Journal of Music, Technology and Education: Volume: 1 | Issue: 1

Journal of

Music, Technology and Education

Journal of Music, Technology and Education | Volum

e One N

umber O

ne

ISSN 1752-7066

1.1

intellectwww.intellectbooks.com

Volume O

ne Num

ber One

intellect Journals | Theatre &

Music

Journal of

Music, Technology and Education Volume 1 Number 1 – 2008

3–5 Editorial

David Collins Articles

7–21 The discipline that never was: current developments in music technology in higher education in Britain

Carola Boehm

23–35 Crossing borders: issues in music technology education Giselle M. d. S. Ferreira

37–55 Reframing creativity and technology: promoting pedagogic change in music education

Pamela Burnard

57–67 Problem solving with learning technology in the music studio Andrew King and Paul Vickers

69–81 The ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS) Leigh Landy

83–96 DubDubDub: Improvisation using the sounds of the World Wide Web Jonathan Savage and Jason Butcher

9 771752 706007

ISSN 1752-7066 1 1

JMTE1.1_cvr.indd 1JMTE1.1_cvr.indd 1 11/13/07 5:36:30 PM11/13/07 5:36:30 PM

Journal of Music, Technology and EducationVolume 1 Number 1

Aims and ScopeThe Journal of Music, Technology and Education is specificallydedicated to the educational aspects of music technology and thetechnological aspects of music. Peer-reviewed with an internationaleditorial board, JMTE aims to draw its contributions from a broadcommunity of educators, researchers and practitioners who areworking closely with new technologies in the fields of musiceducation and music technology education. We regard sucheducation in its widest sense, with no bias towards any particulargenre. Readership will therefore be wide and varied, includingthose not only working within primary, secondary and highereducation, but also researchers, school teachers, student teachers,and other practitioners and professionals who wish to stayupdated with the most recent issues and developmentssurrounding the inter-relationship between music technologiesand teaching and learning.

Editorial BoardPamela Burnard – University of Cambridge, UKJay Chapman – Teesside University, UKRobert Davis – Leeds Metropolitan University, UKGiselle Ferreira – Open University, UKLucy Green – University of London, UKSimon Holland – Open University, UKJohn Kratus – Michigan State University, USASamuel Leong – Hong Kong, Inst of Ed, ChinaGary McPherson – University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign, USAAdrian Moore – University of Sheffield, UKFred Rees – Indiana University, USAAlex Ruthmann – Indiana State University, USAJonathan Savage – Manchester Metropolitan University, UKPeter Webster – Northwestern University, USALisa Whistlecroft – University of Lancaster, UK

Journal Editor David CollinsFaculty of ArtsUniversity CentreDONCASTER DN5 [email protected]

Associate EditorsAndrew BatesLeeds College of [email protected]

Carola BoehmUniversity of [email protected]

Andrew KingUniversity of [email protected]

Editorial AssistantJulie NorthmoreFaculty of ArtsUniversity CentreDONCASTER DN5 [email protected]

ISSN 1752-7066The Journal of Music, Technology and Education is published three times per year byIntellect, The Mill, Parnall Road, Bristol, BS16 3JG, UK. The current subscriptionrates are £33 (personal) and £210 (institutional). Postage is free within the UK,£9 for the rest of Europe and £12 elsewhere. Advertising enquiries should beaddressed to: [email protected]

© 2007 Intellect Ltd. Authorisation to photocopy items for internal or personaluse or the internal or personal use of specific clients is granted by Intellect Ltd forlibraries and other users registered with the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) inthe UK or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Servicein the USA provided that the base fee is paid directly to the relevant organisation.

Printed and bound in Great Britainby 4edge, UK.

JMTE_1.1_00_FM.qxd 11/12/07 1:54 PM Page 1

Submission DetailsThe editorial team are always open toreceiving submissions – there are nospecific cut-off dates. We aim to have aturn-around time from submission toresponse from the editor following peer-review within approximately eight weeks.Articles should not normally exceed6000 words in length, should include fullreferences, bibliography and up to sixkey-words; they should also include anabstract of no more than 150 words.Illustrated articles are welcomed withseparate files for images attached. Shortreports may be submitted on relatedissues, as well as conference reports,book and pedagogically contextualisedsoftware/hardware reviews.

For more info please contact the editorDavid Collins [email protected]

We would like to invite contributions inany aspect of the field, such as:

Computer-mediated music compositionin education Music performance technologiesAudiation & aural awareness trainingsystems Music, technology, education &industrial practice Computational musicology in Furtherand Higher Education Musical creativity and technologyPedagogical aspects of electroacousticcomposition Classroom engagement with newtechnologies Assessing student music technologypracticeChildrens’ musical learning withtechnology

All papers should:

• Contain original research orscholarship

• Not be under consideration by anyother publication

• Not normally exceed 8000 words• Be written in a clear and concise style• Conform to the instructions outlined

below

Non-compliance to these requirementsmay represent grounds for rejection ofany article.

• Submissions to JMTE should be sentas an attachment to an email messageto the Editor. The attached articleshould be ‘anonymised’, and containan abstract and up to 6 keywords. Besure to add your full name & addressin the email message to the Editor.

• Articles accepted for publicationcannot be sent to the publishers(Intellect) until they contain: – Correct Harvard system references

[see below for details]– Author name, institutional

affiliation and full contact addressdetails

– Abstract (max. 150 words) inEnglish

– Keywords (max. 6) in English– Author biography (c. 50-100w.)

in English– A list of Works Cited containing

only works cited in the article • Font should be Times New Roman 14,

one-and-a-half-spaces and left-aligned,not justified. Margins should be1 inch/2.5 cm all round. Paginationshould be continuous with numbersapplied top right.

• Images – tables, photographs,graphs, and graphics – should all be entitled ‘Figure’, be numberedconsecutively, and be clearly legible.The source must be indicated beloweach. Ensure that an indication hasbeen given as to where they shouldbe placed in the text, e.g. InsertFigure 3 here. All images must besent as separate files, not embeddedinto the text, and be camera-readyat no less than 300dpi resolution.

• Quotations should be used sparinglyand be identified by ‘single’quotation marks if they areembedded in the text. Longerquotations (i.e. longer than 45words) should be indented on bothsides, without quotes. Both shouldbe referenced using the Harvardsystem (see below). The pagenumber(s) must be included.

Endnotes, Referencesand Citations‘Explanatory notes’ should be kept to aminimum: they will appear in theoutside left or right margins of the text.They should not contain publicationdetails; -submit all these as references.Please use Word (or equivalent)‘Footnote’ facility and ensure that they are submitted as Endnotes, notfootnotes.

Place endnote marks outside thepunctuation (after the comma or full-stop). The note mark must be in superscripted Arabic (1, 2, 3), not Roman (i, ii, iii).

Bibliographical references should use the ‘Harvard system/style’

(author + year: page), e.g. (Attali 1985: 134) inserted into the text.

All references must identify an author(surname or institution name) for alldocuments, whether found in archives,newspapers, the internet, etc.

Each Harvard-style reference should befully sourced at the end of the text.Publications not mentioned in the textshould not be included in this list, thoughthey may be included under a separate‘Further Reading’ list.

Format for Citing a Book: Author surname, Initial (year), Title initalics, Place of publication: Publisher.e.g. Attali, J. (1985), Noise: the PoliticalEconomy of Music (trans. B Massumi),Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.

Citing an Article:Author surname, Initial (year) ‘Title insingle quotation marks’, Name of journalin italics, volume number: issue number(and/or month or quarter), pagenumbers (first and last of entire article).For example,

Dixon, S. (2005) ‘Theatre, technologyand time’, International Journal ofPerformance Arts and Digital Media 1: 1(Spring), pp. 11–29.

Citing a web publicationor website item: Websites should be referenced as publishersof material: a separate author and the titleof the information/document/pdf articleshould be supplied:

e.g. Packer, R (1998) Monsters ofimmersion, http://www.cyberstage.org/archive/newstuff/monsters.html

If the website is the ‘home site’ of anorganization publishing its own materialwithout a by-line, the organizationshould appear as the author.

e.g. BBC (2004) Barcelona clubbers getchipped (online), Accessed 1 November2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3697940.stm

As seen above, authors are advised toinclude the date they accessed it, tosupport the authenticity of the source.

Citing personal communicationsand interviewsA formal research interview can be citedin the text (Collins, 12/09/07 interview),and at the end of the Works Cited listunder Interviews.

Notes for Contributors

JMTE_1.1_00_FM.qxd 11/8/07 12:46 PM Page 2

Journal of Music, Technology and Education Volume 1 Number 1 © 2007 Intellect Ltd

Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.3/2

EditorialDavid Collins

In 2006, a book dedicated to the system of punctuation – Eats, Shoots andLeaves: A Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation – became a best-seller in theUnited Kingdom. The title of this unexpected book was predicated uponthe usage of that seemingly innocuous element of punctuation in theEnglish language, the comma. The position of the comma in the titleimpacts upon how we might define a particular animal – the panda –which, correctly, ‘eats shoots and leaves’ or incorrectly, ‘eats, shoots andleaves’.

In a similar vein, in the developmental stages of this new journal, mythoughts were preoccupied with the dilemma of whether or not to place acomma between the words ‘music’ and ‘technology’. Certainly, the journalwas intended to draw together the strands of ‘music’ ‘technology’ and‘education’, but is this new journal to be concerned with: music techno-logy and education, or with: music, technology and education? A subtlebut significant difference. Such ruminations were perhaps influenced byubiquitous postmodern phrases such as the ‘blurring of subject boundaries’,the ‘fragmentation of knowledge’, together with the plethora of aspects ofinterdisciplinarity – trans-, pluri-, inter-, multi-, cross-disciplinarity – whichchallenge (or beset) our assumptions of what should or not be taught inour schools, colleges and universities. My decision, backed up by the asso-ciate editors, was that placing the comma between music and technologygave just enough nuance and weight to explicating the separateness andthe interrelationship of these domains of practice.

The journal also arose from a fascinating synchronicity of eventswhere people involved at the interface of music, technology and educationwithin differing institutions were separately and simultaneously identifyingthe need for a journal that would act as a focus for the latest thinking inthis area. So, while the academic community currently has access toestablished and respected journals in both areas of ‘music education’ and‘music technology’, there are none – up to the inception of this inauguralissue – which announce themselves as the only journal specifically dedi-cated to the interrelationship of both.

Resultingly, the editorial team is seeking articles from those workingclosely with new technologies in the fields of music education and musictechnology education; our readership is expected to be wide and variedand the hope is that JMTE will act as a forum for debate and exchange ofapproaches in the use of new technologies in music teaching and learning.As a peer-reviewed journal, JMTE will maintain academic rigour througha respected and distinguished editorial board; the benchmark and ‘tone’for this important inaugural issue has been set by including contributionsfrom this board of experts.

3JMTE 1 (1) 3–5 © Intellect Ltd 2007

JMTE_1.1_01_edt_Collins.qxd 11/7/07 9:40 PM Page 3

Carola Boehm’s article, based upon findings from an HE academyaward, provides a succinct commentary and overview of the currentissues facing music technology in HE in the United Kingdom and, fittinglyfor this first issue of the journal, explores what is understood by the term‘music technology’ in the educational context in which we find it. Boehm’sanalysis of some 350 categorized ‘music technology’ courses in the UnitedKingdom provides food for thought for course developers but such analysisdoes not only occur at a quantitative level, but Boehm explores the implicitand non-implicit interdisciplinarity in this profusion of currently availableundergraduate provision and she reminds us of Barthes’s statement that‘interdisciplinarity is not the calm of an easy security’.

