideas about their relationship with improvisation and
with its educational potential. For only through realising the importance of
improvisation for the teachers own music-making practices could
students be able to gradually apprehend the idea that children too might
regard improvisation as a valuable musical process. In this context, our
study of the students accounts provides us the opportunity of developing
another level of analysis, with the aim of clarifying the role of
improvisation in teacher education. The decision to make a collaborative
analysis, made by two researchers one of whom was also the course tutor,
adds a further dimension to this effort. It denotes our wish to initiate a
dialogue between the data, the insiders point of view and theoretical
orientations, and a further critical eye, that of the second researcher, who
acted as a critical friend in debating the conclusions drawn from the data
and bringing contrasting theoretical perspectives to discussion of the data.
Data Analysis
In the course of thematic analysis (van Manen 1990) the researchers
retained a descriptive interpretive stance, which refrained from extensive
coding procedures. An attempt was made to remain close to the data,
providing extensive segments-examples that allow the reader to challenge
interpretations, preferring direct interpretation and narrative description
rather than formal aggregation of categorical data (Stake 1995, 77).
However, Wolcott (1995) argues that, while the effective story should be
specific and circumstantial, its relevance in a broader context should also
be apparent. The story must transcend its own modest origins: The case
remains particular, its implications broad. (174) Against evidence-based
research which limits the opportunities for educational professionals to
exert their judgment about what is educationally desirable in particular
situations (Biesta 2007, 20), this account offers critical observations and
interpretations of a particular musical/educational experience. And this is
offered as an invitation for dialogue about the oughts of music education
and the training of teachers, and not as measurable evidence that
something works. Our intention is to offer a research approach that can
provide different understandings of educational reality and different ways
of imagining a possible future (21). In the light of this, when analysing
the data we found a number of themes which fall under three main
conceptual categories:
140
Chapter Eight
x Autonomy: in search of foundations

x Developing the (musical) self
x Developing an open attitude towards children and music.
Each of these categories will be explained and elaborated upon in the
sections that follow, illustrated by quotations from the students diaries,
musical examples and our reflections upon this material. Translations were
made from the original Greek to English by the first researcher. Every
attempt was made to preserve the original tone of the diary entries.
Students names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Findings
Autonomy: in search of foundations3
[I felt] like a person who for the first time in his life tries to speak without
a script, or like someone who has just begun to discover the power of
difference, and tries to talk about this power, when up to that moment he
believed in, or rather, was taught only how to judge better from worse,
right from wrong, without being able to think about difference. [Extract
from diary of Vassilis]
In improvisation students began to experience the issue of how to

judge difference without having to regress to ready made criteria. For
some, this was the beginning of thinking about the power of difference.
Initiation into hierarchical modes of thinking about music is seen not only
as one-sided, but as leading to closure and exclusion dictated from above.
Speaking without a script leads students to assuming personal
responsibility for developing their judgement.
A very important facet of improvisation is that it unsettles certainties,
upsetting the given. It turns upside down the stereotypes with which you
have grown up, and it makes you realize that you have not exercised your
ability to be conscious of those stereotypes . . . And maybe the aim of
improvisation should always be the development of our ability to judge,
and learn to do so in the heat of the moment. [Extract from diary of Paul]
In terms of the role of improvisation as a means of transformative or

liberatory education this could be termed the beginning of this students
development of critical consciousness. But this is not an exercise in
rational thinking:
The people in the group should be really present with their whole self and
their whole interest in what is happening. What happens there should be
141
really important to them, and each one of the players should believe in it.
[Extract from diary of Kosmas]
Being present means entering in a distinctive realm of musical

experience where rational thinking is suspended. At times this experience
comes close to that of dreaming:
Sometimes when I close my eyes and relax I can stop my thinking and a
moment comes when I begin to see images; it is as if I am dreaming but
without being asleep. The moment I make the slightest thought, everything
disappears; it is difficult to remain present . . . in free improvisation there is
an element of fleetingness. As long as it lasts, you do not have, but you are.
[Extract from diary of Kosmas]
Improvisation leads to the immersion in a form of musical experience

that moves beyond the conception of musical knowledge as an object to be
mastered. But it also posits the issue of the individual-group relationship in
a direct way. Ideally, individuality and group identity are complementary:
That freedom [experienced in improvisation], is a feeling that isolates but
at the same time incorporates one inside the group. You are in a bouquet of
flowers, with your own aroma but at the same time you are part of a whole
together with the rest equally distinctive flowers. [Extract from diary of
Niki]
This sense of creating our own goals is crucial for the development of
both individual and collective identity:
each of the players [should try] to get into the rhythm and style used by the
rest of the group. In this way one will be able to follow the melody without
being thoroughly absorbed by what one plays . . . but more with answering
to the rest of the group and with participating in the dialogue creating ones
own answers which, nevertheless fit to the whole melody, resulting in
coherence and continuation of the whole thought of the group. [Extract
from diary of Peter]
This whole thought of the group cannot be dictated and cannot be

given in advance. The creation of a heightened sense of presence is a
collective enterprise that goes beyond individual rational control, for in
free improvisation there is nothing to coordinate the musical intentions
of the participants. Joint creation of a common musical space where
freedom is debated is a valuable educational pursuit:
Antoine de Saint-Exupry has noted that to love the other does not mean to
look into the eyes of the other; it means that both look towards the same
Chapter Eight
142
direction . . . we need to be involved in processes which allow us to realise

that we could find common points of (musical) reference, a common,
however vague or obscure, goal. [Extract from diary of Georgia]
Developing the self

One of the most persistent points which was raised by the students was
the shortcomings of dominant formal music education training approaches
to which they had been subjected. That this was seen as a major obstacle
in their development as teachers should be regarded as a source of hope.
I believe that we ourselves have deprived ourselves of the freedom of
expression through music. I am terrified of the thought that one day a child
will ask me: What is music?, How do people make music?, Can I not
make music? and I will have to give her an answer like this: I do not
know, my dear child. I only take a book full of notes, put it in front of me,
and play whats written on it. No! I wont let this happen. [Extract from
diary of Alkistis]
But for this to be achieved, student teachers themselves should be

given the opportunity to explore how these questions can be given
alternative answers. The experience of musical improvisation might be
one way forward. But this does not happen automatically:
At the beginning I was systematically avoiding being involved, for I was
unable to unlock myself. [Extract from diary of Georgia]
This was a frequent comment read at or near the beginning of students

diaries, for the narrative pattern which described the relationship of
improvisation with previous music education often looked like this:
As a child I used to sit at the piano and improvise. When I began taking
lessons, I had great difficulties in reading the notes, so I was memorizing
the pieces right after listening to them by the piano teacher, and then was
pretending that I was reading them . . . When the teacher discovered that I
was cheating, he intensified his efforts to get me learn to read. And that
was the end of improvisation for me. [Extract from diary of Alan]
Trying to unlock oneself was a continuous process that led to certain

peak moments where individual participation in improvisation took the
form of a revelation.
And the important thing is that when all this is happening there is no
feeling of pressure, no anxiety about what you are doing, because at that
143
moment you are so full that there is no space for anxiety. [Extract from
diary of Kosmas]
It was liberating to try and listen to the seemingly random (were they really
random?) sounds of the others, or to try to harmonize my own ideas with
the ideas of the group, to become part of the musical praxis. [Extract from
diary of Olga]
The moment of improvisation is a moment of personal and collective

responsibility. This experience seemed to have a liberating effect to the
ways we approach music-making. Freedom and responsibility emerge as
complimentary aspects of the practice of improvisation. Free
improvisation might be a way of musical practice that relieves student
teachers from the sense of intimidation experienced so often in skill-based
competitive musical contexts. In this way it fosters the creation of an
intimate relationship with music:
It is amazing how simple are the forms/thoughts that are needed in order to
make music. I guess I always favoured simple ideas, but I had never
imagined myself working with simple ideas without fear. [Extract from
diary of Lisa]
Without fear. That is a theme that kept coming up again and again.
And this says something about our ways of educating musicians: elitist,
competitive, alienating music education contexts not only ensure
excellence but also instigate fear. The following comment is characteristic
of how the feeling of trusting ones own ideas is as real as it is unexpected:
And the funny thing is that I always wanted to have a xylophone or a
metallophone in my hands. From then on, I was playing what I was
thinking, and the strange thing is that I wanted to suggest improvements.
That was very funny for me indeed! . . . I realised that music does not only
mean songs or notes, but also things which you may not be aware that you
know, and which now come out in a spontaneous and natural way. [Extract
from diary of Natasha]
The process of finding ones personal voice within the improvisation

practice often includes heated collaborative discussions about the groups
practice. At the beginning discussions were difficult to initiate, for to
many students to discuss meant to expose ones shortcomings:
[Initially] I was terrified about the prospect of talking about our music. But
I realized that not making judgments about abilities and talents, had a
liberating effect in respect to my improvisations. [Extract from diary of
Katerina]
144
Chapter Eight
And this might lead to a more self-confident relationship between

musician and instrument. Not being afraid that one is always behind
schedule might be important for creating intimate relationships between
self and sounds:
Now I feel much more ready to try and improvise using my own
instrument, the flute. Now I love my little flute more, and every musical
phrase written or one that comes from my mind fills me up. I always used
to listen to a piece and imagine pictures, now I try to turn pictures into
music. [Extract from diary of Estelle]
This student had re-engaged with her instrument in a new and more
fulfilling way. Her confidence in her own musicality was evidently raised.
Involvement in improvisation might then be apprehended as a means of
self-development:
We realised that improvisatory music making can even be a context where
ones personality and individuality can be developed: I discover my limits,
Im not afraid to make suggestions, I make room for other peoples
suggestions, I make use of or I consciously discard certain ideas, I learn
something new, I imitate, I become part of, I follow, I provoke, accept
the . . . possibility of rejection etc. [Extract from diary of Alkistis]
Developing an open attitude towards children and music

Trying to find ones own personal voice within improvisational practice
reveals to the student many of the obstacles and the preconceptions that
conservatory education may have placed deep down in our thinking.
Through involvement in improvisation these obstacles are gradually
removed, opening the way for more open approaches to teaching.
If you dont play the instrument in all kinds of unorthodox ways, how are
you going to learn it, to discover it? Through improvisation the child learns
the sounds, learns the joy of playing without following rules that are
beyond it. Experiment, play, listen, and the forms emerge by themselves.
You need only to listen and to be there. [Extract from diary of Lisa]
Notice the important issue that emerges out of the statement without
following rules that are beyond it. This is how the educational potential
of improvisation is linked to the project of autonomy. Learning to set the
rules through interaction and not through reference to some universal
musical norm is what improvisation might offer to education, and this is
one way in which music education might be linked to emancipation.
Learning with both children and adults would ideally result in a deep sense
145
of respect for children-as-musicians. A sense that emerges out of the

following statement where the student-teacher attributes an exceptional
sense of value to an improvisation he played with a six-year-old:
Only a few times was I really present in the improvisation moment. One of
those, maybe the one that really stands out, was when I played the
metallophone with Katerina. In this improvisation I felt that I was really
there with my whole attention and my whole interest in what was
happening. [Extract from diary of Kosmas]
We see here emerging mutual respect between the student and teacher,
one of the fundamental principles of critical pedagogy. Often the studentteachers-participants of this study documented their efforts to begin
forging a personal pathway in their own teaching.
Finally I would like to say that I tried to get a little girl, whom I teach the
piano, into the adventure of improvisation. Despite my lack of substantive
experience, I think that this experience, the discussion we had with my
pupil and the joy I felt right after this lesson is the most important outcome
[of my involvement with improvisation during this university course].
[Extract from diary of Georgia]
Developing the improvisation ethic in the university may well be

regarded as the springboard for valuing the constituents of this
improvisation ethic for music education itself:
For now I have learned that . . . even a little primary school child can
create wonderful and very clever things when she is given the opportunity,
and when you really engage with her. [Extract from diary of Jimmy]
So I became conscious that when you try to do something without having
tons of rules in your mind about what should and should not be done, . . .
and when you are given due respect as a human being and as a personality,
you can create from the simplest to the most elaborate piece of music.
[Extract from diary of Hannah]
Essentially through participation in improvisation one might be led to

regard this practice as an ever-present mode of educational action.
Learning to develop ways of musico-social relationships, learning to focus
on the moment, on the unique qualities of each moment and of the
participants, might be important not only in musical but also in
interpersonal terms. This was observed by one student teacher as one of
the most important things she had learnt from taking part in the module:
146
Chapter Eight
Learning to improvise on a variety of musical instruments, but most
importantly, learning to improvise in [building] our relationship towards a
child/student. [Extract from diary of Donna]
Thus a different pedagogical orientation could be developed, which

could allow prospective teachers to begin envisioning a mode of working
with music and children that takes informal aspects of music learning
seriously:
Using your body for making noises is interesting. You can do something
by yourself and you can create new instruments from your body. We
should do that kind of thing more in schools too. We dont always need
real instruments to create music. We could also use anything around us:
tables, woods, stones, kitchen pans etc. Thats actually the how children
create music when nobody is teaching them. [Extract from diary of Mat]
Discussion
Green (2008a) suggests that there is a strong correlation between the
pedagogy experienced in music education and student success and/or
persistence in studying music. We suggest here that the three analytical
categories identified as arising from our data (autonomy, developing the
self, and developing an open attitude towards children and their music)
indicate three important areas in which involvement in free improvisation
might contribute positively to the pedagogic preparation of teachers.
Furthermore, the comments of the students whose journals we studied
seem to indicate potential fruitful linkages between improvisation and the
development of the qualities of empathy, mutual respect, willingness to
take risks, and openness to new conceptions of music and musicking
necessary for music teachers to be able to work with new approaches to
music education such as Greens. The development of such qualities could
moreover be crucial for such approaches to develop their potential to
function as critical pedagogy, working towards musically and possibly
even socially transformative practice.
Viewed as a core means of educating prospective teachers (both music
specialists and generalist teachers), improvisation allows for a direct
confrontation of learning as a search for self-transformation. Learning how
to build our relationships with children and music: this is maybe the most
fundamental value of learning through improvisation. This belief rests on
an apprehension of the improvisation process as an exemplary case of
situated learning (Lave and Wenger 1991). In this way improvisation
becomes a means for unsettling dominant conceptions of music learning
and for engaging with informal learning practices. Improvisation not only
147
offers a way of active engagement with music, but also is situated in a

presentational epistemology, that is, in an epistemology that does not
regard knowledge as an accurate representation of a pre-existing reality
(Biesta and Osberg 2007, 16) but emphasises the situatedness of
knowledge construction as a form of creative socio-cultural praxis.
Following Lave and Wenger (1991), we suggest that learning through
improvisation should be seen as a constituent feature of participation in
communities of improvisation practice. This leads to a change of
relationship between children and music, to a move away from music as a
given, towards music as an emergent. It further contributes to a move
away from apprehending learning as a cognitive process, towards
regarding learning, thinking, and knowing, as relations among people in
activity in, with, and arising from the socially and culturally structured
world (Lave and Wenger 1991, 51). Regarding learning as participation
places emphasis on how children, through interaction, define their ways
for making music, and assign particular meanings to their activities.
Moreover, it goes far beyond knowledge as comprised of entities waiting
to be internalised:
Learning is a process that takes place in a participation framework, not in
an individual mind. This means, among other things, that it is mediated by
the differences of perspective among the co-participants . . . Learning is, as
it were, distributed among co-participants, not a one-person act. (Hanks
1991, 15)
Two of the most important tenets of the situated learning approach are
the acknowledgement of context as an essential aspect of learning and
secondly, the value of implicit knowledge.
The perceptions resulting from actions are a central feature in both learning
and activity. How a person perceives activity may be determined by tools
and their appropriated use. What they perceive, however, contributes to
how they act and learn. Different activities produce different indexicalized
representations, not equivalent, universal ones. And, thus, the activity that
led to those representations plays a central role in learning. (Brown et al.
1989, 36)
Moreover, many aspects of learning to act within a particular musical

practice need to remain implicit. Talking specifically about conceptual
representations and their development from the perspective of situated
learning, Brown et al. (1989) argue that indexical representations gain
their efficiency by leaving much of the context underrepresented or
implicit (41).
148
Chapter Eight
Thus we propose that the issue of connecting informal learning and

improvisation might be resolved by regarding improvisation as an
exemplary case of creating a communicative context where most
representations/conceptualisations/struggles to solve problems are left
implicit. Through the perspective of situated cognition and the importance
it gives to leaving things implicit, we could arrive at a solid
conceptualisation of the value of improvisation as a mode of learning.
Thus its value as a learning resource might be formulated in the following
manner: creating a context where implicitness is deeply valued, recognised
but not analytically pursued, leading to sustained engagement with the
workings of musical structuring and communication from the inside:
Authentic activity . . . is important for learners, because it is the only way
they gain access to the standpoint that enables practitioners to act
meaningfully and purposefully (Brown et al. 1989, 36). Table 1 presents
a possible set of links that could be made between the process of learning
through improvisation and Lucy Greens vision of informal pedagogy. It
aims to show the links between informal learning as espoused by Green,
and the concepts of autonomy, self-development, and openness, developed
in our chapter as categories describing student-teachers experience of
music improvisation:
Table 8-1. Learning through improvisation as informal pedagogy
Greens informal pedagogy
Learners choose the music they
learn themselves. Gradually
learners become aware of other
musics, of other possibilities
outside their own experience and
express a wish to explore these.
Learning through improvisation

Learners create their own music collectively.
Gradually various ideas found in other
musics are brought into the class, offered to
the students as means for enriching their own
improvised music.
It is learnt by listening and

copying, rather than from
notation, learning takes place in
groups.
Learning through listening to each other,

avoiding copying but encouraging influence.
Pupils empowered with control

over their learning. Their identity
as autonomous learners is
strengthened.
Pupils encouraged to consciously render

their collective music-making a site of
learning, through discussion and further
experimentation which gives way to new
improvisations.