I have intended Giselle Ferreira’s article to follow Boehm’s since it tooidentifies the ‘conundrum’ facing course developers in music, technologyand education who face a multiplicity of courses on offer, and also mirrorsthe previous article’s discussion on the so-called ‘divide’ between art andscience (or technology). Ferreira suggests that the relationship betweenmusic and technology has ‘not been extensively explored in its implications, inparticular, for educators treading in this complex area’, and in doing so shefurther highlights the importance of this new journal for the community.From the broad overview provided by Boehm, Ferreira focuses down ontoa case study of course development and in doing so, asks us in what sense‘music technology’ differs from the ‘technology of music’.

We have seen the demise of the heated debate surrounding the allianceof technology with creative activity. McLuhan’s comment on the age-oldability of the artist to side-step the bully-blow of new technology was writ-ten at a period in the twentieth century prior to the explosion – one can-not find another description – of digital media technologies, and it couldbe said that of all the art forms, it is music which has led the field in link-ing new technologies with creative practice. Pamela Burnard interrogatesthis interrelationship between creativity and technology in school musicin her conceptual article, and aims to reframe current pedagogical think-ing and practice. Burnard presents her notion of classrooms as ‘creativespaces that hold out the possibilities for, and implementation of, new kinds of rela-tionship between creativity and technology’, and in doing so draws uponpost-Vygotskyan activity theory as a tool for implementing change ineducational practice, and uncovering the key relationship(s) betweenyoung people’s creative behaviour and learning technologies.

While a significant body of empirical work has been undertaken in theuse of technologies in supporting skills of music analysis, and aural aware-ness, together with the use of technology to explore musical perception,only a small number of studies examine creative activity – such as musiccomposition, improvisation and performance. Of course, the field of cre-ativity research is vast, and the body of material in the field includes awide variety of approaches – enabling conditions, environmental condi-tions, intellectual and personality characteristics, combinatory/associativetheories and so on. One author has spoken of the creativity literature as an‘accumulation of an increasing body of unintegrated theoretical andempirical material’.1 Despite this, one perspective upon musical creativityagreed on by many researchers is that it can be construed as a form ofproblem-solving activity. It is within this particular frame that Andrew

4 David Collins

1. I. Schoon (1992),Creative Achievement in Architecture: APsychological Study,Leiden University:DSWO Press, p. 2.


King describes a case study set within a recording studio: what he terms a‘practical activity in a situated environment’ and his article examines howstudents’ problem-solving activity of music production are supported, ornot, by the learning technologies available. This is, as King rightly pointsout, a neglected area of study. Problem-solving/creative activity in thecontext of the recording studio is, as King’s study indicates, not simply amatter of surmounting technical issues; there is a pedagogical relevancy.

Returning from King’s, Ferreira’s and Boehm’s focus upon music,technology and education in higher education, Leigh Landy explores thepedagogy of electroacoustic music at a pre-university educational level. Itis intriguing that, as both Boehm and Ferreira aim to encapsulate what weunderstand by ‘music technology’, Landy seeks to encourage practitionersto use terminology with consistency, highlighting the grey area betweenwhat we understand as ‘electroacoustic music’ or ‘sonic art’, and the diffusenature of the term ‘computer music’. Indeed, this need for appropriate ter-minology galvanized his initiation of the ElectroAcoustic Resource Site(EARS) and in his article Landy outlines the development of EARS from2001 to the present and the consequent resonances for educational appli-cations – ‘pedagogical EARS’. For those who are convinced of the need forelectroacoustic music to be given more profile in our schools, Landy’s arti-cle makes essential reading.

Finally, there is concern among some educators that children areincreasingly mediating the ‘real world’ through screen culture – whatAuslander describes as a ‘progressive decorporealisation of the live event’2

– and the article by Jonathan Savage and Jason Butcher which rounds offthis inaugural issue of JMTE describes a project which responds to theirconcern that ‘more and more pupils are huddled, staring at computer screensin their music lessons’. Projects which include the use of internet-basedaudio with live music pushes forward the implementation of new mediatechnologies in music praxis . The diversity of audience, user and genredescribed here returns us to Burnard’s concept of music classrooms (forany level of learner) as spaces which galvanize new relationships betweencreativity and technology.

In all these articles we observe practitioners, researchers and educatorsexploring differing ways of thinking and doing in the field of music, tech-nology and education. JMTE warmly welcomes contributions fromauthors who wish to join us in this exploration.

5Editorial

2. P. Auslander (2005),‘At the Listening Post,or, do machinesperform?’,International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media, 1: 1, p. 8.


JMTE_1.1_Ads.qxd 11/7/07 9:54 PM Page 6


Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.7/1

The discipline that never was: currentdevelopments in music technology in higher education in BritainCarola Boehm n-ISM, Glasgow

AbstractThis article discusses current issues around the provision of music technology inBritish universities. The discussion is based on the most current results from theproject ‘Betweening’, funded by Palatine (Higher Education Academy). The aimof the project was to explore the educational landscape of music technology in HEand to provide an oversight of the different models used. The way a particulardiscipline – music technology – becomes established and how it evolves has as muchto do with institutional and governmental politics, social constructs and pedagogicalmethodologies, as it does with the discipline itself. As well as an overviewof the findings from quantitative studies (published in detail in Boehm 2006), thisarticle discusses the findings from the qualitative information gathered from theBetweening project in order to provide an overview of the educational landscapeof music technology in higher education in Britain today.

IntroductionIn the last few years there has been unprecedented increase in MusicTechnology courses within British universities. The term ‘music technology’itself represents meaning in the widest sense of the phrase: technologyof/around/in/for music, but order to stress the ambiguous nature of term,it also possesses, for this article at least, the ubiquitous post-modernquotation marks.

This term, ‘music technology’ has perceptually different and shiftingmeanings, depending on the context in which it is being used. The multi-plicity of what exactly is understood by ‘music technology’ is an indicationof the fragmentation of communities at large and their emerging culturalboundaries, be it sound-engineering, electro-acoustic music, music infor-matics, or music education technology. It also represents a fragmentationof our formerly holistically humanistic concept of knowledge and thedelivery of knowledge. We are slowly moving from a modernist concept ofuniversity to a postmodern one, or so it may seem. And the postmodernquotation marks indicate that: I have to know that the reader knows thatI know that it is not as simple as music technology.

And so this journal comes at a good time for us, as practitioners andeducators, to reflect explicitly on our educational practices; to discussthe boundaries of this discipline or possibly the fact that it may neverhave clear boundaries, or that it may never represent a single academic


Keywordsmusic technolog

educationinterdisciplinarityhigher education

JMTE_1.1_02_art_Boehm.qxd 11/7/07 9:41 PM Page 7

discipline; to investigate how this fits into our current disciplinary struc-tures or our educational institutions; to create a discourse on how andwhat and in which contexts we teach and facilitate learning; where wehave been and where we are going.

The fifth generationThis discipline (which never was one discipline) is maturing and we couldconsider our current students to be in the fifth generation of ‘MusicTechnologists’; and I deploy this term, despite Mark Thorley having rightlypointed out that ‘there is no such job as a ‘music technologist’, eventhough the degrees surrounding the domain of music technology are seenas being highly vocational or practice based (Thorley 2005).

Oversimplified, the first generation of Music Technologists could becalled the ‘Experimenters’ of the 1950s and 1960s, populated with indi-viduals such as Schaeffer, Stockhausen, Eimert, Cage, Moog, Buchla,Mathews, Hiller and many more. For the first time a critical mass of technol-ogists and musicians looked at music and technology and tried to developtheir own methods of combining aspects of previously separate disciplinesinto one.

In the danger of continuing this over-simplification, the second genera-tion of the 1970s and 1980s built on the basis of the first generation, andwith a fast-developing commercialization as well as academic activities inthis area, the speed with which music technology was developed, producedand exploited for works of art accelerated. Technological newcomers wereMidi and Kyma, based on high performance DSP processors. Centres, suchas IRCAM, CCRMA and at MIT, were created and individuals such asBoulez, Risset, Vercoe, Wishart, Puckett, Koenig, Chowning and Subotnikprovided a wide variety of activities within this discipline.

The first lecturers of music technology in academic institutions camefrom the third generation of the 1990s and 2000s. Music technology wasslowly becoming an academically viable discipline of education and research.More well-known individuals of this generation, such as Dannenberg,S. T. Pope, Tododorov, Miranda could be named, among many others. Forthe first time a critical mass of individuals, who had studied more thanone discipline and who had a background in more than one field, existedto push this area forward.

The fourth generation can be seen as represented by the first stu-dent body that was able to study music technology as one degree, such asBMus/BSc in Music technology, Creative music technology or the BEngElectrical engineering + music. And here we are, in the fifth generation,with these young postgraduates and post doctorals moving into oureducational establishments as young lecturers in the field of ‘musictechnology’.

The many attempts to provide an overview of possible degree curriculaor subject taxonomies indicates that they are perceived as a genuinelyinterdisciplinary or multidisciplinary area. Already in 1991 Ackermann’svisualisation designated five different top-level disciplines for this subjectarea: Music, Psychology, Physics, Informatics and Electronics (Ackermann1991:2). Many such visualizations of taxonomies exist, among them thesimplified version by Richard Moore of a triangle labelled ‘Arts’, ‘Science’

8 Carola Boehm


and ‘Technology’, and his more detailed visualization of a music technol-ogy pentagram with engineering, computing, music, psychology andphysics (Moore 1990). One of the most detailed taxonomies is the oneedited by Stephen Travis Pope (1994), with subsequent additions andchanges from contributors. This has become the classic taxonomy used ineducation for music technology, due to its comprehensiveness with no lessthan seven categories on the highest level and with a maximum of foursubcategories has plenty of depth in each of them.

But even the most comprehensive of these taxonomies, restricted to2-dimensional hierarchies, still cannot convey the complex and multidi-mensional relationships of their inter-, intra-, trans-, cross-, multidisciplinary nature (see Augsburg 2005). And although there is no doubtas to the interdisciplinary nature of degrees around music technology,nevertheless they are often still provided as if they fit seamlessly into ourtraditional, discipline-based academic structure. Sometimes we, the lecturers,

9The discipline that never was: current developments in music technology

ART

TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE

(Moo

re, 1

990)

1. “Music Technology”As in

Sound Recording, Tonmeister,

Record Production, etc.


Computational Musicology,Electronic, Audio and Music

Technology Engineering,Music Informatics,Music Technology

Soft/Hardware Development,Digital Music


Creative Music Technology,Sonic Arts,

Electro-acoustic Composition,Sound Design, Electronic Music

Figure 1: The triad of music technology?


course developers and degree managers, forget that these are degreesthat do not have a long-standing tradition on which practices can bebased, and that we are ourselves still in the process of learning how bestto facilitate the provision of these new degrees. The challenge existsconcerning how best to integrate an interdisciplinary field into a disciplinaryframework.

This challenge exists on all levels of academic endeavour: from therunning of the courses and their administrative frameworks, to the teach-ing and facilitation of learning, the disciplines’ pedagogies and specificvocabularies, and research with its own particular methodologies. Weknow, as interdisciplinary academic practitioners, that a substantial com-plexity is involved in providing a supporting and educationally valuableenvironment for students and staff in an area that reaches not onlyacross different scientific domains, but also across different working andinvestigatory methodologies, different approaches for presentation andpractice, different underlying – but implicit – justificational hypotheses,different vocabularies and terminologies, as well as different conceptualframeworks – not even to mention often different budgets and adminis-trative units.

This area, no matter what perception one has of it, is genuinely inter-disciplinary. All the flavours of the subject need a multitude of different dis-ciplines, from acoustics to music performance to composition to engineeringto all sorts of other things.

The classic taxonomy of Pope (Pope 1994) collated a 4-page list of cat-egories and sub-categories and sub-sub-sub categories. Just as classic, butmore minimalist, Moore (Moore 1990) represented it in a simple trianglewhich included science, music and technology. We could allocate to thistriangle (Figure 1) the degree names used in universities in Britain andcome up with a triad of music technology degrees that furthermore repre-sent the present communities and cultural boundaries at large.

An educational landscape of music technology in BritainUCAS, the British Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, currentlylists 351 degrees in the category of music technology. Of the 351 degreesonly 131 actually use the phrase ‘Music technology’ in the title. In all,63 different names are used with among them:

Arts and media informatics/music Audio and music technology Audio and video engineering Computational musicology Computer science with music Computer systems and music technology Computing and music Computing with music Creative music technology Digital music Electronic and audio engineering Electronic music Electronics with music Music composition and technology

10 Carola Boehm


Looking at what terminology is used by British universities and drawing outfrom the degree names the most-used categories, the following distributionemerges: music technology (131), media technology (36), electronic music(31), sonic arts (22), creative music technology (20), audio technology (10)(Figure 2). These degrees are provided by 62 different institutions whichmeans that there are some five degrees in the area of ‘music technology’ foreach British university (Figure 3).

Obviously it is arguable whether or not some of these terms belong inthis category (e.g. audio engineering, or media technology). But I believethat so long as there are communities in existence that do include themin this category, it is only right that they should be included in these statistics.Additionally, what tends to push up the average is that a few universitiesrun more than 25 degrees around the subject of music technology. Thesetend to be degrees (all having ‘music technology’ in the degree name) thatwork on a joint honours model with a set programme. From BSc in Forensicscience and music technology or BSc in Astrophysics and music technologyto seemingly more sensible combinations such as BSc in Computingand music technology or BSc in Theatre/TV and music technology. Butwho is to say what is useful for a society and what is not? Our societymight just need those one or two ‘astro-physicist-music-technologists’


Degree Name Occurence

Music Technology 131 41.9%Media Technology 36 11.5%Electronic Music 31 9.9%Sonic Music 22 7.0%Creative Music Technology 20 6.4%Audio Technology 10 3.2%Music Production 5 1.6%Recording 4 1.3%Sound Engineering 3 1.0%Rest 51 16.3%

Figure 2: Degree name occurrences.

Music informatics Music multimedia and electronics Music technology and/with audio systems design Music technology Music technology software development Music with computing Sonic arts Sound design technology Sound engineering Tonmeister etc.


(consider ‘Contact’ with Jodie Foster) or ‘forensic-science-music-technolo-gists’ (consider CSI and its criminal investigations unit) – and it is certainlypopular with students.

Participants in the study have confirmed that this notion of providingwhat a colleague of mine has once called ‘matrix degrees’, is more popularin the post-1992 universities than in the old. New universities can attractmore students by providing more degrees, rather than by having fewerdegrees with more choices within them. Whether this tactic of attracting alarger number of applicants through a larger number of degrees is gener-ally valid across both new and old universities is hard to say, as the olduniversities tend to resist the notion of providing a large number ofdegrees. The other extreme can be seen in the fact that the majority of theancient (pre-1800) universities provide only degrees in music, in whichmusic technology is taught as an integral or optional part of the course.Whereas it must be satisfying for students to have such a choice and itmay also be necessary for employers to have a few, specialized profession-als with all sorts of combinations, the downside is that it also calls for ahigher amount of administration, with the universities having to cater fora large number of degrees with small numbers of enrolled students.Nevertheless, for universities to create joint programmes, to which morethan one department/ school/unit is contributing, is one of the easiest andmost cost-efficient ways to almost instantly provide an interdisciplinarydegree.

Without those few universities that have ‘matrix degrees’, the averagenumber of degrees per institution comes down. The majority of universities(59 percent) have one or two degrees, and the average (without includingthe so-called ‘matrix degrees’) is 3.8 degrees for each university.

The majority of qualifications are BScs (55 percent), followed by BAs at39 per cent (Figure 4). This number indicates that the governmental drivea few years back to boost scientific degrees with a financial incentive has

12 Carola Boehm

1. Since 1997, the government hasincreased its fundingin science,engineering and technology, includingresearch andteaching. Its total science budgetincreased from£1.5bn to just under£3bn in 2006 (Ford 2006).

0 24 Universities have 1 degree 13 Universities have 2 degrees 8 Universities have 3 degrees 3 Universities have 4 degrees 2 Universities have 15 degrees 2 Universities have 6 degrees 1 Universities has 37 degrees 1 Universities has 34 degrees 1 Universities has 29 degrees 1 Universities has 28 degrees 1 Universities has 25 degrees 1 Universities has 11 degrees 1 Universities has 10 degrees 1 Universities has 9 degrees 1 Universities has 8 degrees 1 Universities has 5 degrees

10 20 30 40

University/ies Sum of Degree(s)

Figure 3: Degrees in universities in Britain.


actually worked.1 Not only are the majority of degrees BScs, also a quitesubstantial number of BScs are coordinated by arts departments.

Some oddities are noteworthy: there are only ten BEng degrees and sixMEng degrees. In general, IEE (Institute for Electrical Engineers) accrediteddegrees have difficulty in fitting all the engineering as well as all the musicneeded in this interdisciplinary field into their 3-year time span. In 2006/07only two of the BEng degrees were coordinated across two departments(music and engineering), dropping to only one in 2007/08, located inScotland. As Scotland has traditionally had a 4-year undergraduatedegree, Scottish universities generally find it easier to fit interdisciplinarydegrees into a programme that has additional guidelines from accreditingbodies, such as the IEE. For English universities, this means an extraburden if they are planning to acquire accreditation.

BMus and MA degrees are also exceptional cases: in England MAdegrees tend to be postgraduate courses, in Scotland they can denoteundergraduate degrees. Additionally, music departments have generallykept their own BMus degrees, but as the figure above shows, they aregenerally not used to denote music technology degrees, but rather used for‘pure music’ degrees, whatever that may entail.

Incorporating different disciplinesAs mentioned above, it seems that many universities have chosen to pro-vide interdisciplinarity through a joint degree model. In fact, 60 percent ofthe music technology degrees are taught as a joint model. Contributionscome from more than one department, with students choosing two orthree programmes for their ‘interdisciplinarity’. It is a model that is wellknown and established, and therefore easily integrated into existing uni-versity administrative processes. It is specifically common in the arts andhumanities, and logically the highest number of joint degrees in musictechnology were initiated with this model in mind. It does not need moreor specific additional staff, and often no additional purpose-based spaces.


0%1%

55%

39%

2%3%

MA (1)BMus (2)

BSc (195)BA (137)

MEng (6)BEng (10)

Total: 351

Figure 4: BSc vs BA.


In these institutions, music technology or electro-acoustic compositioncourses tend to have been optional courses for many years before a specificmusic technology degree is started. The problem of setting up the degree,therefore, tends to be simply a matter of scale. So long as institutions havea financial resource allocation model in place (as most of them do nowa-days) where the funding for the student follows the student down to thelevel of the smallest academic unit (department or school), this model isoften chosen to provide an easy way to integrate interdisciplinarity.

But many institutions have also acknowledged the limits of this model.It is the responsibility of the student to accumulate the course’s interdisci-plinarity. He or she may study pure electrical engineering in one depart-ment and pure music in another (or computing science and music). It isleft to the students themselves to knowledge from studying two differentsubject domains in depth- and this often does not happen until the post-graduate level.

The questions that have occurred to many degree coordinators is thatof a pragmatic balance between deep specialisms and broad interdiscipli-narism. The joint degree model stems from the belief that in order toachieve new insights into an interdisciplinary subject, it is not onlyenough to provide to specialisms, but essential to provide as deep as possi-ble an education in each ‘pure field’. It has been argued, that this notionstems from a still modernist view of university stemming from the 18th

century and the age of enlightenment. Already 24 years ago Habermanshas claimed that the project of modernity in University education mayhave failed. ‘The project of modernity’ stems from the 18th century (…),aiming at developing objective science, universal morality and law, andautonomous art according to their inner logic’ (Habermans 1983:9). Thenotion that a department could have experts in all areas of the degree subjectarea stems from this notion. Also that we can study a subject in all itsforms, that its boundaries are clear and defined. But our knowledge hasgrown beyond the ability of universities to provide educators in all thesefields, or as more recently Sperber postulates, the ‘current disciplinary sys-tem may be becoming brittle’ (Sperber, 2005: n.p.).

For a new form of interdisciplinarity the question arises whether weare in need of a new post-modern acceptance of fragmented but self-organising areas of knowledge, in which “particular foundations wouldemerge in the course of the inquiry rather than be predetermined in theform of discipline-bound theories, methods, and schools of thought.”(Mourad 1997:132)

Many departments may not explicitly acknowledge, nor welcome whatit would mean to introduce fragmented and self-organising concepts ofknowledge, but many institutions have tried to address the balancebetween deep specialisms and broad interdisciplinarism. The most obvioussolution taken by may institutions is by cutting some of the pure modulesand providing additional ones, which include specifically the interdiscipli-nary aspects in an interdisciplinary fashion. These modules are oftenperceived by students to represent the core and most relevant courses ofthe degree. I have in the past controversially called these “glue courses”(Boehm 2005), but as this term implies that there is a need to glue twopure disciplines via some interdisciplinary modules, it can create confu-

14 Carola Boehm


sion, and specifically in institutions, where there are more flowing bound-aries between the disciplines.

This model of ‘glue courses’ provides for both deep specialism and broadinterdisciplinarity to be balanced by playing with the ratio between them.It also provides a reasonable additional administrative and resource bur-den, i.e. by adding one or two ‘interdisciplinarians’ to the staff body a height-ened involvement with specifically interdisciplinary aspects can be achieved.However, this model is also felt by educators and students to have some draw-backs – besides the obvious administrative question of which educational unitwill pay for the additional members of interdisciplinary staff. Additionally,once finances are sorted out, it does tend to be these members of staff who arein danger of falling between the stools, in all sorts of ways: from researchassessment exercises and their strategic implications, to promotional chancesor even redundancy processes. For the education of students, there is a moreimmediate drawback (and one that has been mentioned most often bythe interviewees): students still feel that a part of one or the other pure disci-pline of the joint degree is irrelevant to their core interest. It is felt to be a con-stant process of delicately balancing ‘pure subjects’ (whatever we may meanwith this term) with interdisciplinary subjects.

A few institutions have addressed this issue to the extent of havingevery single course in the degree relating to the interdisciplinary subject.That is, whereas in the joint model a student might study a pure C++course in Computing science and a pure music history course in Music, inthe ‘integrating model’, where every module is designed specifically for theinterdisciplinary degree, he/she may study ‘C++ for music applications’and ‘history of music technology’. It is these degrees that seem to have thelargest amount of perceived relevance by students as every single courseseems to be specifically tailor made for their degree.

To achieve this , institutions use different resource models: one being thatcontributions may come from different departments, but these contributionsbeing specific to the interdisciplinary degree. Thus the cost burden of addi-tional staff or resources can be shared (e.g. both the engineering departmentand the music department having on music technology lecturer).

But the difficulties of being dependent upon another department,possibly without one’s own faculty, can also create conflicts. Conflicts ofinterest regarding a department’s own priorities may clash with the needof a shared degree model. An easy example for this can be seen in classsizes, and quite a few institutions have stopped providing a shared degreebetween two faculties exactly because of the conflicts surrounding quotason student intake. Using as an example a typical average pre-1992 university,its hypothetical music department -specifically if concentrating on compo-sitional activities -may have an ideal number around 5 to 15 students,with a maximum of 25. Its science and engineering department, however,may find any courses of under 25 students not acceptable. The conflictincreases in the present climate, where the old (pre-1992) universitiestend to have increasing difficulty in recruiting engineering and computingstudents, and the most popular courses tend to be the interdisciplinarydegrees.