Much of the power and control
over pacing and sequencing of
learning is devolved to the
learners.
Teacher only intervenes when
requested by learners to do so.
Dialogic learning a feature. Power
distributed more equally between
teacher and learners.
149
Experimentation is encouraged in ways that

counter pre-decided sequential learning.
Teacher responds to what is offered through

improvisation, transforming it into an avenue
for new learning. Actively plays with
students as their partner. Acts against
domination, but does not hesitate to become
fully involved.
Repeated engagement with improvisation and borrowing ideas by

attending to other peoples improvisations are the means by which
improvisation generates its own future. All musical, structural and
expressive problems are created and solved within it. The heuristic aspect
of improvisation (Prvost 1995) is, essentially, its driving force. Intensive
and prolonged engagement of the participants of the present study with
improvisation should be seen as a case of practising spontaneity, which is
regarded as a vital source of knowledge of the workings of musical
spontaneity and as a tool for student teacher engagement in musical
dialogues with their future students. Improvisation emerges as a mode of
practice that redefines creativity, through rejecting its individualistic
perception as a problem-solving process that has dominated the concept
of creativity through its appropriation by psychological research.4
Improvisation creates a musical context where inventiveness and
responsiveness always get their meaning in situ, in the course of emerging
ways of working together, and of drawing on different aspects of musical
cultures and musical practices. The balance between inventiveness and
responsiveness cannot be predefined, or pre-decided. Attending and
listening closely to the generation of improvised music is constitutive of
the meaning of the music-making process itself. It contributes to its
transformation from an exploratory activity to a communicative one, from
a private enterprise to a public event. It brings into the musical experience
a vital ingredient: the exploration of the listeners response. Improvisation
might be a powerful means in which to forge future teachers identities
through action and reflection that might help them be more open and
responsive to their future students. Learning and accumulation of
experience is the result of identifying important issues that pertain to
music making, which were then tackled and worked upon in subsequent
improvisations.
Another perspective that emerges from the data and their analysis leads
us to begin realizing the value of a political/cultural conception of creativity,
150
Chapter Eight
emphasizing the role of imagination in creating difference, and thus

cultivating autonomy (in Castoriadis sense of the term). For Castoriadis
(1987, 108),
the problem of autonomy immediately refers to, is even identified with, the
problem of the relation of one subject to anotheror to others; . . . the
other or others do not appear as external obstacles or a malediction to be
suffered . . . but instead as constituting the subject, the subjects problem
and its possible solution.
An educational culture that connects its work to the project of

autonomy results in the self-constitution of practices, to the creation of
values and meanings without reference to some superior authority or
system of values, and to practices which lead to self-institution and
constant positing of the question of the value of these self-instituted
practices. Improvisation might be an artistic practice that operates on the
basis of autonomy, allowing for both creation and doubt.
Improvisation might be a way of placing musical imagination at the
centre of the educational process, and to proceed to modes of musical
practice that address issues of being and thinking together, thus becoming
a form of socio-musical and thus political practice. It might be a way of
going beyond Maxine Greenes (1995) thesis that the role of imagination
is not to resolve, not to point the way, not to improve. It is to awaken, to
disclose the ordinarily unseen, unheard, and unexpected (28). To be able
to go a step beyond this is to be able to apprehend musical practice as a
social locus for the development of distributed imaginative practice, and
thus as an active mode of critique of the current state of affairs through
imagining possibilities and actively searching for how to realize them
musically. Improvisation permits students to become agents of musicosocial action. Through processes of sound organisation students are
actively engaged in the construction of social relationships.
Thus musical creativity and musical creation might be regarded as
analogous to the processes of social creation of autonomous forms of
social organisation. There are strong links here with Castoriadis (1991,
1997) notion of autonomy as a project of radical democracy: autonomy is
the ability to call the given institution of society into questionand that
institution itself must make you capable of calling it into question,
primarily through education (Castoriadis 2007, 176). (Musical) autonomy
should therefore be understood as the deliberate process of searching for
and reflecting upon the rules of musical practice. Free musical
improvisation is a musical context that allows the unlimited questioning of
151
its very practice, thus becoming a way of pursuing the project of autonomy
in musical terms.
Herein lies the political significance of free improvisation, which
neither resides in the political commitment of improvisers, nor in their
declarations of intent, but it is revealed through the aesthetics that their
practice confers (Saladin 2009, 148). Saladin argues that its openness
does not lead to an anything goes stance but is a consequence of its
lack of identity (148): This constituting lack is not a gap which should
be bridged within free improvisation; on the contrary, this lack is the
empty space which allows it to exist. This empty space manifests itself
both in the absence of rules which would come to outline its contours and
in the absence of a right required to practice it (148). In this chapter we
have argued that this empty space provides a way for re-searching
foundational aspects of what it means to create music, with important
consequences for personal development and for building an open attitude
towards childrens musical potential. Such a musical practice creates a
very particular mindset which, we argue, is especially valuable from an
educational perspective. For it does not distinguish between levels of
ability but between levels of commitment. Drawing on the work of
Jacques Rancire (2004a, 2004b), Saladin argues that
Free improvisation does not pre-exist, but is only a practice. So it cannot
take count of the people coming into it, or to say this more explicitly in the
terms of Jacques Rancire, it cannot mark out a clear and definitive
boundary between those who can take part in it and those who cannot. This
does not mean that it can be some sort of pure openness, but rather, that its
empty space supposes an indefinite plurality. (Saladin 2009, 148)
Enabling prospective music teachers to pursue, through both practice

and reflection, the question of how to create musical contexts that address
these issues, seems to be an invaluable and much-needed project.
References
Abrahams, F. 2005. Critical Pedagogy for Music Education: A Best
Practice to Prepare Future Music Educators. Visions of Research in
Music Education 6. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v7n1/visions/
Abrahams%20CPME%20Best%20Practices.pdf
Allsup, R. E. 1997. Activating Self-Transformation through Improvisation
in Instrumental Music Teaching. Philosophy of Music Education
Review 5 (2): 8085.
152
Chapter Eight
. 2008. Creating an Educational Framework for Popular Music in

Public Schools: Anticipating the Second-Wave. Visions of Research
in Music Education 12.
http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/1%20AERA%20%20Allsup.pdf
Apple, M. W. 2005. Making Critical Pedagogy Strategicon Doing
Critical Educational Work in Conservative Times. In Critical Theory
and Critical Pedagogy Today: Toward a New Critical Language in
Education, ed. I. Gur Zeev, 95113. Haifa: University of Haifa Press.
Athanasiou, A. 2010. ,
. (
,
, 13.XI.2010) [Critique in an Era of Crisis, or the
Devaluation of the Humanities and the Social Sciences].
http://historein-historein.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_18.html
Bailey J., and V. Doubleday. 1990. Patterns of Musical Enculturation in
Afghanistan. In Music and Child Development: Proceedings of the
1987 Denver Conference, eds. F. R. Wilson and F. L. Roehmann, 88
99. Missouri: MMB Music.
Ball, S. J. 2003. The Teachers Soul and the Terrors of Performativity.
Journal of Education Policy 18 (2): 21528.
Benedict, C. 2007. On the Narrative of Challenged Assumptions.
Research Studies in Music Education 29: 2938.
Benveniste, R. 2010. lingua reformationis
universitatis (LRU) :
... ... .. (
,
, 13.XI.2010) [Lingua Reformationis
Universitatis (LRU) or Disciplining and Punishment: The
Implementation of Independent Authority for Quality Control to and
Its Transformation to Independent Authority for Evaluation,
Certification and Funding].
http://historein-historein.blogspot.com/2010/11/lingua-reformationisuniversitatis-lru.html
Biesta, G. 2007 Why What Works Wont Work: Evidence-Based
Practice and the Democratic Deficit of Educational Research.
Educational Theory 57 (1): 122.
Biesta, G., and D. Osberg. 2007. Beyond Re/presentation: A Case for
Updating the Epistemology of Schooling. Interchange 38 (1): 1529.
Brown, S. J., A. Collins, and P. Duguid. 1989. Situated Cognition and the
Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher 18 (1): 3242.
153
Castoriadis, C. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge:

Polity Press.
. 1991. Power Politics Autonomy. In Cornelius Castoriadis
Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy: Essays in Political Philosophy, ed. D.
A. Curtis, 14374. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1997. Phusis and Autonomy. In Cornelius CastoriadisWorld in
Fragments, ed. D. A. Curtis, 33141. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
. 2007. Psyche and Education. In Cornelius CastoriadisFigures of
the Thinkable, ed. W. Hamacher, 16587. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Clandinin, J. D., ed. 2007. Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a
Methodology. London: Sage.
Colley, H., P. Hodkinson, and J. Malcom. 2003. Informality and Formality
in Learning. Report to the Learning and Skills Research Centre from
the Lifelong Learning Institute at the University of Leeds. London:
Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Devine, N., and R. Irwin 2006. Autonomy, Agency and Education: He
tangata, He tangata, He tangata. In Postfoundationalist Themes in the
Philosophy of Education: Festschrift for James D. Marshall, eds. P.
Smeyers and M. A. Peters, 1124. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eraut, M. 2000. Non-Formal Learning and Tacit Knowledge in
Professional Work. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70 (1):
11336.
Fizimons P. 2002. Neoliberalism and Education: the Autonomous
Chooser. Radical Pedagogy 4.
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue4_2/04_fitzsimons.html
vs. Formal and Informal Ways of Learning. British Journal of Music
Education 23 (2): 13545.
Ford, C. C. 1995. Free Collective Improvisation in Higher Education.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gaventa, J. 1993. The Powerful, the Powerless and the Experts:
Knowledge Struggles in an Information Age. In Voices of Change:
Participatory Research in the United States and Canada, eds. P. Park,
M. Bryndon-Miller, B. Hall, and T. Jackson. Westport: Bergin and
Garvey.
Georgii-Hemming, E. 2007. Hermeneutic knowledge: Dialogue between
experiences. Research Studies in Music Education 29: 1328.
154
Chapter Eight
Giroux H. 1983a. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for

the Opposition. South Hadley: Bergin and Garvey.
. 1983b. Rationality, Reproduction, and Resistance: Toward a Critical
Theory of Schooling. In Current Perspectives in Social Theory, ed. S.
McNall, 85118. Greenwich: JAI Press.
. 1985. Teachers as Intellectuals. Social Education 49 (15): 37679.
. 1988a. Literacy and the Pedagogy of Political Empowerment.
. 1988b. Schrag Speaks: Spinning the Wheel of Misfortune.
. 1988c. Hope and Radical Education. Journal of Education 170 (2):
91101.
. 1997. Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and
Schooling. Oxford: Westview.
Giroux, H., and P. McLaren. 1994. Between Borders: Pedagogy and
Politics in Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.
Education. London: Ashgate.
. 2008a. Music, Informal Learning and the School: A New Classroom
Pedagogy. London: Ashgate.
. 2008b. Response to Panel: Beyond Lucy Green: Operationalizing
Theories of Informal Music Learning Panel Presentation. Visions of
Research in Music Education 12.
http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/Green%20Response.pdf
Greene, M. 1995. Releasing the Imagination: Essays on Education, the
Arts, and Social Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grollios, G., and I. Kaskaris. 2003. From Socialist-Democratic to Third
Way Politics and Rhetoric in Greek Education (19972002). Journal
for Critical Education Policy Studies 1 (1).
http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=4
Hanks, W. F. 1991. Introduction. In Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation, authored by J. Lave, and E. Wenger, 1324.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, D. 2003. Global Neo-Liberalism, the Deformation of Education and
Resistance. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 1 (1).
www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=7
Kushner, S. 2004. Falsifying Schooling: Surrealism and Curriculum. In
The Social Context of Music Education, ed. J. L. Arostegui, 203-18.
Champaign: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum
Evaluation, University of Illinois.
155
Lankshear, C. 1982. Freedom and Education: Towards a Non-Rational

Philosophy of Education. Auckland: Milton Brookes.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral
Levinson, M. 1999. The Demands of Liberal Education. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Marcuse, H. 1991. One-Dimensional Man (2nd edn). London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Marshall, J. D. 1996. Michel Foucault: Personal Autonomy and
Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McCarthy, M. 2007. Narrative Inquiry as a Way of Knowing in Music
Education. Research Studies in Music Education 29 (1): 312.
McLaren, P. 2006. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy
in the Foundations of Education (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn &
Bacon.
Ministry of National Education and Religion Affairs [YPEPTH]. 1997.
2000. [Education
2000. Towards a Paedia of Opened Horizons]. Athens: YPEPTH.
Misha, J. C. 1999. Enseignement de lIgnorance, et ses Conditions
Modernes. Paris: ditions Climats.
Nettl, B. 2007. Interlude: An Ethnomusicological Perspective. In
International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, ed. L. Bresler,
82934. Dordrecht: Springer.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007.
Activity on the Recognition of Non-Formal and Informal Learning
(RNFIL). Pan-Canadian Overview. Council of Ministers of
Education, Canada (CMEC).
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/46/41829243.pdf
Olssen, M. 2006. Foucault, Educational Research and the Issue of
Autonomy. In Postfoundationalist Themes in the Philosophy of
Education: Festschrift for James D. Marshall, eds. P. Smeyers and M.
A. Peters, 5779. Oxford: Blackwell.
Paynter J. 1992. Sound and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 2000. Making Progress with Composing. British Journal of Music
Education 17 (1): 531.
Peters, M. A. 2009. Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions:
New Forms of Educational Capitalism. Thesis Eleven 96: 4063.
156
Chapter Eight
Pongratz, L. 2005. Critical Theory and Pedagogy: Theodor W. Adorno

and Max Horkheimers Contemporary Significance for a Critical
Pedagogy. In Critical Theories, Radical Pedagogies, and Global
Conflicts, eds. G. E. Fischman, P. McLaren, H. Snker, and C.
Lankshear, 15463. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Prentice, R. 2000. Creativity: a Reaffirmation of Its Place in Early
Childhood Education. The Curriculum Journal 11 (2): 14558.
Prvost, E. 1995. No Sound is Innocent: AMM and The Practice of SelfInvention. Meta-Musical Narratives. Essays. Essex: Copula.
. 2004. Minute Particulars: Meanings in Music Making in the Wake of
Hierarchical Realignments and Other Essays. Essex: Copula.
Psycharis, S. 2009. . . . ; [Editorial: Occupation. . . ?] To
Vima 25 (1). http://www.tovima.gr/opinions/article/?aid=252132
Rancire J. 2004a. The Politics of Aesthetics. New York: Continuum.
. 2004b. Malaise dans lEsthtique. Paris: Galile.
Reich, R. 2002. Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American
Education. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rice, T. 1985. Music Learnt But not Taught: The Bulgarian Case. In
Becoming Human through Music, D. P. McAllester (project director),
11522. Reston: MENC.
Ross, M. 1998. Herbert Read: Art, Education, and the Means of
Redemption. In Herbert Read reassessed, ed. D. Goodway, 196-214.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Saladin, M. 2009. Points Of Resistance and Criticism in Free
Improvisation: Remarks on a Musical Practice and Some Economic
Transformations. In Noise and Capitalism, 133149. Kritika. (This
book is intended as a non-copyrighted material and is available at:
http://www.arteleku.net/audiolab/noise_capitalism.pdf)
Sefton-Green, J., and E. Soep. 2007. Creative Media Cultures: Making
and Learning Beyond the School. In International Handbook of
Research in Arts Education, ed. L. Bresler, 83554. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Straka, G. A. 2004. Informal Learning: Genealogies, Concepts, Antagonisms
and Questions. Forschungsberichte 1, Bremen: Institut Technik und
Bildung (ITB), Universitt Bremen.
Theotokas N. 2010.
[Neo-Liberal
Fanatics Destroy Public Universities and Demolish the Constitution].
Avgi, October 31, 610.
157
van Manen, M. 1990. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for

an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. London: Althouse.
Walduck, J. 2005. Collaborative Arts Practice and Identity: The Role of
Leadership. In The Reflective Conservatoire, eds. G. Odam and N.
Bannan, 30131. London: Ashgate.
Wolcott, H. F. 1995. The Art of Fieldwork. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
Notes
1
This chapter is an extended version of an article previously published in 2010 as

Informal Music Learning, Improvisation and Teacher Education in British
Journal of Music Education 27 (1): 7187. Reprinted by permission of the
publisher Cambridge University Press.
2
There has been a growing interest in the role of free improvisation and
collaborative composition in higher education, as evidenced by a conference
recently organised by the University of Surrey on Collaborative Processes in
Music Making: Pedagogy and Practice (see
http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/events/viewreport/1577/index.html)for
important documentation of such approaches, their rationale and theoretical
justification, see Ford (1995) and Walduck (2005).
3
As you will see in what follows the notion of autonomy as used here has a very
different meaning from the way it is used by mainly liberal philosophers of
education as an advancement towards independent rationality (e.g. Levinson 1999;
Reich 2002) (for critiques of the liberal conception of autonomy as an exercise of
rational thinking and free choice see Devine and Irwin 2006; Fitzsimons 2002;
Lankshear 1982; Marshall 1996; Olssen 2006).
4
For an analysis of the uses of the notion of creativity in education and a critique
of the political neutrality of psychological versions of creativity, see Peters (2009).
PART IV
CHAPTER NINE
INFORMAL LEARNING AND AURAL LEARNING
IN THE INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC LESSON:
A RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT
PILOT PROJECT
LUCY GREEN1
Introduction
Parvesh (clarinet) lesson 3
Parvesh comes in on the right note, stumbles, makes a few more attempts
and eventually plays correctly along with the music. Its interesting that he,
as with many kids, gets one note right followed by a wrong note; then next
time it comes round he gets two notes right; then three. This seems to be a
pattern.
Edward (piano) lesson 7

Kate (teacher): Its also actually, its hearing, can you actually hear whats
actually happening in the left hand, which is slightly more complex, but
whats actually happening in terms of the layers of sound, can you just
see
Edward: I know there are chords, but Im not sure
Kate: Yes, just, listen to the left hand and just see what you can hear. (We
all listen.)
Edward: Its like before each chord theres a lower note that it goes up to
that it kind of starts from, but, because that notes played at the same time
as the right hand, its kind of hard to work out.
Katie (cello) lesson 8

Eleanor Rigby starts . . . Katie plays along . . . and she now has the final
arpeggio. She plays well with a few places where she loses it but picks up
again quite quickly, often right in the middle of a phrase.
162
Chapter Nine
Above are three extracts from observations and recordings of 104

instrumental lessons, in which pupils aged 10 to 17 attempted to learn
aurally by playing along with a recording, in an approach based upon the
informal learning practices of popular musicians. This chapter gives an
overview of the projects background and rationale; research methods;
pedagogic strategies and materials; the different approaches to learning
adopted by the pupils; how pupils progressed; the pedagogy and the roles
of the teachers; and finally the views of the participants. As the chapter
goes along, I will mention some areas that differed from those in another
related project that took place in general music classrooms, and will close
by raising some topics that might be of interest for future development and
research.
Background and Rationale

The rationale for the work was that many children and young people
who fail and drop out of formal music education, are often far from being
either uninterested or unmusical. Rather, many of them pursue alternative,
informal methods of music learning in the popular music sphere (and other
alternative spheres), where their approaches to acquiring musical skills and
knowledge are associated with high levels of enjoyment, and can lead to
the development of advanced musicianship emphasising aural,
improvisatory and creative aspects. The development of such skills has
tended to be relatively overlooked in both the instrumental training of
classical musicians, and in traditional music curricula and pedagogy in
schools.
Nowadays there is nothing surprising about finding popular music
firmly embedded in the school curriculum of many countries. However, it
is only recently that the informal learning practices of the musicians
themselves have been recognised or adopted as teaching and learning
strategies in classrooms. Between 2002 and 2006, I conducted a
curriculum research-and-development project in the UK. The aims were to
adapt aspects of the informal learning practices used by young pop and
rock musicians, and bring them into the secondary school classroom. The
project then investigated to what extent the adapted informal learning
practices could increase pupils performing, listening and composing
skills; raise their levels of motivation, enjoyment and group cooperation;
and extend their skills and appreciation in relation to a range of music
going beyond the popular sphere, including classical music. The project
became part of a national UK music education initiative called Musical
Futures, and since its initial research phase has been taken up by over
Informal Learning and Aural Learning in the Instrumental Music Lesson 163
1,000 schools in the UK and other countries.2 In other schools, universities,

and countries similar work has been ongoing, and classroom strategies
derived from popular musicians informal learning practices, or those of
other vernacular and/or aural musicians, are being used in a range of
contexts.3
Drawing from my own and others previous research,4 I divided
informal popular music learning practices into five central characteristics,
each one differing in various ways from formal music educational
approaches, as follows (Green 2008, 10):
x
x
x
x
With informal popular music learning practices, the music is selfselected by the learner.
The main learning practice involves aural copying from a
recording.
The learning is self-directed and peer-directed, usually in the
absence of adult supervision or guidance.
The skills and knowledge tend to be acquired holistically,
according to whatever music is being played, rather than
according to a pre-designated order going from simple to
complex.
There is a high integration of listening, playing, composing and
improvising throughout the learning.
These characteristics were then adapted for the secondary school music
classroom. Pupils were asked to get into friendship groups, choose their
own music, select instruments, and attempt to play the music by ear from a
recording, whilst largely directing their own learning. The role of the
teacher was different from the usual instructional mode; the teachers were
asked to start out by observing, then diagnosing pupils needs. At that
point they started to offer guidance and respond to requests for help in a
range of ways. These included demonstrating and acting as musical
models, explanation, giving technical advice, helping pupils to listen to
parts, assisting in making arrangements, and many more such activities.
To cut a long story short, the findings of the project have been
overwhelmingly positive, with high levels of motivation, group cooperation, inclusivity and skill-acquisition being reported.5
During the classroom project, many instrumental teachers asked us,
and continue to ask us, whether popular musicians informal learning
strategies might or might not usefully be adapted for the very different,
specialised context of the instrumental lesson. In response to this and a
range of other factors, I started a project whose objectives were to adapt
164
Chapter Nine
informal music-learning practices in similar ways to the classroom project,

but this time apply them to the instrumental lesson and evaluate what
happened. Whereas many instrumental teachers have backgrounds in
popular and other aurally-transmitted musics, and many already use a
range of aural learning techniques and recordings in their lessons, I
especially wanted to develop strategies that might be useful to classicallytrained teachers who might not be inclined to adopt informally-based
approaches. At the time of writing I have completed a substantial pilot
study, which is the focus of the current chapter. The main study began in
September 2011. At the time of writing, in December of that year, we have
inducted over 100 teachers into the project and are on the point of starting
to implement the strategies and collect data. 6
One of the differences between the instrumental project and the
classroom project is that the instrumental one involved mainly one-to-one
teaching. From a research point of view, this meant that I could observe
every lesson and focus on each individual child in more detail than was
possible in the classroom, where up to 30 pupils were working in small
groups simultaneously. Thus some detailed findings concerning how
individual learners approached the task came to light. Further differences
between the two projects concern the ways in which each was set up. The
different teaching-and-learning contexts demand different pedagogical
approaches; the instruments involved in the instrumental project, apart
from the piano, were mostly not used at all, or used only by a small
number of pupils at the very end of the classroom project; the pupils in the
current project already had varying degrees of proficiency on their
instruments, which was only the case for a small minority in the classroom
project; and the current pupils had all been learning to play their
instrument through notation and formal teaching, which was again barely
the case in the classroom. In fact, in the classroom most of those pupils
who did receive specialist instrumental lessons chose to work on
instruments that were just as new to them as to the rest of the class (see
e.g. Green 2008, 138, 161162). Therefore, in the current project some
pedagogical considerations had to be made, and some findings emerged
which were not relevant to, or did not surface in the classroom project. As
mentioned earlier, in general I will focus on those issues in the current
chapter.
The Research Sample

The project involved 15 pupils, mostly aged 13 to 15, with one 10
year-old and one 17 year-old. One pupil took part in an informal pre-pilot
study; the other 14 took part in the pilot study proper. There were 6 boys
and 9 girls. Ten of them were white, 4 Asian, and 1 mixed-race. Two had
special educational needs. Between them they played the piano, clarinet,
saxophone, trumpet, euphonium, trombone, violin and cello. They had
been learning their instruments for varying periods of time from 8 months
to 12 years. Most of them were around Grade 2 standard, the highest grade
being Grade 6 (using a well-known grading system in the UK).7 All but
one was attending a state comprehensive school in West London; the
youngest pupil was attending the neighbouring primary school.
Four instrumental teachers were involved, all women. Between them
they taught the piano, woodwind, brass and strings respectively. The piano
teacher worked at home, and the other three worked as peripatetic teachers
in the school. Three of them had received traditional, classical
conservatoire training. Of these, the string and brass teachers particularly
said they felt in foreign territory to use their term, in the realms of
popular music, ear-playing and improvisation. The piano teacher had
professional experience of playing by ear and improvising, particularly in
theatre bands, and described herself as self-taught in these areas. The
woodwind teachers training was in jazz and light music, and she had
more experience of ear-playing and improvisation than the others. All but
one of the pupils had 6 to 8 project lessons, each lasting 1015 minutes,
once a week.8 Altogether 104 project lessons took place. Most of the
pupils followed three different project-stages, but in three cases only one
stage was taken. All the lessons were individual, apart from one case
where two pupils took their weekly lesson together.
Research Methods
The research methods were qualitative, and included participantobservation in all 104 lessons. As participant-observer I took the role of
both researcher and teacher; meanwhile, the normal instrumental teacher
acted as a critical observer and co-teacher. Each lesson was audiorecorded then transcribed and annotated. The transcriptions and
annotations were combined with any field-notes that I had made straight
after each lesson, as well as observations of gestures, facial expressions or
other factors taken from memory. At the end of the project I conducted
individual semi-structured interviews with the students and teachers; a
questionnaire with the students; and recorded and transcribed an end-ofproject teacher meeting in which I presented and discussed the initial
findings with three of the four teachers (the piano teacher had moved away
but I discussed the findings with her informally). The data were analysed
Chapter Nine
166
by hand using an iterative coding method, and the findings were allowed
to emerge in the manner of grounded theory.
There are obvious disadvantages as well as advantages of such
research methods. There is likely to be a halo effect for both teachers and
pupils, produced from knowing that one is participating in a research
project, or from having a stranger in the room, a colleague with whom to
share ideas, a new teacher from whom to get positive feedback, and so on.
Researcher-bias is wont to creep in, as the researcher may be inclined to
ignore data that threatens the success of the strategies or detracts from the
coherence of the findings. Such issues are well-rehearsed in the literature,
and naturally I attempted to reduce all of them as much as possible. The
benefits of participant-observation and qualitative research are equally
well-known. In this case, the research methods enabled me to try out the
teaching strategies in the role of teacher myself, and thus get an insiders
view of the teachers role; to make detailed observations of the responses
and behaviours of each pupil; to exchange views with the teachers as we
went along; and to involve the teachers as co-observers. The observations,
perspectives and opinions of the pupils as well as the teachers formed a
vital part of the project, and are triangulated with my own observations
and conclusions.
The Pedagogic Strategies and Materials

The primary aim of the pedagogy was to enable pupils to learn a new
approach to learning through developing their listening skills in a way
that is modelled upon the aural informal learning practices of popular
musicians. This can be broken down into the following aims, which were
to:
x
x
x
x
x
x
introduce pupils to a way of playing by ear which they may not

otherwise have come across;
enhance aural skills and aural understanding, especially the
ability to pick out and reproduce pitches by ear;
help pupils to develop a skill which they could build on in their
own time, thus developing learner-autonomy;
give pupils the means to approach a range of music, arrange it for
their own instrument, and play it creatively in a way that pleases
them;
introduce pupils to a way of learning which they find enjoyable,
and thus increase motivation;
give teachers opportunities to observe this kind of aural learning
taking place, and to encounter ways of teaching as well as

learning which were likely to be new to them.
The project was not intended in any way to either replace existing
traditional or notation-based methods, nor to challenge existing
instrumental pedagogy in the popular or any other musical field. Rather,
the intention was to add something to traditional notation-based
approaches, particularly for those classically-trained teachers who lack
confidence in aural or improvisatory realms. As mentioned, the strategies
took up only 10 to 15 minutes per week, and normal work was resumed
during the rest of the lesson.
The teaching-and-learning strategies were organised in three stages, as
follows:
Stage 1: Funk Track, Link Up
The first stage involved a specially-prepared instrumental track in a
pop/funk style (see Ex. 9-1). Firstly each pupil listened to the opening of
the full piece, then to the opening of a track in which the bass riff is played
on its own, and repeated over and over for two minutes. (I will refer to
such tracks as being looped, although they were not technologically
looped but were played live to avoid a mechanical quality.) Pupils were
then asked to attempt to find the pitches of the riff on their own
instrument, transposed up or down an octave as they wished. The role of
the teacher, which is described in detail later on in this chapter, was to
stand back as much as their professional judgement allowed; however
various types of help were offered if needed and these will be discussed
later. Once the riff had been learnt, this was followed by learning two to
five more riffs in the same way. After this the pupils played along to the
recording, using any riff they knew, and playing the riffs in any order and
combination that they liked. This therefore brought in a certain amount of
improvisation. For pianists it meant playing with two hands and, in some
cases, playing chords. As well as, or instead of playing along to a
recording, the riffs could also be played in a duet with the teacher, or in
groups of any number of instrumentalists playing any instruments, during
lessons or extra-curricular activities.
Chapter Nine
168
Ex. 9-1. Link Up
Stage 2: Classical music, with isolated, repeated parts

Stage 2 began around the third lesson for most pupils. The task was to
listen to the openings (at least) of six pieces of classical music, and choose
one. The pieces were:
x Mozart, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, 1st movt, arranged for string
quartet
x Beethoven, Fr Elise, for piano
x Clara Schumann, Piano Trio, 1st movt, for piano, violin and cello
x Handel, Flute sonata, Minuet and Trio, for flute, harpsichord and
cello
x Brahms, Symphony no. 1, fourth movement theme, arranged for
string quartet with synthesiser for brass/woodwind
x Bach, Minuet from Anna Magdalena notebook, played on
harpsichord
As with the funk track, each piece was presented first in its complete
instrumentation, then each melody or bass line was presented in just two
parts, sometimes a little simplified, then the first phrase of each melody or
bass line was repeated (or looped) over and over again for two minutes,
then the next phrase, and so on.
Stage 3: Self-chosen music

Stage 3 began in most cases around the fifth or sixth lesson. The pupils
were requested to listen to their own music at home, choose any piece,
which could be in any style and for any instrument/voice or combination
of such, and teach themselves to play any part of it that they wished, by
ear. They then brought a recording of it to the next lesson, and showed
what they had done. In this case there was of course no pre-prepared
looped material to help them.
In devising the strategies, I took into account some of the main
characteristics of informal learning as used in the classroom project
mentioned above. These characteristics were adapted for the instrumental
lesson, but in ways that could be accommodated within this setting:
x
x
x
The main learning practice was aural copying from a recording.