Another model to address this is to simply buy in staff from a disciplinethat does not seem core to the faculty, e.g. computing science departments



permanently or temporarily hiring music performance or music composi-tion staff. Departments are increasingly opting for this model, but it isquite telling of our current educational landscape, driven by RAE andQAA, that these courageous examples of interdisciplinarity tend to happenmore in the sciences than the humanities and arts, and more in the newuniversities than the old. It is logical, as this can be seen to be driven bystudent demand (bottom-up) rather than big institutional politics (top-down).

…… but courage we need ……But courage we need – to explore new ways of teaching and learning andresearching, and most of all administering our knowledge. Obviously, onthe other hand, one could ask if there is possibly more merit, certainly lessresistance, in absorbing (exclusive) parts of an interdisciplinary domainwithin a traditional discipline and otherwise leaving everything as is. I feelthat we are seeing this in Britain (and possibly other countries) today.In 2001 the communities of music in academia finally managed to con-vince the traditional educational sector (mainly the Research AssessmentExercise) that composition is a research activity and assessable as such,and therefore on a par with other musical activities, such as editions andscholarly approaches. However, surprisingly and without warning, thisseemed to herald the exclusion of the rest of computational musicology or‘music technology’. In the traditional engineering and computing sciencedepartments there often is still the problem of acceptance of researchbetween music and science, priorities most often still lie in the more ‘pure’and ‘core’ subject areas. And the music departments in Britain generallyrather accept electro-acoustic composition than other ‘music technologies’,which tend to have a completely different set of working and researchmethodologies, such as, for example, being based on collaborative andcumulative working methods. Thus, electro-acoustic composition andsonic arts, which is increasingly being seen by its own community asbelonging to music rather than music technology, has been integrated inmany music departments across the country, whereas the rest of musictechnology has often been left standing out in the rain, to be picked up byscience or engineering departments, and this more in the new universitiesthan the old.

Rather than seeing an emergence of a new discipline, such as the historyof computer science has produced, we can see a movement that is tearingthe content of this interdisciplinary field into three more and more distinctdisciplines with their own methodologies and terminologies. (Figure 5).Because what else is a discipline than a social construction and, accordingto Fish ‘a grab-bag of disparate elements held together by the conceptualequivalent of chicken-wire’ (Fish 1994: 74)? That part of music technologyrepresented by sound recording, music production, Tonmeister, for example,is more and more predominantly taught by colleges and conservatoriums.That part of music technology represented by computational musicology,music engineering, electronics and music, and audio engineering ispredominantly taught in computing science and electrical engineeringdepartments. That part of music technology represented by electro-acousticcomposition, sonic arts and electronic music is predominantly taught inmusic departments.

16 Carola Boehm


Is what we are seeing in our educational institutions proof for Fish’sthesis, that ‘interdisciplinarity is impossible, as either one gets absorbedinto another’? That the ‘blurring of disciplinary boundaries results onlyin new hierarchies and divisions’ (compare Moran 2002: 112 and Fish1994: 237). Or is it that what is emerging, is three new distinct disciplineswith different working and investigatory methodologies, differentapproaches for presentation and practice, different underlying – butimplicit – justificational hypotheses, different vocabularies and terminologies,as well as different conceptual frameworks?

Can interdisciplinarity remain interdisciplinary indefinitely?‘Interdisciplinarity is not the calm of an easy security; it begins effectively (asopposed to the mere expression of a pious wish) when the solidarity of theold disciplines break down […] in the interests of a new object and a new lan-


ART

TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE

(Moo

re, 1

990)


Sound Recording, Tonmeister,

Record Production, etc.


Computational Musicology,Electronic, Audio and Music

Technology Engineering,Music Informatics,Music Technology

Soft/Hardware Development,Digital Music


Creative Music Technology,Sonic Arts,

Electro-acoustic Composition,Sound Design, Electronic Music

MU

SIC

DE

PAR

TMENTS

COM

PUTIN

G S

CIE

NC

E

AND ELE

C. E

NG

INE

ER

ING

COLLEGES AND CONSERVATORIUMS

Teaching predominatly happens in ...

Figure 5: The disintegration of a discipline.


guage; neither of which has a place in the field of the sciences that were to bebrought peacefully together, this unease in classification being precisely thepoint from which it is possible to diagnose a certain mutation’

(Barthes 1986: 155)

And if we are aware of all this, if we have enough self-awareness and self-criticism of the aspects mentioned by Barthes above, then should it not bepossible and certainly worthwhile to remain in an interdisciplinary stateindefinitely? (Moran 2002: 113).

Interdisciplinarity has been said to be the modern ‘motherhood andapple pie’ issue. That is to say, everyone, including decision makers in highereducation, recognizes that it is a Good Thing.2 It has ‘become a buzzwordacross many different academic subjects in recent years, but it is rarely inter-rogated in any great detail’ (Moran 2002: 1). In 1989 Liu pointed out thatinterdisciplinarity is the most ‘seriously underthought critical, pedagogicaland institutional concept in the modern academy’ and in 2006 we still, asSperber says, ‘do not, normally, discuss among ourselves interdisciplinarityper se. What we do is work on issues that happen to fall across several disci-plines, and, for this, we establish collaboration […]’. (Sperber 2005).

But we have to admit to ourselves that the separation of ‘music technology’ into its three distinct boundaries has more to do with how wedo something, than with what we do; or, in other words, more to do withwhich methodologies are more similar, and which ones are not. Forexample, the reason for one sub-discipline, such as electro-acousticcomposition, to be more accepted in music departments, is not because itis ‘more musical’, nor because it is ‘less technical’. It is because the method-ologies for working, teaching and researching in this sub-discipline aremore similar to the ones used in departments of music across the country.The same can be said of music informatics and computer science depart-ments. Music informatics has as much to do with music, as with informatics.But its methodologies just simply do not seem to fit into traditionalmusic departments. It seems we haven’t learned much: the classical dividebetween the arts and the sciences is still there.

Even forty-seven years after C.P.Snow’s classic article on the culturaldivide of the arts and sciences (1959), the gap is still there. And althoughthe communities on both sides of the gap might be talking, they certainlyare not understanding each other. Even after Kant’s The Conflict of theFaculties (1798), Nietzsche’s We Scholars (1886), Snow’s The Two Cultures(1959), Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), Habermas’ ZurLogik der Sozialwissenschaften (1967), Derrida’s Structure, Sign and Play(1978), Becher’s Academic Tribes and Territories (1989), Apostel’sInterdisciplinarity (1972), Moran’s Interdisciplinarity (2002) and Sperber’sWhy Rethink Interdisciplinarity? (2005), we still live in a world where thosein the sciences criticize the lack of empirical methods of humanities scholarsand their seeming reliance on subjective interpretations. In turn, those inthe humanities attack scientists for a misguided faith in the possibility ofabsolute objectivity, a narrow conception of useful knowledge and anunwillingness to interrogate the broader social, political and culturalimplications of their work. ‘Many of these disagreements can be traced not

18 Carola Boehm

2. Discussion betweenauthor, Nick Baileyand Graham Hair,June 2006.


only to the different scope and subject matter of the sciences and humani-ties, but to their contrasting assumptions about how knowledge shouldactually be accumulated’ (Moran 2002: 150).

In addition to this 200-year-old struggle between the sciences andarts, a newcomer into the world of methodologies has entered. It is nowvalid, so current high education management policy would like us tobelieve, to create knowledge and learning through practice, through morevocationally related experiences, as demanded by the students. But it is alsocommon knowledge that some practices of creating knowledge are morevalid than others, specifically for the purposes of the RAE and, conse-quently, strategic decision-making processes.

In conclusion, it seems that in the degrees of the interdisciplinary sub-ject area of music technology, we see an example of interdisciplinarythings to come. We see a collection of academic and professional commu-nities evolving and sometimes clashing in the evolutionary and culturallyingrained tendency in academia to standardize methodology and termi-nology. We see the movements of sub-disciplines moving apart andregrouping and sometimes creating new single disciplines within newboundaries. And this movement is governed by different outside factorssuch as government policies, the Research Assessment Exercise, or theFurther and Higher Education Act of 1992.

We see a movement of disintegration, the splitting of music technology,in the largest sense of the word, into (for the sake of a better terminology)compositional-sound-and-music-technologies, sound-and-music-processing-technologies and sound-and-music-production-technologies. These threeareas are becoming distinct, as their communities are distinct, as well astheir different places of learning and with them certain methodologies.

But there are also movements to see music technology as one subjectarea and to allow subject combinations to appear from student demand,industry demand or the subject matter itself. As inquiry and problembased learning theories have matured, they are slowly establishingthemselves as a major drive for change in learning as well as an argu-ment for a more self-directed process towards knowledge and skillsacquisition. What certainly could help is for universities to leave the exper-iment in modernism – Habermas’s ‘project of modernity’ – behind andaccept what post-modernity can give to the ways we approach teaching,learning, researching and, most of all, administering our knowledge. Apostmodern approach would be to accept and accommodate these newconcepts of fragmentational knowledge and self-organizing areas ofinterdisciplinary domains of knowledge; it would present an environ-ment in which learning is driven by a process of inquiry, for foundationsof a subject area to be created where needed in the inquiry and out of theinquiry, rather than pre-ordained and culturally engrained in specificdisciplines.

In order for interdisciplinary subjects such as ‘music technology’ toflourish, without prejudice and discipline-specific cultural constraints,teaching and research have to be allowed to happen at the brink of and inthe spaces between disciplines, spaces where new theories emerge out ofinquiry and where they are informed but not bound by pre-existingschools of thought.



AcknowledgementThe author wishes to acknowledge the support of Palatine (HigherEducation Academy) in carrying out the research.

Works citedAckermann, Philipp (1991), Computer und Music, New York, Vienna: Springer

Verlag.

Apostel, Leo et al. (1972), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research inUniversities, Paris: OECD.

Augsburg, T. (2005), Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to InterdisciplinaryStudies, Kendall Hunt.

Barthes, R. (1986), ‘Research: The young’, in The rustle of language (trans.R. Howard), New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 69–75.

Becher, T. (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culturesof Disciplines, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Boehm, C. (2005), ‘Music Technology in Higher Education’, The Idea of Education,ed. by Tom Claes. Inter-Disciplinary Press, Vol. 12. 2005.

Boehm, C. (2006), ‘The thing about the quotes: “Music Technology” degrees inBritain’, in ICMC Conference Proceedings, New Orleans: ICMA.

Derrida, J. (1978 [1966]), Writing and Difference (trans. Alan Bass), London andNew York: Routledge.

Fish, S. (1994), ‘Being Interdisciplinary is so very hard to do’, in There is no suchthing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too, New York: Oxford University Press,pp. 231–42.

Ford, L. (2006), ‘Physics still imperilled despite funding boost, says panel’, GuardianUnlimited, 26 January. Available at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,1695475,00.htmlAccessed 13 August 2007.

Habermas, J. (1967), Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Tübingen: Mohr.

Habermas, J. (1983), ‘Modernity – An incomplete project’, in The anti-aesthetic: Essayson postmodern culture (ed. H. Foster), Port Townsend, WA: Bay Press, pp. 3–15.

Kant, I. (1992 [1798]), The Conflict of the Faculties (trans. Mary J. Gregor), Lincoln,NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Liu, Alan (1989), ‘The power of formalism: the new historicism’, English LiteratureHistory, 56: 4 (Winter), pp. 721–71, quoted in Moran 2002: 1.