The pupils did not choose their own music at first, but after
around 5 or 6 lessons.
A teacher (and a researcher) was present during the lesson, so the
self-directed aspect of informal learning was not present.
However the pupils moved gradually towards more self-directed
learning as the project went on.
To begin with the skills and knowledge were structured through
set pieces and the isolated and repeated riffs or melodies, with
some built-in progression. However, after 4 or 5 lessons, the
learners chose their own real music to work on.
As well as playing, the task involved a high level of listening and
a certain amount of improvisation.
Therefore at first the emphasis was more on aural learning than

informal learning, moving in the direction of informal learning after four
or five lessons.9
In the CD tracks for Stages 1 and 2 of the project, the keys were not
too demanding, the tempi not too fast, and the phrases not too long.10 In
addition, the materials were slightly graded, starting with shorter riffs in
the pop/funk piece and moving towards longer phrases in the classical
pieces. However, overall the work was based on the principle of
differentiation by outcome. In other words, we gave the same materials to
each learner regardless of their level of ability, achievement, or the
instrument they played. After the first few lessons, when pupils chose their
own pieces to work on, any pedagogic systematisation or control over the
demands of the piece chosen was of course relinquished.11
170
Chapter Nine
A Brief Summary of the Pupils Initial Approaches to the

Task: the Emergence of Potential Learning Styles
None of the pupils had previously attempted to find pitches by ear
from a recording during a lesson; and in interviewing them at the end of
the project, I found that only 4 of the 15 pupils had been confident in the
knowledge that music could be learnt entirely by ear before the project
started. Another four had never attempted to play by ear before. Nine said
they had tried some ear-playing at home, but not by playing along with a
recording, and they reported a feeling that they had not had much success.
Only one pupil, Tom, regularly played along to recordings at home: when
Im bored, I pick up the clarinet to play, when Im listening to some
music, I just play along with it. He, however, said that the project
strategies had given him a more rounded kind of information type thing.
As I worked through the data, one area that unexpectedly began to
emerge was that there seemed to be four distinct ways in which the pupils
approached the task. I conceptualised these as four different learning
styles.12 By learning styles I mean an approach to learning which
seemed to come about spontaneously rather than as a result of practice or
teaching. At the end-of-project teacher meeting I explained how I was
viewing each learning style, presented the criteria on paper, and played
one audio-excerpt of each to the teachers. The audio-excerpts were the
recordings of the very first moments in which the pupil had attempted to
aurally copy the very first notes within the project. I then played further
excerpts of first attempts, one from each pupil, and asked the teachers to
independently categorise each one according to the same criteria, acting in
the manner of judges in an expert panel. I also asked them to note whether
they felt the audio excerpts fitted none of the criteria, or would be more
accurately described in a different way than the criteria allowed. There
was a 100 per cent agreement with my own categorisation in all cases but
one, where one teacher classed one pupil differently from how I and the
other two teachers categorized her. The four categories are summarised
below.
1. The impulsive style
After listening to only one rendition of the bass riff, Fred started to
play his trumpet loudly and apparently with enormous confidence. He
played the rhythm with exact precision, but mainly all on one note (not
one of the correct notes, and slightly out of tune); then he switched to
another note and stuck on that. On his second attempt he started dead on
the first note, straight after the two-bar drum introduction, and again
played with a great deal of rhythmic accuracy, but on a set of pitches that
bore only some similarity to those on the track. By the end, with only
encouragement and no specific advice from the teacher, he had settled on
his own two-note version of the riff. I called his approach the impulsive
learning style, because: he started to respond to the music so quickly that
he had hardly any time to listen to it first; he played loudly and with
seeming confidence; showed no concern for whether his pitches matched
those on the recording; and kept going without stopping to make
corrections, ask questions or assess progress. Fred was the only pupil we
placed in this category; the reason being simply that his approach seemed
quite distinct from that of any other pupils.
2. The shot-in-the-dark style
Seven of the 15 pupils were placed in this category. In contrast with
Fred, these young people approached the task with great hesitation,
seeming to harbour doubt and even fear of making a mistake. They would
start by listening for several bars, sometimes up to a minute or longer, then
when they tried out notes, they would play very quietly. Quite often they
would wince or grimace as soon as they had played a note, regardless of
whether it was a correct one or not. Even if they happened to play a correct
note, they did not usually show any signs of recognising it as such. In most
cases, and with a great deal of teacher-encouragement and some guidance
(as outlined below), these pupils were able to play the whole of one riff by
the end of the first 10 to 15-minute session, and in some cases part of
another riff; but with some hesitation and quite a few mistakes. I called
this the shot-in-the-dark approach.
3. The practical style
Five of the 15 pupils were placed in this category. Rather than holding
back and stabbing at notes in the manner of the shot-in-the-dark pupils,
they seemed quite pragmatic, and started off by playing their instrument.
In that sense, their approach was similar to that of Fred, the impulsive
pupil. However, in another sense, they took a more applied, strategic
approach than Fred, in that they spontaneously broke down the task into
components. These components may have been short phrases, but were
not always identifiable as such; for example, they may have been just three
notes from within the middle of a phrase, or an outstanding interval or a
scalar passage. Another approach they had in common was to play their
Chapter Nine
172
instrument quietly, which was both unlike Fred, and unlike the quiet,
hesitant way identified amongst the shot-in-the-dark pupils. Rather,
playing quietly enabled them to listen carefully to the CD without
drowning its sound with their own playing. Another strategy was to play
up a scale until a note in the riff was hit, at which point the player would
usually immediately recognize it as one of the correct notes, use it as an
anchor, and work out the other notes from there. Another approach was to
do something I later called dwell and catch up, which was to dwell on a
few notes and practice them a couple of times, even though the music on
the CD track was still moving forwards through time, then to catch up
with the CD music by leaving out the next few bars, and do the same thing
the next time the same notes came around. In this way they would fill in
the missing notes, not necessarily by following the order in which the
notes come on the recording, but by starting perhaps in the middle of the
riff and working backwards and forwards. In most cases, by the end of the
very first attempt, these pupils had got the whole, or almost the whole riff
correct with very little teacher-input, enabling them to move straight on to
the next riff.
4. The theoretical style
Two pupils were placed in this category. They seemed more inclined to
ask questions than to play notes. One of them was William, who had been
playing the violin for 4 years. Immediately after I had explained the task
and we had listened to the full instrumental track of Link Up, he said:
William (violin), lesson 1
William: Which part are we going to be playing, since there were several
instruments?
LG: They were indeed. Yes. There were several.
William: So which one are we going to be playing? Or are we playing all
of them?
No-one else asked this question, or indeed any question at this point.
Other comments and questions he proffered over the course of the project
include those below, which the reader might otherwise assume were made
by myself or his teacher.
- Its only playing three notes I think. Three different notes.
- Because the chords, the top chord, the middle chord, and bottom chord
were the same rhythm, just different notes.
- It was third finger on the D string wasnt it?
- The top notes are chords.
- So it just goes second finger, second finger and then first finger, right?
- So its just the same three notes that just keep on, that they are going to
repeat . . . So it just keeps on going on. D-C-D, D-C-D.
- It just goes like third finger, second finger, third finger and then it repeats
that once and it goes third finger, first finger on the E and then back.
- I think it starts somewhere around the E string, but Im not sure.
Both William and Liz, the other pupil who was placed in this category,
seemed to have an analytical, theoretically-orientated approach to the task.
They listened with concentration, but instead of trying notes on their
instruments, they would ask questions, and seemed to want to
conceptualise how the music was structured, and/or to work out each note
in theory before trying to play it. Unlike Freds impulsive style of
learning, and the practical style of five of the pupils, but rather like the
shot-in-the-dark style of seven pupils, they seemed reluctant to play.
However, as with the shot-in-the-dark pupils, by the end of the first
lesson, with encouragement and guidance, all but one could play at least
one riff either correctly, or with the correct rhythm and contour, if not total
pitch accuracy. The exception was the youngest pupil, Joelly, who
achieved this at the end of her second session.
An overall picture of the four learning styles
Table 9-1 gives an overall picture of which pupils were placed within
each style-category, including their age, instrument, and number of years
of taking lessons on that instrument.
Table 9-1. Categorisation of the pupils learning styles
Impulsive
Fred (14) trpt 4
yrs
Shot-in-the-dark
Oliver (13) trom 2
yrs
Shilpa (15) sax 4 yrs
Evie (13) vln 5 yrs
Molly (14) euph 8
mnth
Raksha (14) cello 3
yrs
Joelly (10) pf 2 yrs
Parvesh (13) clar 3
yrs
Practical
Tom (13) clar 4
yrs
Edward (17) pf 12
yrs
Ruby (14) pf 5 yrs
Jessica (15) pf 7
yrs
Katie (15) cello 8
yrs
Theoretical
William (12) vln 4
yrs
Liz (13) pf 2 yrs
174
Chapter Nine
Clearly there will be much to be discovered with a larger sample. One

issue would be the extent to which these four learning styles are replicated,
confirmed or contravened with greater numbers of pupils and a bigger
expert panel. Others would be the extent to which historical variables such
as the type of instrument played, or previous experience of learning might
affect the outcomes. Then there are pre-existing psychological differences
between pupils, such as personality traits; musical ability differences such
as the prior possession or not of perfect pitch; social group factors such
as age or gender; and a range of other issues which may or may not
influence the validity and reliability of the claims about learning styles
made here. These are areas that we will aim to investigate to some extent
in the main study, although it will not be possible to test for all of them. I
will pick them up again briefly at the end of this chapter.
Learning Style, Learning Strategy and Pupils

Progress beyond the Initial Stages
Above I have suggested that the pupils initial, spontaneous approaches
to the task can helpfully be regarded as a type of learning style. The
concept of learning style can be distinguished from that of learning
strategy (of which claim there is more detailed discussion in Green 2010,
and see Note 12). How style and strategy differ is, basically and
briefly, as follows: style arises spontaneously, prior to or free from any
influences derived from being taught, observing others carrying out the
task, or practicing the task; strategy develops gradually and appears to
be the result of teaching, observation or practice. Here I will give a very
brief overview of some of the ways in which pupils progressed, and some
of the learning strategies (as distinct from learning styles) that they
adopted for themselves as the project went on. Many of the issues are rich,
and could probably form the focus of an article on their own. However
owing to space I am only able to indicate the overarching areas.
In all cases improvement was noted by myself, the teacher, and the
pupil, in the sense that without exception pupils became increasingly able
to accurately identify and play pitches by ear as the project went by, as
well as gaining in confidence. Those who had been identified as in the
practical category outlined above maintained basically the same
approaches as the task went by, only becoming faster, more accurate and
more confident. However, in some cases other pupils seemed to progress
through different learning styles. For example, Evies initial approach was
classed as shot-in-the-dark but she moved towards a practical
approach as the lessons went by; and Oliver, initially a shot-in-the-dark
pupil, moved towards a more theoretical approach. It may be that there

is a natural progression between the learning styles, with the practical
approach being the most effective. In other words, what for some pupils
starts out as a spontaneous learning style, becomes for others a learnt
strategy.
For example, one strategy that has already been mentioned in
connection with the practical pupils was what I called dwell-and-catchup. This approach was adopted immediately and spontaneously by all
five pupils in the practical category, but began to be observable towards
the end of the project in the case of at least two others.
Working through the recordings and transcripts, it became possible to
identify a number of other strategies that were gradually developed by all
or many of the pupils, and which cut across the learning styles. What
might be called deep listening was a primary one, as pupils began to
identify parts within the texture. This is evidenced by statements such as:
Katie (cello): I was trying to pick out bits of the cello parts but its really
hard to . . . so, I just, kind of focused on the main tune . . . There was one
little bit of cello part that I picked out as well . . .
Shilpa (saxophone): I did the Little Mermaid song, but I really got like a
really random part . . .
Pupils also began to listen more structurally, as evidenced by

statements including Which part of the melody do you think would be
good to learn? and Does it just, is it just the same notes twice? . . . Is it
the same notes three times? In the post-intervention interviews, 14 pupils
were asked the question: Have you noticed any changes in the way you
listen to music in general since youve been doing the task? If so, can you
explain how? Five pupils said no; four said some and five yes.
There is no space here to quote their exact words, which were in fact very
similar to how pupils in the classroom project discussed this issue (see
Green 2008, Chapter 4).
Another strategy is related to a tendency amongst many pupils to do
what I later called edge forward. That is, after having practiced a short
part, say four or five notes long, they would then have a stab at the next
note or couple of notes almost impulsively. At least 11 instances of this
were recorded as independent events that occurred amongst seven of the
pupils, and a further pupil talked about having had this experience in her
interview. One example was cited at the beginning of this chapter:
Chapter Nine
176
Parvesh (clarinet) lesson 3

Parvesh comes in on the right note, stumbles, makes a few more attempts
and eventually plays correctly along with the music. Note that he, as with
many kids, gets one note right followed by a wrong note; then next time it
comes round he gets two notes right; then three. This seems to be a pattern.
Singing the notes that were being sought was another strategy which
three pupils in particular spontaneously adopted, one a brass player, one a
pianist and one a cellist. This also connects with a teaching strategy, which
I will mention later.
There were many instances where pupils were able to play more-orless the correct pitch contour but without getting the exact pitches. This
would normally precede finding the exact pitches. Pupils also often
spontaneously harmonised, sometimes playing fourths or fifths and
sometimes thirds. This lead into what can be seen as spontaneous
improvisation, which for all the pupils except Tom was a novel
experience. As an example:
Edward (piano) lesson 6
At the end something very interesting happenshe reaches for a big chord
to finish with, misses it, tries again and misses, then tries again, and says:
Edward: Oh! (Tries again) Thats how I wanted to end it, but I havent
practiced that before, it just came to me that I should end it on a high note.
(Plays the chord he was aiming for again.)
Along similar lines, some pupils developed the ability to fluently turn a
mistake into something that could be considered an improvisatory
variation.13
Connected with the concept of improvisation, I also observed many
instances where pupils appeared to be in flow, and this was confirmed
by the interviews and discussions with participants. The concept of flow
as it was first put forward in Csikszentmihalyis well-known study (1990)
refers to a combination of certain types of activity, of which music is one,
with an individuals attitudinal state. Flow arises when the activity is
thoroughly engaging and continuously rewarding, and the individual is
wholly and undistractedly wrapped up in carrying out the activity. Here,
however, I am not only referring to the concept as a psychological
experience of the individual, but also as a quality of the musical product
itself; in other words, the performance was heard to flow or to be more
fluent than is normally expected in a novice player learning a new piece.
This finding was also confirmed in the interviews, as a view shared by

both pupils and teachers. Again, the presence of flow was comparable
with its presence in the classroom project (Green 2008).14
There were some interesting differences between pupils within the
present project, in the ways they approached the task when it involved
music that they were unfamiliar with, and also music that they were
familiar with. It goes without saying that the task of aurally copying an
unfamiliar piece of music is more challenging than copying a familiar
piece. It is alsoas pupils in both the classroom and the current project
told usfar more enjoyable when the piece is familiar as well as wellliked. Most pupils expressed quite strong opinions about which music they
wanted to choose, both when they were asked to choose between the six
classical pieces in Stage 2, and when they were given free choice in Stage
3. Their choices represented a more diverse range of styles than the
choices that had been made by pupils in the classroom project.15 Some
selected what they regarded as suitable choices which were played either
on the instrument they were learning, or that were otherwise suited to it
(for example the trumpeter Fred chose the opening of the first movement
of Mozarts Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, played by a string quartet but
eminently suitable for trumpet too in relation to its arpeggiated hunting
call nature). By contrast, some went for pieces which they said they
thought would be a challenge for their instrument. Some were concerned
to pick music that they liked regardless of what instrument it was for;
some were concerned to pick music that was easy enough for them to play
(this was a consideration which came later to the pupils in the classroom
project); and some displayed a mix of these approaches. Two pupils
independently of each other picked a piece which happened to be in a very
difficult key for them; but which without guidance, and working at home,
they both spontaneously learnt to play in a key that they could manage.
This was facilitated, of course, because they already knew and liked the
tune.
The Pedagogy and the Roles of the Teachers