Moore, R. (1990), Elements of Computer Music, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Moran, J. (2002), Interdisciplinarity, London: Routledge.

Mourad, R.P., Jr (1997), ‘Postmodern Interdisciplinarity’, The Review of HigherEducation, 20: 2, pp. 113–40.

Nietzsche, F. (1990 [1886]), ‘We Scholars’, in Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to aPhilosophy of the Future (trans. R.J. Hollingdale), Harmondsworth: Penguin,pp. 129–46.

Pope, S.T. (1994), ‘A Taxonomy of Computer Music’, Computer Music Journal 18:1.Foreword.

Popper, Karl (1972 [1959]), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London: Hutchinson.

Popper, Karl (1973), Objective Knowledge: An evolutionary Approach, Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Snow, C.P. (1993 [1959]), The Two Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

20 Carola Boehm


Sperber, D. (2005), ‘Why Rethink Interdisciplinarity?’, Rethinking Interdisciplinarity,interdisciplines 2005. http://www.interdisciplines.org/Accessed 9 December 2005).

Thorley, M. (2005), Music Technology education – who is the customer, the student orthe industry? Leeds: LIMTEC 2005.

UCAS Directory (2005, 2006), www.ucas.com/search/index.html

Suggested citationBoehm, C. (2007), ‘The discipline that never was: current developments in Music

technology in higher education in Britain’ Journal of Music, Technology andEducation 1: 2, pp. 7–21, doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.7/1

Contributor detailsCarola Boehm holds degrees in musicology, computer science and electrical engi-neering. She is currently Head of Music and Principal Lecturer at the University ofWolverhampton. Lecturing and researching in the area of music and music tech-nology for more than 15 years, she has held previous positions at the University ofGlasgow, the University of Mainz, the Conservatory of Music in Hannover, and theRoyal Conservatory of Music in Den Haag. Since 1999 the Co-Director of theCentre for Music Technology at Glasgow University, she is also one of the foundingmembers of n-ISM (Network for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science, Technologyand Music). Her research areas include music technology education, methodologiesfor designing music systems, performance research and the interplay of inter-disciplinarity, creativity and technology. Contact: Carola Boehm, Head of Department,Department of Music, School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure Universityof Wolverhampton, Walsall Campus Gorway Road, WALSALL West Midlands,WS1 3BD.E-mail: [email protected]






Crossing borders: issues in musictechnology educationGiselle M. d. S. Ferreira The Open University

AbstractMusic technology can be construed in a variety of ways, ranging from the design tothe use of technologies for musical purposes, thus involving skills across the tradi-tional disciplinary divide that polarizes art and technology. This creates a conun-drum for curriculum developers who are aiming to create learning opportunitiesthat are relevant and exciting for students with widely varying backgrounds. Thispaper examines some of the issues that arise in music technology curriculumdevelopment, illustrated with examples taken from the experience of the teamresponsible for the production of the UK Open University course TA225 TheTechnology of Music and its expanded version TA212. The paper discussesthe rationale negotiated by the team to guide course-related decision making, whilebearing in mind the fundamental question of how to create an interesting learningcontext for students with very different educational experiences and reasonsfor studying.

Introduction‘Music technology’ in Britain appears currently as a sub-area within theMusic Benchmark Statement (QAA 2002), but training and education pro-visions include a multitude of courses in further and higher education inwhich the subject is often offered as the sole or main specialism. A quicksearch in the UCAS (the Universities and Colleges Admission Service)1 sys-tem will return hundreds of courses; indeed, based on data extracted fromthe system, Boehm (2005a, 2005b) highlights the breadth of ‘music tech-nology’ as construed in the United Kingdom. Course titles often do notinclude the expression ‘music technology’, but they do suggest tacit pur-poses in purporting to cater for wider contextual needs: academic or discipli-nary housing and, consequently, legitimacy; artistic goals; commercial andindustrial job roles. Despite the lack of a Benchmark statement relatingexclusively to the area, ‘music technologists graduating from [those] coursesemerge both as artists and scientists’, as McGettrick (n.d.) suggests, implyingthat ‘music technology’ may be viewed as an emerging discipline in itsown right. What does seem clear, however, is that in the last two decadesmusic technology has been progressively gaining strength as a sort ofumbrella term for a number of academic and professional practices that, nev-ertheless, have been conventionally considered as an integral part of other,well-established disciplines such as (audio) engineering or (musical) acoustics.

Importantly, ‘the finest musical instruments throughout history have bothreflected and focused the technical capabilities of their time and culture’, as


1. Available online atwww.ucas.ac.uk

Keywordsmusic technologyopen educationcurriculuminterdisciplinarityteam teaching

JMTE_1.1_03_art_Ferreira.qxd 11/8/07 3:16 PM Page 23

Orton (1992) puts it. Indeed, music making has traditionally profited fromstate-of-the-art technologies and contemporary scientific insight, from theNeanderthal flute to the latest software synthesizer controlled by hapticinterfaces; from the first music-printing technologies to computer-basedmusical composition systems. Nevertheless, the crucial relationship betweenmusic and technology – albeit contextually located and often tense – is notalways clearly acknowledged. This is an issue for the most part strategi-cally overlooked in discourses that polarize the categories ‘art’ and ‘tech-nology’. Indeed, this dichotomy, which supports predominant definitionsof the remit and scope of different disciplines and areas of knowledge, hasonly recently begun to be contested in critical discourses on music(Théberge 1997; Wishart 1992; Taylor 2001), with occasional recourseto the ancient Greek notion of technê (Di Scipio 1998). This fragmentationof knowledge and practice creates a paradoxical situation: despite the mul-tiplicity of ways in which ‘music technology’ can be conceptualized andcategorized in disciplinary terms, both the development and the use oftechnologies for musical applications require, albeit with different levels ofexpertise, knowledge of core topics traditionally located across disciplinaryboundaries.

Crucially, the interdependency between music making and technologyhas not been extensively explored in its implications, in particular, for edu-cators treading in this complex area.2 This article explores some of theimplications by examining a particular educational setting, the productionof the UK Open University (UK OU) course TA225 The Technology ofMusic and its expanded version, TA212. The article argues that the multi-disciplinary character – with ‘multidisciplinarity’ understood here asa coming together of different disciplines in juxtaposition (Klein 1990: 56) –of this context both compounds and parallels a problem that alreadyconfronts educators located in the setting: the issue of creating interestingand, simultaneously, relevant learning opportunities in agreement withan ‘open access’ policy. Also, it is suggested that the general approach of‘teaching the conflicts’ (a paraphrase of Baynham 2003), the rationalenegotiated by the course developers (albeit not articulated, during produc-tion, in these terms), capably maps the multiplicity of the subject onto waysin which it could be taught.

ContextTeaching at the UK OU is a team effort that consists of two major, interre-lated stages referred to as course development and course presentation.Course development is carried out centrally by Course Teams (CTs), groupsof (predominantly) campus-based staff that include professionals from var-ious areas clustered around a core of academic authors. CTs exploit theexisting institutional structure in that this is arranged to provide expertinput into various tasks required for course development (in addition toacademic and pedagogical expertise, graphic design, software developmentand legal advice and support in respect to copyrights issues, for example),which is guided by broader curriculum considerations and, more recently,market intelligence. Course presentation, on the other hand, is monitoredand supported by central academic staff, but direct student support is pro-vided primarily by Associate Lecturers (ALs), who offer tailor-made advice

24 Giselle M. d. S. Ferreira

2. A current enterprisein the area is Boehm’sBetweening project;see project descriptionat www.mccarthy-boehm.org.uk/projects/Betweening/Palatine_Betweening_V3.pdf


to small groups of learners (typically 15–25 in number).3 The roles of CTsand ALs differ significantly, but the split of functions between differentgroups of teachers in a broader student-support network has been pivotalto the logistics required for the production and presentation of courses tooften substantial numbers of students.

As part of a process that supported the eventual institutionalization ofthe CT, new administrative layers have been progressively introduced tomanage the growing concerns with costs and, more recently, the University’sgeneral orientation towards providing complete programmes of study lead-ing to named qualifications (that is, certificates and degrees qualified inrespect to an area of knowledge or professional remit). This move, in itself,has implied the need for a significant change of culture within the organi-zation, a process currently under way, as courses now integrate broaderprogrammes which set out specific curricular requirements that courses,grouped together, must meet – as opposed to what had been a course-centredmode of operation. TA225 and TA212 have been, arguably, the lastcourses to be developed tangentially to a set of programme-specific learningoutcomes, and the current status of TA212 is that of an elective course ina number of named qualifications awarded by the University. The institutionnow appears to be rethinking and redefining itself within a wider, business-oriented context in which it is located on an assumedly equal, competitivefooting with more ‘conventional’ universities. The wider adoption of business-oriented thinking and accompanying rhetoric within the institution, how-ever, contributes to bring to the fore previously veiled tensions among rep-resentatives of different disciplines, professions and particular viewpoints.

Team teaching is not, of course, an idiosyncrasy of distance education,but it has grown into the predominant style for developing curriculumand creating learning resources in distance-education institutions. Indeed,according to Chung (2001), the structure of these organizations – and theUK OU is here only one example among others – tends to reflect a commonlyperceived need to endow course development with a more widely acceptednotion of ‘professionalism’. At the UK OU, the current model of thecourse production process is described, in its various stages, processes andpersonnel required, in an online document available internally to staff(OU, Curriculum Management Guide), which outlines the relationshipsamong the various areas of the university responsible for the creation anddelivery of a course. Interestingly, non-academic services are no longerconstrued as subsidiary to the development process, even though this isassumedly based on pedagogical and academic considerations. A focus onbudgetary and market-related concerns, traditionally not major academicaffairs, compels a radically different reality that opens up an avenue formuch controversy and disagreement. CTs can, therefore, be viewed as arenasthat highlight administrative, disciplinary and professional divides; fromthis perspective they are sites of debate, contestation and conflict, as exam-ined in Ferreira (2006).

It was within the convoluted scenario of change sketched above that thecourse TA225 The Technology of Music was proposed and developed. Thefact that an initial proposal was informally circulated in the mid-1990s, but acourse team assembled only by 2001, points to the difficulties in carrying outwhat had been construed, from its early stages, as an ‘ambitious project’.

25Crossing borders: issues in music technology education

3. ALs are part-timemembers of staffrecruited according totheir subject expertise;they are often full-timemembers of staff infurther education orother highereducation institutions.


The course was proposed as a collaboration between the faculties oftechnology (which bears the presentation responsibilities) and arts, butthe academic core of the CT included members from across three differentfaculties (including science), associated with the disciplines of elec-tronics engineering, ICTs, manufacturing technology, music and physics.Despite some controversy around the academic ‘credibility’ of a course inthis area vis-à-vis institutional perceptions of the student ‘market’, TA225was launched in 2004 and attracted cohorts of between 400 to 600 learn-ers per year in its three years of presentation. TA212 (also entitled TheTechnology of Music) replaced TA225 in 2007 and was developed inresponse to the perceived need to reflect the actual workload involved (seenext section) as well as expand some of the fundamental and practicalaspects of the course.

Course materials and structureTA225 was a level-2, 30 CAT-points course, corresponding to approxi-mately 300 hours of part-time study spread over 9 months, about a quarterof the yearly study load in a full-time system. The course was based on atripartite Block structure: the first Block covering the ‘basics’ (in acoustics,psychoacoustics and music theory), the second examining musical instru-ments (including voice and electronic instruments), and the third dealingwith sound recording and processing, with particular focus on desktopsound processing and MIDI (and some coverage of topical issues such asintellectual property). These topics were presented using a relatively ‘tradi-tional’ combination of media that had a set of printed texts as their back-bone. Each Block of text was accompanied by an audio CD containingsound examples and a CD-ROM containing software (a number of softwarepackages, including commercial programs – Adobe Audition and CubasisVST 4.0 [this has been replaced with Cubase LE in TA212]). There wasalso a printed Reference Manual that conflated information on fundamen-tal formulae and musical terminology (‘Music Primer’), as well as havingsections dedicated to the basic functions provided by the various softwarepackages used in the course. In addition, students received a HomeExperiment Kit (HEK), consisting of a selection of materials used to supportthe development of practical skills (a microphone and a pair of head-phones) and the study of acoustic instruments (various small items includinga recorder, tubes of various sizes and a drinking straw). Finally, the courseincorporated two DVDs containing a set of tailor-made video sequences tosupport the study of Blocks 2 and 3, including a selection of broadcastmaterials chosen from the BBC archives assembled as a ‘library’ to support,in particular, the study of electronic instruments.

TA212, on the other hand, is a full-blown 60-point course (600 hoursof part-time study over 9 months) and incorporates the core materialsdeveloped for TA225 into a 5-Block structure. In this structure, the originalBlocks 1, 2 and 3 of TA225 are ‘sandwiched’ between a new introductoryBlock, which expands considerably on the original ‘Music Primer’, and afinal Block that aims to prepare students for the final piece of assessedwork. Block 1 introduces basic music notation and theory within a textthat aims to develop the learners’ listening skills and, to a limited extent,their ability to understand and follow scores of different degrees of complexity.



Student feedback from TA225 indicated that the ‘Primer’ was of limitedusefulness to students entirely new to music notation, as it was developedas a subsidiary reference and not a teaching text as such, while Block 1 ofTA212 provides a much more substantial introduction. Block 5, on theother hand, covers two different areas, namely, communication skills andpractical work. The practical work in this last Block expands on work carriedout throughout the course, providing opportunities for further use of thecourse software in preparation for the final project, which requires studentsto carry out a number of tasks and write a structured report.

Figure 1 illustrates the interface of the ‘TA212 Activities’ utilityprogram created to provide access to the learning materials on CD. Thefigure shows, specifically, the activities associated with chapter 5 in Block 2;the chapter includes various simulations created to support the study oftopics in psychoacoustics as well as numerous musical examples, whichare included on the audio CD that accompanies the Block. The softwareprovides coherent access to all the computer-based and listening activitiescontained in the course, organized by Block and chapter, respectively.Computer-based activities consist of simulations and animations developedin-house, some of which are interactive. Other chapters include practicaltasks using the third-party software listed above, and the ‘TA212 Activities’utility program provides access to the subsidiary program(s).

Although the focus of both courses is on the technologies, these aregenerally contextualized in historical and musical terms across most of thecourse text. The CT, however, agreed not to impose on all text any singlerationale for providing contextual information, leaving individual authorsto decide how (and if at all) to incorporate details on people, places andtimes associated with the topics taught. Contextualization was indeedassumed as an important ingredient to provide interest and motivation toarts-based students, in particular, although, as in other areas of debate,the notions of ‘context’ and ‘history’ appeared to be construed in verydifferent ways by different members of the team. Another essential ele-ment informing authors’ decisions was the assumed relevance of this sortof detail/structure vis-à-vis the constraints imposed on each part of thecourse in terms of the study time implications for students. Consequently,some chapters (particularly the introductory chapters in Block 2, whichdeal with basic notions in acoustics and tonal music theory, as well as


Figure 1: Screen-shot of the course utility program.


most of the chapters in Block 3, which present contextual details in separateboxes) have little or no contextual information, while others are framed‘historically’ (e.g. recording and storage).

In addition to the materials described above, direct student support isprovided by ALs within the Supported Open Learning (SOL) framework,4

including, as usual at the UK OU, a number of face-to-face tutorials orga-nized regionally. Asynchronous online support (along the lines of other OUofferings, e.g. Weller 2000; 2002) is offered optionally. A group of (course-wide) conferences using the University’s system (FirstClass)5 is provided,one specifically for peer support among tutors (supported by the CT), andthree bundled conferences for students (a ‘Café’ for informal chat; a‘Course discussion’ and ‘Course Assessment’ for self-help among students),the latter overviewed by the CT. Also, a password-protected website con-tains electronic versions (pdf) of the printed text as well as a number ofresources; this is a compulsory element of the course in that it includes a‘news’ area that acts as a vehicle for the delivery of noticeboard informa-tion (e.g. errata) quickly and directly by the presentation team (a sub-groupof the CT).

Course assessment in TA225 was assignment-based, comprising a totalof four short, question-based assignments (averaged to provide the stu-dent’s continuous assessment score) and a final unseen invigilated exam(the examined component), and a ‘pass’ was guaranteed when scoresabove 40 per cent are obtained in both components. The style of the ques-tions used parallelled that of the many in-text activities interspersedthroughout the teaching text and associated with specific learning outcomes.On the other hand, in TA212 the exam has been replaced with a final pro-ject, and the number of tutor-marked assignments is increased to six.

An important observation in respect to the courses’ emphasis on tech-nologies is that a ‘creative’ element – understood in terms of developingskills in the area of musicianship and applying the skills and techniquestaught for compositional purposes – is absent. The courses teach the prin-ciples upon which the operation of musical instruments and technologiesis based, providing a fairly limited picture of the many contexts associatedwith those technologies. In other words, the courses are relevant to per-formers (professional and ‘amateur’ alike) in that they may, in principle,inform their practices; the courses are also potentially of interest to musicteachers who may wish to develop their ICT skills with a view to introduc-ing changes in their practice. However, TA225 and TA212 cannot fulfilthe role of many other ‘creative music technology’ courses/programmes inthe UK that teach, specifically, compositional thinking associated with thetechnologies they explore.

Creating the courses: issues and attempted solutionsFor the ensuing discussion, I would like to group the production issues inthree general areas, as follows: (1) background knowledge; (2) musicalrepertoire (range of musical examples included); (3) repertoire of technolo-gies (range of technologies included). In using these categories to framemy discussion, I am implying that the course development was primarilyguided by decisions on content. The CT indeed used, both in planning andwriting the courses, a learning-outcomes framework based on QAAHE


4. See Johnson (2003:36–45) for anoverview of the UKOU’s SOL model.

5. See ww.firstclass.com


recommendations,6 which splits learning outcomes into various categories(‘knowledge and understanding’, ‘cognitive skills’, ‘practical and profes-sional skills’ and ‘key skills’). However, in practice, despite the variety ofcategories entailed in the model, the focus was on knowledge (hence, content)and, to a lesser extent, practical and professional skills, as appropriate to alevel-2 course.

Internal, institutional perceptions of the project as ‘ambitious’, as notedabove, may have contributed to this situation; given that ‘music technol-ogy’ was an area in which the institution had not previously ventured, thedisquiet regarding the ‘credibility’ or ‘legitimacy’ of the courses in acade-mic terms compounded those concerns with the appeal of the courses tostudents. The institutional location of the development process has clearlyhad an enormous impact on the courses eventually produced, which sup-ports the notion that curriculum ‘reflects cultural beliefs – folk traditions – aswell as social and political values and organization’ (Joseph et al. 2000: 19).Nevertheless, the focus on content can be understood as symptomatic ofa broader questioning, namely, that of defining what ‘music technology’ is.The conflation of views on what ‘music technology’ as a subject entails –or should entail – has certainly been a significant factor impacting onprocedures involved in the development of TA225 and TA212. In thissense, the courses emerged as a response to the challenge articulated inBoehm (2004): ‘if [music technology] is to exist successfully within currentHE institutions, there is a need for institutions to explicitly formulateteaching-content responsibilities according to faculties, department orschools, and it requires those involved to lay down and quantify theamount of knowledge, i.e. to create a corpus and thus define a discipline’.The need to outline boundaries and, crucially, locate these within theexisting institutional framework, provided the CT with profound questionsand implied tacit disputes that much contributed to the final shape of thecourses.

Background knowledge: ‘what do students need to knowat the start of the course?’Controversy in this area revolved around two general issues brought to thefore by CT members upon reflection on their previous experiences. On theone hand, there was the question, raised by technology-based members, ofhow to deliver (and if at all) any potential ‘mathematical’ content.7 Thisquestion was particularly relevant to the portions of the courses dealingwith topics in acoustics. On the other hand, arts-based staff described theirexperiences in running ‘purely musical’ courses at the level of TA225/TA212;for example, an understanding of staff notation in respect to time signa-tures is a major learning outcome of the core level-2 UK OU music course.These questions illustrate the problem of outlining what type of back-ground knowledge should (or could) be assumed, as opposed to what thecourses should (or could) potentially teach.

The concept of ‘decibels’ provides a helpful illustration of what appearsto be the underlying problem, given that it is a key term in the audio-technology vernacular. Understanding this notion implies a fairly sophisti-cated type of conceptual ‘move’: the ability to construe meanings based onmathematical formalization, which is a fundamental skill in engineering


6. Quality AssuranceAgency in HigherEducation, online atwww.qaa.ac.uk

7. I am using quoteshere to highlight thatthe meaning of theterm in this context isnot necessarilyprecise; indeed,students’ discoursesoften construe simplealgebraic operationsas ‘mathematics’, andthis seems to be anissue that emergestime and time againin student discussionsonline.


and science. Epistemologically, the issue at stake here is that of representa-tion, of acknowledging that ‘the map is not the territory’ (as GregoryBateson puts it in Bateson 1980: 32) while exploring the implications ofthe relationship established between them. Accordingly, questions con-cerning representation are also crucial in musical thinking when notationis approached from a broader, epistemological perspective. The question ofidentity of the author/teacher emerges here significantly, suggesting thatthe CT itself mirrored, generally, the potential variety of students’ back-grounds in that members’ experiences and perspectives of the relationshipbetween music and technology varied dramatically, as did their fluency ineach other’s specialist vernacular. Indeed, the chapter on ‘music represen-tation’ included in the third Block aims, essentially, at providing a preambleto MIDI coding and digital storage formats by locating them in some sortof historical continuity. However, materials exploring contemporary issuesof relevance to musicians (e.g. the advent of alternative, at times composer-specific, notation systems from the 1960s onwards, and the emergence ofcompositional methods that are not mediated by widely agreed notationalsystems) were not included. The encounter of experiences and perspectivesre-enacted in the CT meetings thus intensified intra-disciplinary debatesby suggesting a further avenue for questioning: would arts-based studentsbe able to cope with ‘the maths’? Would technology-based students be ableto cope with ‘the music bits’? What types of resources would be required tosupport students in their development of skills across the borders?

Clearly, these issues are not idiosyncratic to educational enterprises inmusic technology; they are, indeed, the types of questions that would needto be asked in the development of any course above introductory level withan open entry policy. In TA225/TA212, however, the problems were com-pounded by likely differences between perceptions of technology-based stu-dents, on the one hand, and those of arts-based students, on the otherhand (although the courses might clearly appeal to a variety of learnerslocated in different disciplines or studying, simply, for leisure, without spe-cific disciplinary allegiances).8 One solution adopted by the CT was toinclude teaching material on some topics while marking them clearly asnon-assessable. A number of points were considered essential (e.g. therelationship between frequency and period of a waveform, the ability toperform calculations with powers of 10, naming notes and relating theseto staff notation, to name just a few) and, therefore, covered in the maintext materials but included in the Reference Manual that students wereallowed to take with them to the final exam in TA225.