As explained earlier, at the outset of the project teachers were asked to
stand back rather more than usual; this meant saying less, and giving
pupils more time than they might normally do to tackle and achieve a task.
During her induction session Kate, the piano teacher, responded to this
notion with:
Marvellous! My only worry is as a piano teacher I shall become
completely redundant!
178
Chapter Nine
The fear that highly skilled and dedicated music teachers could become
redundant in a teaching situation where they allow learners more
autonomy than usual is understandable and has been voiced by others;
however, it is exceedingly far from the case.16 By the end of both the
classroom and the instrumental project such fears were dispelled, as
evidenced by Kates view in her end-of-project interview below:
. . . I have really enjoyed it. I found it on occasions as I said, you know an
exquisite torture . . . because you know I am terribly difficult keeping my
mouth shut at best of times, but it has been a fantastic learning experience
for me and so an enriching thing for me that hopefully I can fit back into
my work with my pupils.
In what follows I wish to briefly illustrate and discuss the kinds of

roles and teaching strategies that the four teachers and myself took as the
project went on.
One primary strategy was not dissimilar to strategies often used when
teaching from notation. This was to encourage pupils to keep going.
However, the quality of keeping on going is different when one is
playing along to a recording, especially one that is looped as in Stages 1
and 2 of this project, compared with when one is playing from notation.
With a recording as a model, whatever the pupil plays or fails to play, the
recording carries, moving and changing on through time, whereas the
score is a spatial object which remains static and unchanged. Thus,
particularly when the recording is looped, the pupil is able to pick up
after a mistake, or wait until the same part of the melody returns in the
loop (termed dwell and catch up, as above), without losing the sense of
the musical flow of time. Encouraging pupils to keep going therefore
frequently enabled them to learn how to recover from or play through
any inaccuracies or mistakes (see Note 13). It was easily done, simply
with using encouraging words such as dont worry, just keep going at
appropriate moments; and by ensuring that pupils knew mistakes were
allowable and that playing through them was both expected and
appropriate. In addition, as discussed above in relation to the concept of
flow, and as the teachers indicated in the post-project interviews,
playing along with a recording tended to help pupils play more fluently in
a number of ways.
Connected with encouraging pupils to keep going was the strategy of
encouraging them to make their own version of the piece being copied.
Their own version may not have been a fully intentional product,
however, but could arise willy-nilly, due to a number of causes. These
include the fact that the pupil may have not have been technically
competent enough to play the original piece accurately according to its

recorded form; or that whilst they may have been technically competent
enough, their aural skills were not up to the job; or that they made
mistakes in relation to their own intentions (regardless of whether their
intentions were accurate or not). Often, in most aurally-based musics, a
mistake can beintentionally or unintentionallyplayed through, then
repeated, so that it comes to be played in; the player can at some point in
that process make a decision to treat the mistake as an intentional
alteration. As we saw earlier with an example from Edward, through such
processes the pupils began to engage in intentional embellishment and
improvisation. As mentioned earlier, and as touched on in Note 13, the
issue of what is correct and what is a mistake, and where the boundaries
between these two notions lie in relation to musical creativity and
performance, is complex and fascinating.
The notion of musical sketching might be helpful here, where the
role of the teacher can be understood as encouraging the pupils to make a
musical sketch rather than a correct realisation. As teachers we had to
use our judgement about when to offer guidance designed to correct
what we perceived to be a mistake, or what we considered the pupil to
have perceived to be a mistake, and when to accept an alternative
realisation as a potentially valuable, or intentional, variation. Alternatively
the opportunity can also be taken to demonstrate the correct notes.
Guiding the pupils listening was a major strategy. One approach was
to ask questions about what was being heard, another was to ask the pupil
to listen again and notice small details. Sometimes pupils could respond
by playing what they heard, sometimes by describing it in words, or
sometimes by simply confirming that they had heard it, even if they were
as yet unable to either play it back, or use words to describe it.
Another much-used method was to sing the pitches to the pupil. This
enabled us to slow the music down, stop in the middle to wait whilst the
pupil found the note, and/or sing a note and allow the pupil to seek it
whilst we held onto it. This usually took place either after the pupil was
already able to play the broad contour of the melody, or where no progress
had been made. Sometimes, if singing was not enough, we gave the name
of one or two notes, from which point the pupils could work out the rest
by themselves. The next stage was to show the pupils where a note was on
the instrument, or how to play it. This was particularly necessary on
instruments where notes are less immediately visible, such as the violin or
trumpet; or where fingering has many possibilities such as the saxophone
or clarinet. Strangely the brass players seemed to need less help with this
than I and the brass teacher expected. (An interesting issue emerged
180
Chapter Nine
concerning how pupils approached embouchure or lipping on brass

instruments, which I will mention below as it arose without teacherintervention.)
Strategies that directly involve modelling by showing pupils how to
play whole phrases or pieces were also used, but only after the pupil had
already had time to work out pitches autonomously to as great an extent as
possible. Demonstration allows the pupil to learn by watching as well as
listening, linking sound to eye, and observing a range of physical aspects
of playing such as posture, gesture and instrumental technique. Such
modelling was also particularly helpful, and described as enjoyable by all
parties, when the teacher played along with the pupil as a duet. Another
helpful way to model was to occasionally seek pitches ourselves in front
of the pupil. The teachers decided not to familiarise themselves in advance
with the given CD tracks, and we did not know what music the pupils
would bring to the final lessons. In this way, the teachers chose to put
themselves in the same position as the pupils. We felt this was both eyeopening and ear-opening for pupils, and for two of the four teachers it was
described as challenging and interesting.
Another strategy was to adopt the theoretical approach that two of
the pupils had spontaneously adopted for themselves, as discussed earlier.
Examples of this included asking pupils to listen, as illustrated above, and
in this case, to name or describe aspects of the music that they could hear,
such as note-names, how many beats were played, whether the harmony
was the same or different, what scale or key was being used, how many
notes were in the chord, whether the key is major or minor, and so on.
As a useful way of helping pupils to find notes, and to connect the
teaching to theory, we also found it helpful to link the piece to scales that
the pupils already knew, and clearly opportunities can also be taken to
show pupils a new scale, or ask them to work out a new scale for
themselves. In addition, the teacher could often find an opportunity to
connect the learning to other pieces or other activities that had taken place
or were about to take place in other parts of the lesson, with or without
notation. Of course teachers also took the opportunity to teach many
aspects of instrumental technique, musicianship and musical
interpretationfingering, breathing, intonation, phrasing, dynamics and so
on. Such teaching tended to occur at later stages once the pupils had found
pitches and gained confidence in playing fluently.
The Pupils and Teachers Views

In the post-intervention interview I asked the pupils: When I first
played you the very first CD and said you were going to learn it by ear,
without notation, what did you think about that? Ten of them said they
expected it to be difficult or impossible, using words such as: I thought I
am not going to be able to do this; it might be a bit hard; I thought I
wouldnt be able to do that at all, truthfully. I didnt know how to tackle
it; and panic! However, after the project all except Tom, the only one
who had previously done aural learning by himself at home, reported that
it turned out to be easier than expected. Surprisingly perhaps, given their
initial reactions and expectations, all the pupils reported that they found it
enjoyable, with three-quarters ticking the very enjoyable box. Words
used to describe the experience, often by several pupils independently of
each other, included fun, really good fun, enjoyed it a lot, really
interesting, brilliant, something new and interesting to learn, and
others. All the pupils said that given a choice between learning only by
notation, only by ear, or both, they would choose both.
The teachers were often surprised by how well pupils tackled and
progressed at the task, and found that pupils could make leaps which
exceeded normal expectations. Examples of this fell into two categories
which I will treat below, the first regarding technique, and the second
regarding what I will refer to as musical expression.
Firstly, I asked teachers the question: How much do you feel the
pupils techniquee.g. fingering, embouchure and so onwas affected or
not affected by the approach, and if relevant, in what ways? Examples
picked out by teachers included: producing a note that the pupil had not
known how to play previously; in the case of brass players, this included
lipping which was something they did spontaneously and had not been
shown how to do; for string players, it might be moving their hand into a
new position that they had not previously come across; for all instruments
apart from the piano it involved playing with better intonation, and/or
making a better sound than normal; for pianists it could be playing a
hands-together syncopation that would have been beyond them using
notation. In general, it involved most pupils, at some point in time, playing
phrases or pieces that the teacher would have thought were beyond them.
As illustrated by the string teacher below, the issue of technique was
not without its frustrations, but these also had some compensations, some
of which relate to the issue of musical expression:
Susanna: Well the whole thing of technique, I thought featured quite
largely in my mind, because there were times when they were doing things
182
Chapter Nine
or trying to do it and I was very aware of the fact that they couldnt get the
notes they wanted to, because they didnt really know about certain aspects
of technique, and actually there was a certain frustration inside me at the
time . . . but yes, I think they would, they were learning bits of technique in
a much more musical way than if it was just in a scale book; or as I say as
you are reading notation, sometimes, it can come out so the notes are all
there but its not remotely phrased how it should be. So in that sense you
are starting from the musical point of view, so that was good I think, yes;
and they were copying things that they heard in their recording, perhaps a
short bass stroke or, whereas if they were doing that from the notation
youd have to tell them.
As Sarah, the brass teacher said on more than one occasion: Youd
need a thousand words to get that out of them.
Secondly, then, regarding musical expression, I asked: How much do
you feel the pupils musicianshipe.g. phrasing, dynamics, articulation,
touchwas affected or not affected by the approach, and if relevant, in
what ways? In this area there was quite strong agreement that the
approach elicited a number of valuable and unexpected outcomes, as the
example below indicates:
Kate (piano): I would say thats some of the, I mean obviously there was a
couple of slips, but thats some of the most sensitive playing Ive ever
heard [Edward] do! . . . [He] I think played better when he wasnt having
to read music, because he was able to listen to what he was doing . . . I
think he achieved a more musical, he was playing more musically at an
earlier stage. Because you wouldnt have that extra level of hand-to-eye
co-ordination, your brain to page, back to brain and then to fingers, you
know all that kind of stuff, they are all little stumbling blocks to playing
musically.
As with the classroom project, teachers were unanimous in the view

that the foremost skill developed by the strategies was listening. For
example:
Kate: . . . they are beginning to actively listen to music as opposed to
passively hear it, which is something that I am trying to incorporate in all
my lessons . . .
For those instruments other than the piano, another area where
improvement was noted, was that of intonation:
Susanna (strings): I think it [the pupils intonation] is definitely better.
Because the thing with the notation, theyre playing the right, what they
think is the right thing so they think it must be right, you know, because
theyve actually forgetting to listen. Theyre just reading the note and
thinking, you know, thats a high 2 and putting the finger there; and, its
actually out of tune. But theyre just thinking, Ive got my finger in the
right position, so its right. Whereas when we took the music [score] out
of the way and theyre actually focusing on [listening to] the music, they
knew instantly it wasnt right because they were copying and matching.
All four teachers, without prompt, said they felt the task increased
pupils confidence and also linked this to the ability to take ear-playing
towards improvisation and in some cases, composition.
The above findings concerning the quality of pupils performances
and/or confidence correlate with findings by other research studies, which
systematically investigated the results of aural versus notation-based
learning. In a study by Watson (2010) a jazz improvisation task was given
to 62 college students; half of them received instruction primarily through
aural imitation, and the other half received instruction primarily through
notated exercises. In a study by Woody and Lehmann (2010), an aural
learning task was carried out by two groups of 12 musicians. The members
of one group had backgrounds in formal training and classical music only;
whilst those in the other group had backgrounds in both formal training
and aural, informal, vernacular music-learning. Findings in both studies
were deduced from systematic observation, expert judgement and/or the
reported perceptions of the players themselves. Participants who had learnt
by ear felt more confident, played more fluently, musically or expertly
and/or had a more fluid relationship with their instrument. For example, in
Woody and Lehmanns study, in unprompted responses to open questions,
out of 12 formally-trained participants, 5 mentioned that they had found
the aurally-learnt melody problematic or unpredictable; meanwhile, none
of the vernacular musicians made such a comment, but on the contrary, 6
of them mentioned that they had found the melody predictable and typical.
Whereas 9 of the formal musicians reported having been conscious of
fingering or other actions on their instrument during the task, only one of
the vernacular musicians did so.
Back to the current project, there was agreement amongst the teachers
that, although many of us found it difficult to stand back at the outset of
the project, this was indeed necessary; and also that as in all teaching, one
has to carefully judge the moment when it is necessary to step in and offer
help. It is perhaps worth citing two examples at some length:
Kate (piano): Sometimes I found it absolutely agonising to stand back and
watch whilst their fingers hover over the right notes, and you want to say
Yes, thats it, go for it but you know I see why it is better to let them find
the notes themselves . . . I think that its got to be determined by each
184
Chapter Nine
particular teacher and how they work best, and how they relate to each
different pupil. I think the role has got to be facilitative, if that word exists,
rather than telling; because what you could find yourself doing and what I
would be tempted to do, because I tend to be quite hands on, is say: Yes
there is your start note, there it is, look at it, thats how it is. I can see
thats not always helpful, although I think you have to do it on a case-bycase, pupil-by-pupil basis. But I absolutely take [the projects] point and
Ive learnt from that, sometimes you just have to learn to sit back and let
them sink or swim, but hopefully you are not going to let them drown . . .
and what I will take from it is giving them the tools to do it for themselves
. . . So there is no point in just showing them, but I think as a teacher you
have to accept the point at which we reached a block, a stumbling block at
which there is a danger that this is all going to fall apart. So I think you
have to approach it on a pupil-by-pupil basis.
Sarah (brass): . . . from my point of view I thought it was really good
because you didnt know [inaudible] anyway. The less you would say to
them kind of was the better, so if you just explained what you want and
then left them to their own devices to try and work it out, and then from
my point of view just giving a helping hand, explaining how they could use
their instruments to help them do what they were doing, either different
positions or using their valves or using their lip, just little technical things
that helped them to get their notes. I think that worked best. And just really
sort of leaving them to work it out themselves.
All the teachers indicated that they felt they had learnt from being
involved in the project, and that the approaches would be likely to
influence their future teaching, not necessarily through an exact replication
of the materials and strategies, but in more general ways. To end with a
quote from each teacher:
Kate (piano): . . . I am finding this absolutely fascinating; and its already
having an effect on the rest of my teaching too, just in a general way; and
its reminding me that there is more than one way to learn, you know, what
a middle C is . . . I think it has reminded me that a holistic approach to
teaching is very important. And I think I will incorporate the aural
tradition, if you like, your teaching methods, on a daily basis . . .
Susanna (strings) [in an unsolicited email sent after the project]: I found
taking part in the whole project really interesting and rewarding. It gave
me new insights into how people learn and has given me new ideas which I
will definitely incorporate into future lessons.
Sarah (brass): Its been a real eye-opening experience . . . at the time I
thought, Oh, I am not sure how its going to work or how its going to fit
in with our lessons and our timetables and things with the exams around,
but its been really good for the kids and theyve all enjoyed it. So I mean,
I thought some of them might come to me the next week and say, I really
dont like it, or I am really not getting on. But nobody said anything.
Lynne (woodwind): . . . the [pupils] that did it thought it was fun, and if
you can make learning fun, then thats just the best way to do it. So I think
that really it should be incorporated into every lesson, to be perfectly frank,
if you can . . . I think it was a resounding success. Thats my comment. It
really was! All the teachers enjoyed it and all the pupils enjoyed it.
Issues for Further Research and Development