There was also considerable debate regarding the use of musical nota-tion, which is the usual visual basis upon which comparisons and, gener-ally, commentary on sound/music, are based. Naturally, in a course asbroad as TA225/TA212, listening activities appear associated with a widevariety of purposes, including demonstrating basic psychoacoustical phe-nomena (e.g. beating, masking and examples of auditory illusions), sup-porting the development of listening skills (e.g. identifying musicalinstruments, identifying features of sound, assessing the balance of a mixor the quality of a recording) generally, developing skills that are fundamen-tal to sound recording and processing. Creating such activities requiredcareful consideration of envisaged benefits and possible complications


8. These assumptions,albeit grounded in themembers’ experiences(extensive for a num-ber of CT members,but also relevant tomore junior staff, assuch assumptionsappear, to a certainextent, to be‘ingrained’ ininternal, institutionaldiscourses onstudents’ profiles),seem to me crucialbut, significantly,potentially harmful tothe developmentprocess. Given thecurrent rate at whichthe institution and its‘market’ appear to bechanging, it would bepotentially damagingto use suchassumptions as theonly source informingCTs on the potentialaudience of thecourses we produce.The fact that some ofthe CT members alsooperate ‘at the pointof delivery’ as ALs orin some other capacitysomewhat alleviatesthe problem.


created with the use of musical notation. A further resource was createdto address this question, the ‘Music Primer’, which groups together funda-mental concepts in tonal music theory; this provides a reference (that is, asummarized presentation of notes) and not a piece of teaching material asunderstood at the UK OU. Indeed, students’ response to the ‘Primer’ wasmixed, and this partially guided the development of a new introductoryBlock for TA212.

Musical repertoire: ‘what music should be included in the course?’Viewed as a unit, the CT possessed considerable breadth (and depth)of knowledge in terms of a variety of musical genres and styles, but tonal-ity was the prevalent musical model and the source of most of the musicalexamples selected for the courses. Indeed, many of the concepts proposedas ‘fundamentals’ (for example, consonance/dissonance) were much nego-tiated from perspectives that, predominantly, either simply described orattempted to explicate the concepts in terms of harmonic/numerical rela-tionships. There was, significantly, considerable tension surroundingissues that have fostered alternative theorization and/or common-senseunderstandings, for example, in biological terms (as if anatomically/physi-ologically ‘hard-wired’), in cognitive psychological terms (schemata thatcan be acquired or ‘programmed’), or in constructionist terms (discoursesand social interaction construing epistemologies, identities and realities).

The topic consonance/dissonance, in particular, appears twice at dif-ferent stages of the courses, reflecting a polarization of positions within theCT. On the other hand, and most importantly, this recurrence also pointsto the CT’s general approach of allowing for multiplicity of views. Itappears, indeed, that a ‘teach the conflicts’ rationale (Baynham 2002)eventually permeates the materials. A more appropriate analogy for thenegotiation process on this matter, however, is with that of an emergentproperty of a complex system, since this rationale was neither articulatednor discussed beyond the unspoken tactic of ‘agreeing to disagree’ thateventually characterized production. If ‘consensus forms the basis of ateam development model’, as Moore and Kearsley (1996: 105) suggest,that was the form ultimately negotiated by the TA225/TA212 CT.

The fundamental observation concerning the consonance/dissonancedebate is that it suggests different views of music and, in pragmatic terms,choices of repertoire to be included in listening exercises. Overall, post-1950s western ‘art’ styles are frequently perceived as exclusionary (oftenby musicians themselves), and this view was represented in fairly strongreactions from some CT members. Despite that (and the eventual focus ontonality), the variety of CT members’ backgrounds and experiences withmusic has contributed to an arguably richer collection of musics representedin the courses than might be possible in other settings. Examples providedon CD consist of excerpts and complete pieces alike, including, in addi-tion to exemplars selected from the western ‘art canon’, jazz, ‘pop’, variousstyles of electronic/electroacoustic music (musique concréte, elektronischeMusik, acousmatic music, electronica), world musics, to name a few. In asetting in which developers/educators were more closely grouped (e.g. in amusic department with a tradition in a given musical style, for example,



electroacoustic composition or, perhaps, in a computer science departmentwith a group working on computational musicology), such variety mightnot be possible. On the other hand, as discussed below, choices of musicalrepertoire are closely linked with choices of the musical technologies them-selves. As I suggested earlier, musical styles and musical instrumentation areclosely connected, implying that choosing musical examples defines a givenuniverse of relevant musical technologies, in the same way that choosingmusical technologies outlines, to a large extent, a given musical universeand, consequently, implies a particular view of music itself.

Repertoire of technologies: ‘what technologies do studentsneed to learn about?’There was some debate on the possible perception of TA225/TA212 as acourse focusing on digital and computer-based technologies. This was nei-ther intended nor wanted, partially because TA225 was predetermined,from early in its planning, to contain a considerable contribution focusingon acoustic instruments, their underlying principles and manufacturingtechniques. Interestingly, despite the vastness of the area, which includes awealth of instruments located in cultures outside the Western Europeantradition, there was relatively little debate on the selection of particularinstruments to be covered in detail, mentioned in passing or simply omit-ted from the course. On the other hand, the area of electronic instrumentscreated much dispute, partly in connection with selecting what would beeffectively included (e.g. from the so-called ‘precursors’, the Telharmoniumwas included among a wide variety of equally interesting candidates), but,most importantly, in connection with latest developments in electronicinstrument technology that have fostered a re-evaluation of what a musi-cal instrument may eventually be (or become). The suggestion that thetape recorder, for example, is a musical instrument in its own right (inassociation, at least, with a particular musical style, musique concrète,which has a strong connection with contemporary turntablism), wasoverwhelmingly rejected to favour a categorization of the device as a‘recording technology’.

Another topic that generated particular debate was sound synthesis.The literature on sound synthesis does not offer a widely accepted tax-onomy of methods (see, for example, Roads 1996 and Miranda 2002)and indeed, in some texts it is the distinction analogue/digital that pro-vides a framework for organizing these methods. This, in itself, impliedthe need for ‘executive decisions’ on the CT’s part, but these were notmade any easier, given the relatively widespread association betweensynthesis and keyboard-based synthesizers and samplers. Indeed, theprominence of the chapter on electronic instruments was severelyaltered during the discussion of its first draft,9 when the final distribu-tion of topics began to be clarified (e.g. samplers might have beenincluded in the third Block, but are covered together with electronicinstruments). The chapter, eventually, was recognized as a potentiallycrucial element of the course in respect to students’ expectations, butMIDI and desktop processing (two areas of particular relevance in theCT’s assumptions on students’ requirements) are covered in the subse-quent Block.


9. Course developmentat the UK OU includesthree stages ofdrafting (interspersedwith CT-wide discus-sions) and a finalstage of preparing a‘handover’ version ofthe chapter, which isthen passed on to theeditor, who also coor-dinates the variousareas involved inpreparing thecomplete set of mate-rials associated withthe chapter text (e.g.illustrations – eitherbought in via theRights department orprepared in the designstudio – and soundexamples – sometimesprepared by authorsbut produced, in theirfinal form, by profes-sional personnel).


This apparently arbitrary assigning of category membership to differ-ent technologies suggests a fairly fundamental question: in what ways areTA225/TA212 courses on ‘the technology of music’ rather than ‘musictechnology’? In other words, does the expression ‘music technology’ differsignificantly from ‘the technology of music’? As I suggested above, theterms ‘music’ and technology’ appear, in different combinations, in vari-ous policy documents as well as in the vernacular of musicians and tech-nologists in ways that suggest, if not totally opposed, at least contrastingnotions of the relationship between music and technology. Considering, inaddition, the possibility that ‘music technology’ may be viewed as an arealinked, exclusively, with digital and computer-based technologies, as I alsonoted, it is fair to suspect that choosing between the expressions above isnot merely a semantic move. Selecting musical examples and exemplars oftechnology entailed in an underlying conceptualization of ‘music technol-ogy’ implies a more essential epistemic move: assessing the terms ‘musical’and ‘technological’ in their appropriateness to a given situation (e.g.instruments, sounds, discourses). As noted above, choices of musicalexamples are inherently linked with choices of technologies, that is, essen-tially, they reveal some form of agreement on what ‘music’ is to be repre-sented. All of these choices are profoundly significant to curriculumdevelopment, suggesting an understanding that is consistent with theview put forward earlier that locates curriculum in culture and, perhapsmore importantly, politics.

ConclusionIn summary, this article has provided an account that highlights ways inwhich the multiplicity of the subject area is reflected in both the coursedevelopment process and the course materials themselves. This ‘mapping’of multiplicity brought to the fore a fairly broad range of questions con-cerning music technology education. One crucial issue implied, nonethe-less, is that the coming together of specialists in different areas does notguarantee the existence of a common language for the negotiationsinvolved: the ability to identify (or, perhaps, construe) links across discipli-nary borders does not pertain to a multidisciplinary encounter, a mereconflation of methods, approaches and languages. This is all the moreobvious vis-à-vis contextual factors such as disciplinary, professional andinstitutional allegiances. I do wonder whether, perhaps, the main questionthat should be considered by teaching teams is not how students with dif-ferent backgrounds will be able to cope with skills across the border, buthow team members themselves can do so in the first place.

Works CitedBateson, G. (1980), Mind and Nature. A Necessary Unity, New York: Bantam Books.

Baynham, M. (2002), ‘Academic writing in new and emergent discipline areas’, inR. Harrison, F. Reeves, A. Hanson and J. Clarke (eds) Supporting LifelongLearning. Volume 1: Perspectives on Learning. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Boehm, C. (2004), ‘Music Technology in Higher Education’. in T. Claes (ed.), TheIdea of Education, Interdisciplinary Press vol. 12, eBook available online atwww.inter-disciplinary.net/publishing/idp/eBooks/ptboindex.htm Accessed 3 August 2007.



Boehm, C. (2005a), ‘Betweening. How to put an “and” between music andtechnology’, Leeds Music Technology Education Conference (LMTEC), LeedsCollege of Music. Available online at www.mccarthy-boehm.org.uk/projects/Betweening/20051112_Leeds_V1.2.pdf Accessed 3 August 2007.

Boehm, C. (2005b), ‘Staying in-between. “Music Technology” in HigherEducation’, Digital Music Research Network (DMRN) Roadmap LaunchWorkshop, London. Available online at www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/dmrn/events/roadmap05/20051221_DMRN_StayingInBetween_v1.4.pdf Accessed 3 August 2007.

Chung, H. J. (2001), The Nature of the Course Team Approach at the UK OpenUniversity, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Di Scipio, A. (1998), ‘Questions Concerning Music Technology’, Angelaki: Journal ofTheoretical Humanities, 3: 2, pp. 31–40.

Ferreira, G. M. d. S. (2006), ‘Multidisciplinarity in Practice: a case-study of conso-nance, dissonance, or, perhaps, noise?’, International Journal of the Humanities 2: 2,article HC04-0143-2004. Available online at http://ijh.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.26/prod.255 Accessed 3 August 2007.

Johnson, J. L. (2003), Distance Education. The Complete Guide to Design, Delivery andImprovement, New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Joseph, P. B., Bravmann, S. L., Windschitl, M. A., Mikel, E. R. and Green, N. S.(2000), Cultures of Curriculum, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

Klein, J. T. (1990), Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory and Practice, Detroit, MI:Wayne State University Press.

McGettrick, P. (n.d.), ‘Music and technology in the 21st century. A briefoverview’, Federation of Music Collectives Factsheet. Available online atwww.fmc-ireland.com/publications/factsheets/music_tech.doc Accessed 3 August 2007.