This project was a small-scale investigation in an area which seems to
contain much potential for further work concerning a range of issues
confronting music educators today. Such issues are by no means tied to the
particular pedagogic strategies involved in the current project, but relate to
a number of approaches currently being developed in which informal,
aural learning practices, or learning practices that have generally been
associated with the informal sphere, are being taken more seriously and
adapted within formal music education (see Note 3). Here I will briefly
indicate some of the areas which seem to me to bear potential fruit. I have
restricted my comments to those which could arise directly from the
project under consideration in this chapter, but of course they have a wider
potential application in relation to other similar projects.
One thing is clear: we would need to study the learning processes
involved in the project over a longer period of time, and with much larger
numbers of pupils and teachers, before we could produce any thoroughly
robust findings. In the main study, due to start in September 2011, that
will be possible to some extent, and some of the questions and issues
which I have identified above and below will be investigated. However it
will by no means be possible to address them all. Issues for further
development can be considered to fall under two broad categories. One
concerns the practical development of the projects pedagogy, and the
other concerns the theoretical and methodological development of the
research.
One way in which to extend the pedagogic approach would be to
introduce further stages. For example, a fourth stage could be added to the
current three-stage model, focussing more directly on improvisation; a
fifth stage could focus on composition, a sixth stage on group-learning or
peer-directed learning, and another one on the development of musical
leadership skills. After the project had ended, the teachers put together a
performance for the school concert involving 35 pupils who had learnt the
186
Chapter Nine
music by ear in sectional rehearsals. Susanna, the string teacher, adapted

the strategies for her adult string class, which involved a teacher-directed,
group session, and went on for a whole academic year.
The pedagogy involved in facilitating group learning by ear is
necessarily rather different from that involved in individual learning. This
is particularly so because the individual can choose when to start and stop
the recording, and can focus their ear on the recording itself without the
distraction of others playing at the same time. But with more than one
person learning at a time, the decision about when to stop the recording
has to be taken either by the teacher, or an appointed member of the class
acting as musical leader; and the other members of the class may be
playing any notesaccurate, inaccurate, improvisatory, or whateveras
the music goes on. There are a number of implications concerning the
pedagogic strategies, including for example how to manage the needs of
everyone in the group; how to build in a higher level of visual learning as
the group will watch the teacher modelling at the same time as they are
attempting to copy; the use of peer-direction, and many more. Such
extensions to the model would obviously also contain implications for
extending the research.
Regarding other possible extensions to the research, as distinct from
the pedagogy, there are many possibilities. For example I would
hypothesise thatdespite the fact that both the project pedagogy and
notational pedagogy involve the replication of a pre-composed piece and
largely require no necessary improvisationlearners would be in a better
position to improvise after they had followed the first three stages of the
project (or other similar approaches), than if they had learnt to play the
same pieces by notation. Such a hypothesis, and many others, could be
investigated by the use of a matched control group, with both quantitative
and qualitative measures of ability and achievement taken before, during
and after the intervention.
In the present research, the teaching and research team formed an
expert panel which made judgements about outcomes. These included,
for example, the proposition that pupils were displaying different learning
styles as discussed earlier, and they included judgements about skill and
knowledge-acquisition, quality of playing, and other issues. The use of a
larger independent panel of experts to judge such matters could confirm,
invalidate, and/or throw further light on them.
There are many questions to be explored regarding both individual and
social-group differences between the pupils, which would again require
larger numbers of participants in order to be investigated. As mentioned
earlier, individual differences would concern areas such as ability and
motivation, whereas social differences would concern membership of

different social groups. Regarding the former, clinical tests of pitch-sense,
for example, could be administered before, during and after the
intervention. It would also be interesting to observe whether pupils who
display signs of perfect pitch before the project adapt different
approaches to the task; for example, would it be the case that those with
perfect pitch are more likely to adopt what I earlier called the practical
approach? Age-differences are also likely to have an effect on both the
approach to learning and the ability to undertake the task. An application
and investigation of the project strategies, or other similar strategies,
across different age-groups could throw new light on child-development in
relation to musical ability and understanding.
As mentioned earlier, it is likely that different instruments will be
connected with different approaches to aural learning, and different
outcomes. More knowledge and understanding of the capacities or
affordances of different instruments in these respects could be of vital
interest to music educators, as they may carry implications for which
instruments are most likely to be of help at different levels, ages, or for
different individuals.
There are also potentially interesting questions about whether complete
beginners would display the same approaches to learning as those who had
been taking lessons for varying lengths of time. So far, there are
indications that our normal grading systems may not apply to learning and
teaching using aural-copying approaches: some learners who are graded as
beginner in the traditional structure may be better at this particular task
than those graded as more advanced, and vice versa; and some pupils who
have been designated as having high ability may be less good at this task
than those who have been designated as having low ability, and vice versa.
There are also questions to be explored concerning aural learning in
relation to assessment, inclusion, and special educational needs.
Many music teachers and researchers are today committed to the
expansion of the styles of music that are included and valued within
education, and a broadening of concepts concerning how to teach music
and how to both facilitate and direct musical learning. The bibliography
given at the end of this chapter represents only a small proportion of the
work being done. The work is not, and should not be, restricted to any one
style of music; nor should we risk losing the time-honoured, and often
very differing traditions of music-teaching that have kept alive highly
specialist educational practices, from the Western classical to the Indian
classical styles and beyond. But there is much which remains to be done in
attempting to return the enjoyment of music-making to what I believe
188
Chapter Nine
most music-educators agree is its rightful placea participatory aspect of

what it is to be human.
References
Allsup, R. E. 2004. Of Concert Bands and Garage Bands: Creating
Democracy Through Popular Music. In Bridging the Gap: Popular
Music and Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 20423. Reston: MENC.
. 2008. Creating an Educational Framework for Popular Music in
Public Schools: Anticipating the Second-Wave. Visions of Research
in Music Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/
vision/1%20AERA%20-%20Allsup.pdf
Bailey, D. 1992. Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice in Music. New
York: Da Capo Press.
Bayton, M. 1997. Frock Rock: Women Performing Popular Music.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, H. S. 1980. On Becoming a Rock Musician. Amherst: University
of Massachusetts Press.
Berkaak, O. A. 1999. Entangled Dreams and Twisted Memories: Order
and Disruption in Local Music Making. YOUNGNordic Journal of
Youth Research 7 (2): 2543. http://logic.itsc.cuhk.edu.hk/~b114299/
young/1999/articleOdd%20Are%20Berkaak99-2.htm
Berliner, P. F. 1994. Thinking in Jazz. The Infinite Art of Improvisation.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Bjrnberg, A. 1993. Teach You to Rock? Popular Music in the
University Music Department. Popular Music 12 (1): 6977.
Boespflug, G. 2004. The Pop Music Ensemble in Music Education. In
Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez,
190203. Reston: MENC.
Byrne, C. 2005. Pedagogical Communication in the Music Classroom.
In Musical Communication, eds. D. Miell, R. MacDonald, and D.
Hargreaves, 30119. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, C., and M. Sheridan. 2000. The Long and Winding Road: the
Story of Rock Music in Scottish Schools. International Journal of
Campbell, P. S. 1995. Of Garage Bands and Song-Getting: The Musical
Development of Young Rock Musicians. Research Studies in Music
Education 4 (1): 1220.
Clawson, M. A. 1999. Masculinity and Skill Acquisition in the
Adolescent Rock Band. Popular Music 18 (1): 99114.
Clements, A. C. 2008. Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing Methods

Through a Change of Paradigm. Visions of Research in Music
Education 12. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/
3%20AERA%20-%20Clements.pdf
Cohen, S. 1991. Rock Culture in Liverpool: Popular Music in the Making.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Coffield, F., D. Moseley, E. Hall, and K. Ecclesonte. 2004. Learning
Styles and Pedagogy in Post-16 Learning: a Systematic and Critical
Review. London: The Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Cope, P. 1999. Community-Based Traditional Fiddling as a Basis for
Increasing Participation in Instrumental Playing. Music Education
Research 1 (1): 6173.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
New York: Harper and Row.
Cutietta, R. A. 2004. When We Question Popular Music in Education,
What is the Question? In Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and
Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 24247. Reston: MENC.
Davis, S. 2005. That Thing You Do! Compositional Processes of a Rock
Band. International Journal of Education and the Arts 16 (6).
http://www.ijea.org/v6n16/index.html
Downey, J. 2009. Informal Learning in Music in the Irish Secondary
School Context. Action, Criticism and Theory in Music Education 8
(2): 4760. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Downey8_2.pdf
Dunbar-Hall, P. 1996. Designing a Teaching Model for Popular Music.
In Teaching Music, ed. G. Spruce, 21626. London and New York:
Routledge in association with the Open University.
Dunbar-Hall, P., and K. Wemyss. 2000. The Effects of the Study of
Popular Music on Music Education. International Journal of Music
Education 36 (1): 2335.
Emmons, S. E. 2004. Preparing Teachers for Popular Music Processes
and Practices. In Bridging the Gap: Popular Music and Education,
ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 15873. Reston: MENC.
Evelein, F. 2006. Pop and World Music in Dutch Music Education: Two
Cases of Authentic Learning in Music Teacher Education and
Secondary Music Education. International Journal of Music
Education 24 (2): 17887.
Feichas, H. 2010. Informal Music Learning Practices as a Pedagogy of
Integration in Brazilian Higher Education. British Journal of Music
Education 27 (1): 4758.
Finnegan, R. 1989. The Hidden Musicians: Music-Making in an English
Town. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
190
Chapter Nine
Finney, J., and C. Philpott. 2010. Student Teachers Appropriating

Informal Pedagogy. British Journal of Music Education 27 (1): 719.
vs Formal and Informal Ways Of Learning. British Journal of Music
Education 23 (2): 13545.
Gatien, G. 2009. Categories and Music Transmission. Action, Criticism
and Theory in Music Education 8 (2): 95120.
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Gatien8_2.pdf
Georgii-Hemming, E., and M. Westvall. 2010. Examining Current
Discourses Of Music Education In Sweden. British Journal of Music
Education 27 (1): 2133.
. 2010. Musical Learning Styles and Learning Strategies in the
Instrumental Lesson: Some Emergent Findings From a Pilot Study.
Psychology of Music (currently available as on online article; paper
version to appear in due course).
Hallam, S., A. Creech, C. Sandford, T. Rinta, and K. Shave. 2008. Survey
of Musical Futures: a Report from Institute of Education University of
London for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Project Report.
http://media.musicalfutures.org.uk/documents/resource/27229/IOE_M
usical_Futures_report.pdf
Heuser, F. 2008. Encouraging Change: Incorporating Aural and Informal
Learning Processes in an Introductory Music Education Course.
Visions of Research in Music Education 12. http://wwwusr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/4%20AERA%20-%20Heuser.pdf
Horn, K. 1984. Rock Music-Making as a Work Model in Community
Music Workshops. British Journal of Music Education 1 (2): 11135.
Humphreys, J. T. 2004. Popular Music in the American Schools: What
History Tells us About the Present and the Future. In Bridging the
Gap: Popular Music and Music Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 91
106. Reston: MENC.
Jaffurs, S. E. 2004. The Impact of Informal Music Learning Practices in
the Classroom, or How I Learned How To Teach From a Garage
Band. International Journal of Music Education 22 (3): 189200
Jones, P. M. 2008. Preparing Music Teachers for Change: Broadening
Instrument Class Offerings to Foster Lifewide and Lifelong Musicing.
Visions of Research in Music Education 12. http://wwwusr.rider.edu/~vrme/v12n1/vision/2%20AERA%20-%20Jones.pdf

Karlsen, S. 2010. BoomTown Music Education and the Need for
Authenticity: Informal Learning Put into Practice in Swedish PostCompulsory Music Education. British Journal of Music Education 27
(1): 3546.
Kirshner, T. 1998. Studying Rock: Towards a Materialist Ethnography.
In Mapping The Beat, eds. T. Swiss, J. Sloop, and A. Herman, 24768.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Lebler, D. 2007. Student as Master? Reflections on a Learning
Innovation in Popular Music Pedagogy. International Journal of
. 2008. Popular Music Pedagogy: Peer Learning in Practice. Music
Education Research 10 (2): 193213.
Lilliestam, L. 1996. On Playing by Ear. Popular Music 15 (2): 195216.
Lines, D. 2005. Improvisations and Cultural Work in Music and Music
Education. In Music Education for the New Millennium: Theory and
Practice Futures for Music Education and Learning, ed. D. Lines, 65
74. Oxford: Blackwell.
. 2009. Exploring the Contexts of Informal Learning. Action,
Criticism and Theory in Music Education 8 (2): 17.
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Lines8_2.pdf
Mans, M. 2009. Informal Learning and Values. Action, Criticism and
Theory in Music Education 8 (2): 8094.
http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Mans8_2.pdf
Marsh, K. 2008. The Musical Playground: Global Tradition and Change
in Childrens Songs and Games. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, P. 1996. Improvisation in Jazz: towards a Sociological Model.
Manchester Sociology Occasional Papers 45.
Monson, I. 1996. Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Negus. K. 2000. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. London:
Routledge.
OFlynn, J. 2006. Vernacular Music-Making and Education.
International Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 14047.
Riding, R., and S. Raynor. 1998. Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies.
London: David Fulton Publishers.
Rodriguez, C. X. 2004. The Broader Perspective. In Bridging the Gap:
Popular Music and Music Education, ed. C. X. Rodrguez. Reston:
MENC.
192
Chapter Nine
. 2009. Informal Learning in Music: Emerging Roles of Teachers and

Students. Action, Criticism and Theory in Music Education 8 (2): 36
47. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Rodriguez8_2.pdf
Schmeck, R. R., ed. 1988. Learning Strategies and Learning Styles. New
York and London: Plenum Press.
Seddon, F., and M. Biasutti. 2009. Participant Approaches to and
Reflections on Learning to Play a 12-bar Blues in an Asynchronous ELearning Environment. International Journal of Music Education 27
(3): 189203.
. 2010. Strategies Students Adopted When Learning to Play an
Improvised Blues in an E-Learning Environment. Journal of
Research in Music Education 58 (2): 14767.
Siefried, S. 2006. Exploring the Outcomes of Rock and Popular Music
Instruction in High School Guitar Class: a Case Study. International
Journal of Music Education 24 (2): 168177.
Sternberg, R. J., and L.-F. Zhang, eds. 2001. Perspectives on Thinking,
Learning, and Cognitive Styles. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Suzuki, S. 1986. Nurtured by Love: The Classic Approach to Talent
Education (2nd ed.). Miami: Suzuki Method International.
12631.
. 2009. The World Well Lost, Found: Reality and Authenticity in
Greens New Classroom Pedagogy. Action, Criticism and Theory in
Music Education 8 (2): 835. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/
Vakeva8_2.pdf
. 2010. Garageband or GarageBand? Remixing Musical Futures.
Watson, K. E. 2010. The Effects of Aural Versus Notated Instructional
Materials on Achievement and Self-Efficacy in Jazz Improvisation.
Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (3): 24059.
Wemyss, K. L. 2004. Reciprocity and Exchange: Popular Music in
Australian Secondary Schools. In Bridging the Gap: Popular Music
and Education, ed. C. X. Rodriguez, 14157. Reston: MENC.
Westerlund, H. 2006. Garage Rock Bands: a Future Model for
Education 24 (2): 11925.
Woody, R. H., and A. C. Lehmann. 2010. Student Musicians EarPlaying Ability as a Function of Vernacular Music Experiences.
Journal of Research in Music Education 58 (2): 101115.
Wright, R., and P. Kanellopoulos. 2010. Informal Music Learning,

Improvisation and Teacher Education. British Journal of Music
Education 27 (1): 7187.
Zhang, L.-F., and R. J. Sternberg. 2006. The Nature of Intellectual Styles.
Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Notes
1
I am deeply grateful to the teachers, Sarah Dias, Kate Edgar, Lynne Hobart and
Susanna Wilson, all of whom went beyond the call of duty in their participation,
and beyond my expectations in their enthusiastic and perceptive professional input. The 15 pupils impressed me with their commitment, their musical abilities,
and the thoughtful and insightful ways in which they talked to me about their
experiences of the project. I am deeply grateful to them all, and it was a pleasure to
work with them. I would also like to thank the Head of Department and the school
where I worked, for their interest, warm welcome and support. The project was
funded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation, to whom I remain extremely grateful. I
would also like to acknowledge the initial support of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Musical Futures project in undertaking the background to this research, and the
Institute of Education, University of London.
2
The Musical Futures project www.musicalfutures.org is funded by the Paul
Hamlyn Foundation. A detailed discussion of the strategies and research findings is
available in Green (2008), and the background to the project is in Green (2001).
The projects teaching strategies and materials themselves, along with a range of
related materials which have since been developed by teachers, are available on the
website at www.musicalfutures.org.uk/c/Informal. A range of Musical Futures
informal learning initiatives are now taking place in Australia, the USA, Canada,
Brazil and other countries. The first year and other aspects of the project were
funded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation with the support of the London
University Institute of Education.
3
For current projects and commentaries concerning the adaptation of informal
music learning practices within the formal realm, see for example: Allsup (2004),
Boespflug (2004), Byrne (2005), Byrne and Sheridan (2000), Cope (1999),
Cutietta (2004), Downey (2009), Dunbar-Hall (1996), Dunbar-Hall and Wemyss
(2000), Emmons (2004), Evelein (2006), Feichas (2010), Finney and Philpott
(2010), Folkestad (2006), Gatien (2009), Georgii-Hemming and Westvall (2010),
Green (2001, 2008), Heuser (2008), Humphreys (2004), Jaffurs (2004), Jones
(2008), Karlsen (2010), Lebler (2007, 2008), Lines (2009), Mans (2009), Marsh
(2008), OFlynn (2006), Rodriguez (2004, 2009), Seddon and Biasutti (2009,
2010), Siefried (2006), Vkev (2006, 2009, 2010), Watson (2010), Wemyss
(2004), Westerlund (2006), Woody and Lehmann (2010), Wright and
Kanellopoulos (2010). This list is not exhaustive and there are many other
excellent references on this topic to be explored.
4
For examinations of popular musicians informal learning practices see e.g.
Bayton (1997), Bennett (1980), Berkaak (1999), Bjrnberg (1993), Campbell
194
Chapter Nine
(1995), Clawson (1999), Cohen (1991), Davis (2005), Finnegan (1989), Green
(2001), Horn (1984), Kirshner (1998), Lilliestam (1996), Negus (2000).
5
This is explored in Green (2008), but for an independent evaluation report see
Hallam et al. (2008).
6
This study is funded by the Esme Fairbairn Foundation with the support of the
London University Institute of Education.
7
The grade system is run by a range of boards in the UK, and exported to many
other countries. Two of the most well-known boards are the Associated Board of
the Royal Schools of Music, and Trinity Guildhall. The grades run from 1 to 8.
Usually (but not always) a minimum of a distinction in Grade 8 would be expected
for a first-study entrant to a conservatoire, with a pass in Grade 8, or in some cases,
Grade 6, being acceptable for an entrant to a music degree at a university.
8
One girl, Liz, had only two lessons because she had to go into hospital during the
project; however she and her mother agreed that she should nonetheless participate
in the interviews, and I have included data from her lessons and interview along
with the others.
9
The relationship between aural and informal learning both inside and outside
formal education contexts is of course fascinating, although there is no space to
enter into it here. See e.g. Folkestad (2006), Green (2001, 37, 2008, 10), and
various texts in Note 3 for discussions.
10
How exactly the word too was measured here, was based on long experience
of music teaching, and on the practice-based findings of the classroom project.
Basically the principles were to use: keys of no more than two accidentals, a high
proportion of step-wise movement, intervals of no more than a fifth, phrases of
usually no more than four bars, rhythms consisting of mainly quavers, crotchets
and minims (although with some syncopation at times), and moderate tempi.
11
There are a number of similarities between this approach and the Suzuki method
(Suzuki 1986), particularly the system of giving pupils recordings to copy aurally.
However there are also differences which are quite deep-rooted. These arise partly
from the different ways in which the two approaches came about. Whilst the
Suzuki method is based on observing how children learn their native tongue, the
approach of this project is based on observing how novice popular musicians learn
aurally and informally. Another difference is that, unlike in Suzuki, here, each
piece is not specially designed for the pupils particular instrument, and not
systematically graded according to an organised trajectory of pupil-progress.
Rather, the attempt is to open the world of music to the pupils in a different way,
by helping them to realise that they can adapt a wide range of musical styles,
played by any instrument or combination of forces, and arrange it for their own
instrument. After the first few lessons, the child is given free choice about what
music to play. In Suzuki, differentiation is built into the strategy, since different
tasks and materials are given to the learners at different ability levels or stages of
development, and specially designed for different instruments; whereas here as
mentioned above, differentiation is by outcome. Another difference is in the role of
the teacher and parent: in the Suzuki method there is a high level not only of
progressive structure, but also adult and expert guidance. Here, the teacher is asked
in the first instance, to stand back and make observations about how the pupil goes
about the learning, and only later on to offer guidance, suggestions and
demonstration. Parents were not involved. Finally, as mentioned earlier, the aim of
the project strategies was to enable pupils to adopt a particular, aural approach
concerning how to learn, rather than primarily to enable them to achieve mastery
over what is learnt.
12
The notion of learning styles and all the findings discussed in the present subsection of this chapter are the focus of more detailed discussion in Green (2010).
For overviews of work on the concept of learning style generally, not related to
music, see e.g. Zhang and Sternberg (2006), or Coffield et al. (2004). Riding and
Raynor (1998) provide a useful overview of work up to that date. Schmeck (1988)
and Sternberg and Zhang (2001) offer anthologies with chapters by many of the
core authors in the field. Within music education some interesting detailed studies
on ways in which learners approach tasks and the identification of different
strategies or approaches have also been carried out. See for example Seddon and
Biasutti (2009, 2010), who identified five distinct learning activities amongst
pupils engaged in improvisation.
13
The place where improvisation begins, and making a mistake ends, is not always
clear-cut, nor should it be (as discussed in Green 2001, 4145). For a range of
discussions see Bailey (1992), Berliner (1994), Lines (2005), Martin (1996), or
Monson (1996). I will pick up this thread again briefly below in the section on the
role of the teachers.
14
In the instrumental setting pupils were less likely to play for extended periods of
time, whereas in the classroom setting groups of up to 8 pupils (at the most) were
seen to be in flow for periods of over five minutes at a time. However there was
a case in the instrumental lesson where myself, the woodwind teacher and a
clarinet pupil played through Stand By Me together, and this went on for several
minutes, resulting in the teacher saying she had never heard the pupil play so
fluently before. No doubt the differences were more to do with the presence or
absence of other musicians to play with than anything intrinsic about the nature of
the task.
15
When they first carried out the task, the classroom pupils chose almost entirely
current charts pop songs. When they repeated the task later in the year, their
choices broadened out to include classic songs, often taken from their parents
collections. However this range was still less diverse than that represented by the
choices of the instrumental pupils in the current project. Few classroom pupils and
none of the 15 instrumental pupils selected music that reflected any ethnic
minority. However this could change if they did the task over a longer period, and
further research on this topic could be interesting.
16
See Allsup (2008) and Clements (2008), and also my response (Green 2008).
There is further advice about the role of the teacher in the classroom project on
www.musicalfutures.org
CONTRIBUTORS
Editors
Sidsel Karlsen, Ph. D.
Professor of Music Education
Hedmark University College, Norway
Lauri Vkev, Ph. D.
Sibelius Academy, Finland
Other Writers
Randall Everett Allsup, Ed. D.
Associate Professor of Music and Music Education
Teachers College, Columbia University, USA
Ann C. Clements, Ph. D.
Associate Professor of Music Education
The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Greg Gatien, M. Mus.
Assistant Professor
Chair of Applied Studies
Brandon Universitys School of Music, Canada
Eva Georgii-Hemming, Ph. D.
Professor and Subject Representative of Musicology
rebro University, Sweden
Lucy Green, D. Phil.
University of London, Institute of Education, UK
198
Contributors
Panagiotis A. Kanellopoulos, Ph. D.

Assistant Professor of Music Education
University of Thessaly, Greece
Nathaniel J. Olson, M. Mus.
Doctoral Student
Teachers College, Columbia University, USA
Carlos Xavier Rodriguez, Ph. D.
Associate Professor and Chair of Music Education
University of Michigan, USA
Maria Westvall, Ph. D.
Senior Lecturer in Music Education
rebro University, Sweden
Ruth Wright, Ph. D.
Chair of Music Education
The University of Western Ontario, Canada
INDEX
action research, xii

activity theory, xiii
Adderley, Cannonball, 6367, 70,
72, 76
Adorno, Theodor, 136
aesthetic education, 98
aesthetics, xxiii, 57, 75, 100, 151
Africa, 69
Afrodiasporic culture, 54, 6163,
65, 69, 7172
Afrodiasporic music, 64, 69
agency, xii, xvixvii, 24, 36, 46
alienation, x, 109
Althusser, Louis, 14
analysis, 13, 45, 58, 81, 91, 139,
149, 157
anthropology, 79
apprenticeship learning, 66, 68, 76,
87
appropriation, 3536, 39, 4849
Armstrong, Louis, 67
arranging, 34, 46, 56, 166
artefacts, xiv, 8586, 89, 91
articulation, 182
assessment, 84, 9899, 105, 133,
136138, 187
audiating, 119
aural learning, x, 164, 166, 169,
177, 181, 183, 185, 187
aural skills, 55, 166, 179
authenticity, ix, xix, 23, 2535, 37
40, 45, 4749, 79, 81, 8991,
94, 99, 148
autonomy, 27, 29, 84, 140, 144,
146, 148, 150, 157, 166, 178
avant-garde, 58
Bach, Johann Sebastian, 168
bands, x, xiiixiv, 56, 12, 1518,

23, 2930, 40, 4445, 55, 66,
68, 76, 79, 8384, 86, 89, 91,
95, 99, 101, 106107, 117, 120
122, 124, 165
Baraka, Amiri, 76
baroque, 58
bass, 82, 107, 120121, 123124,
167168, 170, 182
Bechet, Sidney, 65
Beethoven, Ludwig van, 35, 46, 47,
168
big bands, 55
Billboard, 75
biology, xv
blues, 63, 69
body, 11, 21, 5556, 146
Bossa Nova, 70
Brahms, Johannes, 168
Brown, James, 48
Brubeck, Dave, 75
Byas, Don, 67
calypso, 70
Cameo, 46, 71
canon, xvii, 5558, 6264, 68, 71
72, 7576, 108
capital, 75, 132
capitalism, 14, 132
Carney, Harry, 67
Casals, Pablo, 63
Castoriadis, Cornelius, 150
category, 47, 5354, 6872, 77, 139,
148, 170175, 181
cello, 121, 161, 165, 168, 173, 175
certification, 1314, 133
Charles, Ray, 70
Chicago, 6
200
child-centered education, 132
choirs, xiii, 5, 15, 95, 122
church music, 98
citizenship, 98, 104
clarinet, 60, 161, 165, 170, 176,
179, 195
classical music, ix, xvii, 6, 16, 23
24, 3237, 44, 4748, 53, 55,
58, 5962, 69, 71, 87, 98, 101,
162, 168169, 177, 183, 187,
195
coding, 139, 166
college, 18, 21, 60, 6263, 76, 183
Coltrane, John, 5758, 6567, 76
communicative action, xix
communicative reason, xviiixix
communities of practice, xiiixv,
xxiii, 85, 86, 90, 91
community music, 78
composing, 34, 46, 48, 56, 61, 97,
101102, 108, 118120, 134
135, 138, 157, 162163, 183,
185
computer games, 95
conservatory, x, 17, 84, 8990, 144,
165, 194
constructivism, xii, 4, 25, 138
consumers, 132
context, 16, 21, 27, 54, 6567, 70,
72, 81, 83, 8586, 90, 95, 98,
103, 106109, 117, 119, 121,
132136, 139, 143144, 147
151, 163164, 194
corporate logic, 132
Count Basie Band, 55
country and western, 65
Creative Commons, 49
creativity, x, 7, 24, 30, 36, 3840,
44, 4849, 70, 84, 87, 91, 97,
101, 108, 110, 117118, 122,
125, 131134, 137, 147, 149
150, 157, 162, 179
Creedence Clearwater Revival, 101
critical musicality, 14, 27, 29, 32
34, 3637, 40, 118
Index
critical pedagogy, x, xv, xviiixix,
46, 108, 119120, 136, 145146
critical theory, x, xviii, 136
cultural critique, xvixvii
cultural patriarchy, xix
culturally responsive teaching, ix
xi, xiii, xv
cultural studies, 11, 79
culturalism, 45
culture, xi, xvixix, 4, 8, 16, 24, 26
27, 33, 36, 3940, 4445, 47,
57, 6061, 6869, 72, 76, 79,
103104, 109110, 131, 150
curriculum, vii, xvii, 6, 8, 1114,
18, 23, 25, 37, 55, 59, 6162,
98106, 108, 117118, 120,
132, 135, 162, 167
dance, 5, 58, 68, 101
Davis, Miles, 58, 63, 67, 7576
DeJohnette, Jack, 57, 75
deliberation, 133
democracy, xvi, xx, 12, 1518, 24,
36, 98, 103, 105, 108110, 132,
134137, 150
development, 24, 31, 5556, 61, 79
80, 83, 8586, 91, 95, 97100,
103106, 108110, 120, 131
136, 140142, 144, 146148,
150151, 162, 185, 187, 194
developmental theory, 122
Dewey, John, ix, xvxviii, 1315,
25, 28, 41, 4647
dexterity, 119
dialogue, 14, 80, 104, 110, 131,
136137, 139, 141, 149
diaries, 87, 130131, 137146
differentiation, 169, 194
digital music, ix, xiv, 24, 3940,
4446, 4849, 101
disco, 47
discourse, xviii, 27, 70, 85, 90, 132
distance learning, 49
DJing, 49
Dobbins, Bill, 60
drums, 49, 107, 120124, 171

dynamics, 31, 180, 182
economy, 106107, 132, 136
efficiency, 133, 147
egalitarianism, 35, 136
electric guitar, 107, 121
Ellington, Duke, 69, 76
emancipation, xviii, 36, 103, 108,
109, 144
embouchure, 180181
empiricism, 37
employment, 132
enculturation, xv
ensembles, 6, 17, 55, 5960, 120,
122, 125, 135
entrepreneurship, 84
epistemology, vii, xv, xviii, 27, 48,
85, 117, 138, 147
ethics, ix, xvixvii, xx, 11, 110, 145
ethnicity, xi, xviii, 13, 101, 106
108, 195
ethnography, xii, 138
EU, 136
Eubanks, Robin, 57, 75
euphonium, 165
Europe, 132
evaluation, 40, 104106, 113, 194
experiential learning, 28
expression, 7, 26, 39, 45, 48, 69, 84,
142, 181182
Feather, Leonard, 61, 63
fetish, 33
field notes, 165
fingerings, 121, 173, 179181, 183
Finland, viii, 45, 49
flow, 29, 31, 3334, 176, 178, 195
flute, 144, 168
folk music, viii, 69, 101
formalism, 37
Franklin, Aretha, 70
freedom, xvi, 29, 34, 36, 84, 90, 97,
122, 125, 141143
Freire, Paulo, xviii, 103, 108, 136
funk, 46, 65, 123, 167, 168, 169
gender, xi, xviii, 107108, 174
201
genre, 45, 7, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 27,

47, 49, 64, 69, 82, 84, 87, 97,
99, 101102, 104, 106, 109, 134
Gillespie, Dizzy, 65
globalization, xviii, xxiii, 49, 109,
132
Golson, Benny, 60, 67
Gordy, Berry Jr., 68
gospel, 6970
grading, 106, 165, 187, 194
Greece, 131132, 137
Greene, Maxine, 150
groove, 8, 49, 56, 70
grounded theory, 166
growth, xvixviii, xx, 12, 15, 28,
138
guitar, 12, 63, 82, 120, 123124
Guitar Hero, xii
Habermas, Jrgen, xviii
habit, 28, 31, 39, 48
halo effect, 166
Hancock, Herbie, 76
Handel, George Frideric, 168
harmony, 98, 180
Hawkins, Coleman, 6768
heavy metal, 6, 49, 84
hegemony, 14
hermeneutics, 24
hierarchies, 106
high school, x, 5, 117, 120121, 124
hip-hop, 16, 48, 84, 89, 95
Hodges, Johnny, 65, 67
Horkheimer, Max, 136
Howard University, 60
ICT, ix, xiixiii, 15, 24, 26, 30, 36,
39, 4546, 95, 101102, 106
identity, xiv, 4, 35, 4748, 85, 90
91, 98100, 105, 107109, 131,
138, 141, 148149, 151
ideology, 26, 3335, 40, 46, 48,
105, 131, 133, 136
Idols, xii
imagination, 45, 150
immigrants, xiii
202
improvisation, x, 16, 20, 36, 5556,
61, 73, 97, 101, 119, 129, 131,
132, 134146, 148151, 157,
162,163, 165, 167, 169, 176,
179, 183, 185186, 195
inclusion, 11, 59, 6163, 68, 71, 79,
81, 9798, 102103, 106, 108,
163, 187
Indian music, 187
informal learning, viixi, xiiixx, 3
7, 9, 1118, 21, 2425, 2829,
3132, 45, 53, 54, 59, 75, 79
81, 8384, 8688, 9091, 94,
97, 102103, 106, 109110,
117122, 125, 127, 131, 133
136, 146, 148, 161164, 166,
169, 185, 193
initiation, 140
inquiry, 3, 12, 18, 117, 138
instrumental lessons, 89, 161164,
169, 195
intentionality, xv, 87
interview, 63, 7576, 165, 175, 178,
181, 194
intonation, 180182
James, William, 45
Jarrett, Keith, 58, 68, 75
jazz, viii, ix, 1617, 21, 5372, 75
76, 101, 165, 183
audience, 62
composers, 56
education, ix, 5365, 7072,
7576
ensembles, 55, 6061
history, 5556, 59, 61
musicians, 54, 5657, 6168,
7071, 75, 77
neo-classicism in, 6364
scholarship, 64
theory, 5556, 5859, 61
tradition, 5758, 62, 65, 68, 75
76
Jones, LeRoi, 76
justice, xiii, xv
Kent State University, 60
Kenton, Stan, 76
Index
keyboard, 56, 82, 120, 121122,
124
keyboard skills, 56
Kiss, 101
Konitz, Lee, 65
language, xi, 12, 27, 67, 8687, 91
Latin music, 70
leadership, 122, 185
learning by ear, 84
learning strategy, viii, 82, 174175,
195
learning style, viii, 170175, 186
187, 195
learning theory, viiixv, xvii, xix,
34, 68, 1113, 17, 25, 3132,
36, 45, 53, 71, 80, 8587, 90,
106, 125, 133136, 138, 147
148, 170, 186, 194
learning trajectories, xv, xix
legitimate peripheral participation,
xivxv, 85
leisure, 62, 100, 106
Lenox School of Jazz, 61, 75
liberalism, 157
licks, 123
life-long learning, 103
lifestyle, 68, 108
lifeworld, xix
listening, 3839, 46, 67, 82, 83,
101102, 108, 119, 121, 123,
134, 142, 148149, 162163,
166, 169171, 175, 179, 180,
182183
loops, 167, 178
marginalisation, 108
mariachi bands, 6
Marsalis, Wynton, 6364, 76
Marx, Karl, 136
mash-ups, 39
master-apprentice learning, 7
media, 14, 108, 109
melody, 141, 168, 175, 178179,
183
mentoring, 67, 123
Metheny, Pat, 58, 75
method, 33

methodology, 4, 8, 81, 83, 105, 137,
138, 185
methods, 8, 1112, 1415, 23, 34,
40, 53, 56, 58, 6871, 8081,
9899, 101102, 106, 162, 165
167, 184
mistakes, 171, 176, 178179, 195
mixing, xiv, 84, 89, 91, 101, 106
modelling, 180, 186
Modern Jazz Quintet, 75
modernity, xvi, xxiii, 72, 90
Monk, Thelonious, 6567, 76
motivation, 23, 25, 28, 3033, 35,
37, 40, 44, 97, 100, 104, 108,
162163, 166, 187
Motown, 68
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 168,
177
Mraz, Jason, 101
Mulligan, Gerry, 75
multiculturalism, xixii, xviii, 4, 26,
27, 36
music analysis, 56, 58, 62, 173
music education
college, 18
general, xvii, 40
goals, xvii, 13, 25, 27, 36, 95,
9899, 102105, 110, 118,
141, 146
in schools, viix, xii, 38, 11
12, 1418, 2126, 28, 32,
35, 40, 6979, 8081, 97,
100, 103, 117, 120, 133
134, 162165, 177
instrumental teachers, 163167,
170171, 174, 177187,
194195
philosophy, viiviii, x, xvi,
xviii, xx, 13, 24, 40
private sector, xiii
research, viixiii, xixxx, xxiii,
3, 68, 1114, 18, 21, 44
45, 71, 7983, 8586, 90,
95, 99100, 103105, 120,
122, 125, 132135, 137
203
139, 162166, 183, 185

187, 193, 195
teachers, ix, 3, 4, 68, 1318,
25, 2732, 36, 38, 49, 59,
69, 87, 95, 97, 98107, 117,
119120, 124125, 131
132, 134137, 139, 142,
146, 149, 151, 162164,
185, 187
technology, ix, xiixiii, 36, 45
theory, viixi, xviii, xx, 40, 131,
139
music festivals, xiii, 95
music history, 98
music industry, 46
music literacy, 118
music teacher education, viiviii, x,
6, 1114, 1618, 83, 85, 105,
109, 117, 119, 129, 131, 135
136, 139, 142, 146
music theory, 173, 180
Musical Futures, 6, 1213, 21, 45,
134, 162, 193
musical meaning, 2527, 3033,
3539, 4547, 70, 100, 147, 149
musical sketching, 179
musicality, 7, 14, 118, 125, 144, 162
musicianship, ix, xiv, 24, 28, 66,
110, 162, 180, 182
musicing, 28, 33, 3839, 46
musicking, 5, 28, 46, 146
musicology, 7, 47, 56, 79, 106
narrative research, xii, 137
NASM, 6
National Association of Jazz
Educators, 76
naturalism, 48
neo-liberalism, 133
new age, 64
New York Times, 64
Nine Inch Nails, 49
non-formal learning, 133134, 136
Nordic countries, viiviii, 44, 79
82, 9495
204
notation, 48, 55, 87, 102, 118, 121
122, 125, 134, 142143, 148,
161, 164, 167, 178, 180183,
186
NUMU, 45
Oasis, 101
observation, 34, 58, 68, 95, 123,
139, 162, 165166, 195
Oliver, King, 67, 173
ontology, vii
ontology of music, 24, 35, 3840,
48
orchestras, 5, 122
ownership, xv, sviii, 40, 49, 87, 88,
102
Parker, Charlie, 67, 70
Parliament/Funkadelic, 48
pedagogy, viix, xvxix, xx, 45,
78, 1214, 2325, 2731, 35,
3738, 40, 45, 53, 5458, 65
72, 75, 8083, 88, 91, 97, 102
104, 110, 117, 119, 125, 131
135, 146, 148, 162, 164, 166
167, 169, 177, 185186
peer learning, xiii, 31, 67, 84, 86,
99, 102, 122, 134, 163, 185, 186
perfect pitch, 187
performance, 7, 46, 6061, 63, 85,
89, 122, 131, 176, 179, 185
performing, 8, 46, 49, 6364, 82,
88, 118, 119, 134, 162
philosophy, xvxvi, 2425, 8081,
85, 88
Piaget, Jean, xiii
piano, 124, 142, 145, 161, 164165,
168, 176177, 181184
pitch, 166167, 170174, 176, 179
180, 187
play, 7, 12, 18, 36, 44, 45, 107
playing by ear, 34, 80, 82, 8687,
102, 119, 121, 135, 161166,
169170, 174, 183, 186
politics, 132, 150
popular culture, 109
Index
popular music, viix, 3, 7, 1112,
14, 18, 21, 2326, 30, 32, 34
35, 40, 4445, 48, 5354, 59,
61, 6470, 72, 76, 77, 7981,
84, 89, 91, 95, 99, 101, 104,
106, 120122, 134, 162165,
167, 169, 195
history, 70
musicians, viiiix, 3, 1213, 18,
21, 25, 30, 31, 46, 54, 64,
66, 6870, 76, 7980, 82
84, 86, 91, 134, 162163,
166, 193194
postmodernism, 138
Powell, Bud, 66
power, xv, xviixix, xxiii, 40, 58,
125, 136, 140, 149
practicing, 28, 48, 89, 120, 125, 174
pragmatism, ixx, xvxvii, 2425,
2728, 31, 37, 40, 4448
praxialism, 47
praxis, 143, 147
preferences, 46, 9, 17, 25, 3233,
9798, 102, 106, 118, 124125
progression, 55, 105, 108, 121, 169,
175
psychology, xv, 149, 157, 174
qualitative research, 165166, 186
qualities, 16, 26, 27, 37, 48, 58, 119,
122, 131, 135, 145146
quantitative research, 186
questionnaire, 165
R&B, 63, 65, 69
race, xi, 6162, 70, 165
Rancire, Jacques, 151
recording, 5, 8, 39, 4849, 75, 84,
89, 121, 134135, 162163,
167, 169172, 178, 182, 186
reflection, 87, 105, 107108, 139,
149, 151
rehearsing, 55, 66, 88, 107
remixing, 4445, 49, 84
repertoire, x, 47, 55, 84, 98, 99, 101
Repertoire, 101

representations, 137, 147148
rhetoric, 132
rhythm, 39, 48, 6970, 141, 170,
172173
riff, 29, 46, 167, 169173
Roach, Max, 6970, 72
rock, viiix, xiv, 6, 13, 21, 23, 40,
42, 4447, 49, 6365, 69, 79
80, 8284, 8687, 8999, 101,
106107, 117, 120, 124, 162
Rollins, Sonny, 6567, 76, 77
Rorty, Richard, 27, 42, 44
Rundgren, Todd, 124
sampling, 39, 48
saxophone, 60, 63, 66, 107, 165,
175, 179
scale, 5, 95, 180
school music books, 45
Schumann, Clara, 168
segregation, 108
self, 6, 14, 16, 21, 28, 38, 46, 90,
100, 102, 107, 122, 132, 134,
138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148,
150, 169
self-realization, 28
sight-reading, 55, 98
situated cognition, 148
situated learning, xiii, 146, 147
social sciences, 138
socialisation, 80, 83, 91, 95, 110
society, 24, 62, 99, 108, 109, 110,
150
socio-cultural learning, ixx, xiii
xv, xxiii, 80, 136
sociology, xxiii, 11, 26, 46, 133
solidarity, 100, 109
somaesthetics, 48
songcrafting, 84
songwriting, 3031
soul, 8, 63, 65
sound, 17, 34, 39, 44, 46, 4849, 56,
84, 101, 109, 118, 121, 123
124, 130, 143144, 150, 161,
172, 180181
sound engineering, 84
special education, 187
205
spontaneity, 149
standards, 15, 63, 120, 124
storytelling, 138
student centered learning, 4, 68,
25, 31
Sugar Hill Gang, 67, 77
Suzuki method, 192, 194
Sweden, viiiix, 7981, 88, 94, 97
101, 103104, 106, 108109,
114
syncopation, 123, 181, 194
tablature, 87
Tanglewood, 61
taste, 44, 123
Tatum, Art, 67
teachers, 6, 13, 15, 136, 145, 165,
169, 172, 177, 184
Teachers College, 17
teaching strategy, xv, 178180
technique, 16, 70, 124, 131, 133,
180182
tempo, 169
testing, 131, 187
The Etude, 59
theory, 7, 11, 14, 25, 37, 122
third environment, 88, 95
third stream, 64
timbre, 70
tolerance, 6162, 69, 108
tone, 124
tradition, xvii
transcription, 56
transformation, 32, 38, 49, 134, 146,
149
transmission, ix, xi, xvixvii, xix
tribalisation, 108
Tristano, Lennie, 65
trombone, 165
trumpet, 165, 170, 177, 179
UK, 19, 23, 44, 94, 132, 134, 136,
162163, 165, 194
United States, xv, 45, 12, 1618,
2021, 55, 5961, 64, 69, 120
universalism, 27
University of London, 190, 193
University of North Texas, 60
206
value, viii, xii, xvxvii, xix, 7, 1415,
1718, 2427, 3637, 45, 56, 57,
6162, 6566, 83, 98, 100, 104,
108, 136138, 145150
violin, 6, 107, 121, 165, 168, 172,
179
Index
Vygotsky, Lev, xiii
Weston, Randy, 70
world music, 4, 7
xylophone, 143
youth culture, 4, 99

1443836583

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationFuture Prospects for Music Education: Corroborating Informal Learning Pedagogy

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

1443836583

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1443836583

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Future Prospects for Music Education

Future Prospects for Music Education:

Sidsel Karlsen and Lauri Vkev

Future Prospects for Music Education:

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Copyright 2012 by Sidsel Karlsen and Lauri Vkev and contributors

Introduction ............................................................................................... vii

Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 97

In this anthology, we have collated articles that address in different

Informal Learning in Music Education

launched in Gothenburg, Sweden, embracing such musical styles as jazz,

Angles of Corroboration: a Brief Overview

Future Prospects for Music Education

years have been dominated by popular music and informal learning

The Exploration of Frameworks

Future Prospects for Music Education

Culturally Responsive Teaching

scholars, it could also be applied in a more practical way, helping the

Future Prospects for Music Education

set up by an immigrant association (see e.g. Sther 2010)? Furthermore,

Socio-Cultural Learning Theory

Deliberately avoiding the acquisition metaphor of learning, Lave and

Future Prospects for Music Education

Moreover, socio-cultural theories of learning can provide information

everyday life (Dewey 1924/MW 12).5 Dewey saw education as

Future Prospects for Music Education

the ways in which we participate in conjoint efforts enhancing the

Future Prospects for Music Education

deeper investigation into formally trained students resistance to or

Future Prospects for Music Education

Forns, J., U. Lindberg, and O. Sernhede. 1995. In Garageland. Youth and

Future Prospects for Music Education

Art Education in John Deweys Naturalist Pragmatism]. PhD diss,

examples of practical applications of her work in American music

Student Centered Learning

Changing Methods through a Change of Paradigm

Teachers and Formal Music Education

Changing Methods through a Change of Paradigm

The Organic Nature of Music Learning

example, if someone where to develop a Pacific Islands pedagogyit

Changing Methods through a Change of Paradigm

students and their preferencesintertwined with the musical skills and

Previously published in 2008 as Escaping the Classical Canon: Changing

This chapter seeks to advance a critical examination of research on the

preparation based on the democratic potential of mutual learning

New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning

child-centeredness or discovery-learning, but on an empirical investigation

in informalist teaching, to what uses are put a teachers content expertise,

New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning

place of social experimentation, where the problems of home and

We know that young adults in informal learning environments,

students we work with to reach beyond narrow specializations to greater

New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning

New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning

Dewey, J. 1915/2001. The School and Society. Mineola: Dover.

New Educational Frameworks for Popular Music and Informal Learning

Sderman, J., and G. Folkestad. 2004. How Hip-Hop Musicians Learn:

This chapter is an extended version of an article previously published in 2008 by