Miranda, E. R. (2002), Computer Sound Design. Synthesis Techniques and Programming(2nd edn), Oxford: Focal Press.

Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. (1996), Distance Education. A Systems View. Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Orton, R. (1992), ‘Musical, Cultural and Educational Implications of DigitalTechnology’, in J. Paynter, T. Howell, R. Orton and P. Seymour (eds), Companionto Contemporary Musical Thought. Volume 1, pp. 319–28, London: Routledge.

OU (Open University) (n.d.), Curriculum Management Guide, internal documentavailable online to staff.

QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2002), Music Benchmark Statement, Gloucester:Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Available online atwww.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/music.pdfAccessed 3 August 2007.

Roads, C. (1996), The Computer Music Tutorial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taylor, T. D. (2001), Strange Sounds. Music, Technology and Culture. London: Routledge.

Théberge, P. (1997), Any Sound you can Imagine. Making Music/ConsumingTechnology, Hanover, London: Wesleyan University Press.

Weller, M. (2000), ‘The use of narrative to provide a cohesive structure for a Web-based computing course’, Journal of Interactive Media in Education, August.Available online at www-jime.open.ac.uk/00/1/weller-00-1-t.htmlAccessed 3 August 2007.



Weller. M. (2002), Delivering learning on the net: the why, what and, how of online edu-cation, London: Kogan Paul.

Wishart, T. (1992), ‘Music and Technology: problems and possibilities’, inJ. Paynter, T. Howell, R. Orton and P. Seymour (eds), Companion to ContemporaryMusical Thought. Volume 1, pp. 565–82, London: Routledge.

Suggested citationFerreira, M. d. S. G. (2007), ‘Crossing borders: issues in music technology

education’ Journal of Music,’ Technology and Education 1: 1, pp. 23–35,doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.23/1

Contributor detailsGiselle Ferreira is a Lecturer at the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology atthe UK Open University, where she is part of the team responsible for the introduc-tion, integration and development of music technology in the university’s curricu-lum. Giselle has a multidisciplinary background in electronic engineering, musicand education, and her research interests include issues surrounding disciplinar-ity, with particular interest on questions that arise in the relationship between edu-cation, technology and politics. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher EducationAcademy and has been recently awarded a Teaching Fellowship at the OpenUniversity’s Centre for Open Learning of Mathematics, Science, Computing andTechnology, COLMSCT. Giselle is currently a member of the Academic Team ofOpenLearn, the university’s Open Educational Resources initiative. Contact:Giselle M. d. S. Ferreira, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]






Reframing creativity and technology:promoting pedagogic change in musiceducationPamela Burnard University of Cambridge

AbstractNo matter what else may divide us, most music educators are agreed on one gen-eral point. A central aim of defining how effective music educational practiceshould happen in the new e-learning environments which expand and connectcommunities of learners in music classrooms, is an imperative; a view which isemphasized in policy and widely acknowledged in teacher training. Yet, the criticalroles played by creativity and technology in supporting the promotion of peda-gogic change are less clear. This paper integrates theoretical framing and practicalinsights into a set of basic principles that may be useful for researching the inter-relationship between creativity (as an essential human attribute lying at theheart of all learning and as processes of making something new) and technology(as tools that mediate how creative activity occurs). Several ways of driving ped-agogical evolution, in ways that resemble the relationship between creativity andtechnology as we see in the world beyond school, are introduced. These includeconsideration of the potential contribution of sociocultural, post-VygotskianActivity Theory (AT) to overcome some of the problems that have plagued bothmusic educational theorizing and practice. While outlining potentials for futureresearch, the article highlights how these processes may be brought into a productiverelation as agents of pedagogic change in music education.

IntroductionImagine a music pedagogy that builds upon assumptions about creativityand the instrumental use of technology as unrelated concepts, treated sep-arately or at best where one was made to ‘fit in’ to the other’s way of work-ing. Imagine having no expectations about the usefulness of integratingcreativity and technology in aiding and extending musical learning ormeeting a pedagogical need in classroom practice – in fact, that the essenceof each was to be not-the-other. Imagine creativity as an internal processand technology as an external strategy for (rather than process of) acquiringmusical knowledge, skills and understanding that teachers would use atdifferent instructional levels.

Conversely, imagine multiple forms of music pedagogy, where creativity(like inspiration) comes from outside in and inside out as a process insepa-rable from technology, playing into and recruiting different forms of peda-gogy. Where a gradual but perceptible process of pedagogical evolutiontakes place, with music educators developing new strategies that go beyond


Keywordscreativitytechnologymusic educationpedagogypedagogic changeactivity theory

JMTE_1.1_04_art_Burnard.qxd 11/7/07 9:44 PM Page 37

making new tools ‘fit in’ to current ways of working. Instead, the ‘deeper’object of musical learning arises inseparably from creativity and technologyas interrelated tools. Both teachers and learners use these tools to managetheir own learning, creating opportunities for the making, creating,receiving and producing of music. In this scenario, learning goals concernhow the pupils would like to work musically and what resources theywould like to use: e-learning tasks and e-communication are expectedways of promoting creativity in the music classroom. Various models ofartistic and creative engagement are negotiated with collaborative oppor-tunities for media-rich choices in adaptive learning environments. Theseare richly resourced to both provoke and support reflection between partic-ipants, where interaction with and through diversified networks supportsworldwide access to school and home.

Clearly, there are many approaches to and models of music pedagogy thatreside on a spectrum between simple dichotomies. Where these dichotomiesemphasize assumptions about the mutuality of creativity and technologythey suggest that creativity and technology are not autonomous, nor arethey competing or irrelevant to each other. Discourse on teacher effectivenessin music education (Savage 2007; Mills 1997; QCA 2005) brings the notionof pedagogic change with new technology use into unprecedented focus.

The following article offers some framing points for reframing how cre-ativity and technology may be brought into productive relation as cata-lysts for change in pedagogic practice, policy and teacher professionalismin music education.

Framing point 1: The interrelationship between creativity and technologySeveral factors may have an impact on teacher practice. Many studieshave pointed to the school-level and teacher-level barriers and practicalconstraints within the workplace (Webster 2006). Developing effectivemusic pedagogy around technology-based and creativity-integrated activ-ity is now emphasized in the ‘ICT in Schools’ initiative (DfES 2003). Alongwith the demands of curriculum coverage and assessment, if music teach-ers are to become flexible learning leaders they need to be researchinghow effective teaching (and learning) happens in their own digital-richmusic classrooms (Mills 1997, 2005; Pitts 2001; Price 2005). In practice,as noted by Hennessy, Ruthven and Brindley (2005), ‘the research litera-ture offers little support for the popular (though perhaps unrealistic)rhetoric about technology revolutionizing teaching and learning or teachersfundamentally reworking their lesson plans and pedagogy’ (p. 156). Theseare issues about which, in music education, we presently have little under-standing or consensus.

Research has also shown that technology is deeply embedded in thecontemporary lexicon of young people’s musical lives (Folkestad 2006).The Internet, for example, is their new playground and creates differentsocial rooms for them. In addition, many young people are already high-endor passive, consumption-bound users and consumers of music technology,mass media and the production technologies when they come to school.They are often motivated by out-of-school experiences of music technologies.What they bring to school from home and community, key sites in the

38 Pamela Burnard


context of leisure for cultural consumption, offers new challenges toteachers (Leong 2007). On the one hand, technologically mediated musicmaking can shake the most cherished practices of classroom music teachers –but, on the other, it can generate the desire to (and ways in which to)diversify existing pedagogical practice. Furthermore, the online technolo-gies available, along with the shift towards a second generation internet(Web 2.01) can be adapted to constructive learning environments in whichthe making, experiencing, receiving and creating of music changes dramati-cally (Fautley and Savage 2007; Ruthmann, 2007). There is growingresearch interest in how teachers define and discuss the enhancement oftheir pedagogical repertoires through the use of online collaborative tech-nologies in music teaching. Yet, conceptual frameworks for investigatingthe multifaceted nature of creativity and technology are desperately lack-ing (see for example Prensky, 2001; Webster 2002, 2006; Finney andBurnard 2007).

The application of new technologies to support and develop musiclearning and teaching in school and how students use technology at homepreoccupies teacher thinking about what should be included in the cur-riculum, how it should be delivered, and the confluent questions of why,when and where in the curriculum it should be positioned (Espeland 2006).The particular ways in which new technologies (including ICT) andcreativity are promoted, perceived and practised continue to underscorekey reports and promotions in resource materials (Fautley and Savage,2007; Ofsted 2004, 2006).

There have been a small number of studies that have explicitly examinedthe processes of creative music making in a computer-mediated environ-ment (Hickey 1997; Seddon and O’Neill 2003; Collins 2005; Kirkman2007) or the impact of technology on learners’ creativity (Dillon 2003,2004, 2006). Studies of collaborative creativity using music technologies(Dillon 2003, 2004) and of students’ perspectives on composing withMIDI (Airy and Parr 2001), and web-enhanced learning (Bauer 2001)establish that technology provides an enabling environment in whichlearners and teachers enter a co-participative process around activitiesand explorations where learners can take back control of their learning(Challis 2007).

Various potential lines of enquiry originate from the intersectingcontexts in which teaching and learning are situated. These may includethe kinds of creative courses of action that young people choose and theextent to which these courses are imbued with dilemmas relating to tech-nology. For example, as passive consumers, who are the subjects of musicallearning, how do they learn, what do they learn, why do they learn, whatmakes them make the effort and where?

Whether seeing creativity being in relationship with technology orcreativity as emerging through technology, both vantage points are essen-tial to genuinely fostering music learning. This assumes that we knowwhere technology belongs and how it is embodied in accounts of creativity,and whether one is different from and more than, the other, or not irre-ducible, and thus essentially different from the reality of the other. Whilesome work is taking place in this area (Reese, McCord and Walls 2001;Baer 2001; Reese 2001; Seddon and O’Neill, 2003; Nilsson and Folkestad,

39Reframing creativity and technology: promoting pedagogic change in music education

1. Designed to enhancesocial collaboration asillustrated by wikisand blogs.


2005; Dillon, T. 2006; Savage 2005, Tafuri 2006), our understanding ofhow this interrelationship translates into musical learning, is still imperfect.

Figure 1 provides a view of creativity and technology as intersectinglines of enquiry for documenting the inextricable connections between‘what’ assumptions underpin the demands of music curricular coverageand the usefulness of technology in aiding and extending musical (e-)learn-ing; ‘why’ they are played out in certain ways; and ‘how’ they are playedout by and to different individuals and groups in different cultures,communities, institutions and societies. ‘When’ do opportunities andaspects of school-based activities carry over beyond school? ‘How’ dodifferent contexts in which music-specific technology arise and shape thepupils’ experience of musical production and consumption differently?‘Why’ do some classroom practices clash with whilst others enhance theculture of student exploration, collaboration and interactivity and involveboth pupils and teachers developing new strategies and ways of thinkingin response to new experiences? ‘What’ role does the curriculum play inthe complementary recasting of home and school use of music technology?

The documentation of these issues, and the ways they are situated indifferent contexts, certainly warrants greater attention in the coming

40 Pamela Burnard

measured

individual curriculum the classroom ad hoc learning

sch

ool

pa

ssiv

e

REC

EIVIN

G

MAKING

CR

EA

TIV

ITY

TEC

HN

OL

OG

Y

EXPERENCING

CREATING

WH

EN

H

OW

WHY

WHO WHAT WH

ERE

WH

EN

WH

ERE

WHAT WHO WHY

HO

W

attainment

pupil reproduction seat opportunistic

day

con

sum

ptio

n

social world social liberation of learners

learning to

learn

of

inqu

iry

the natural and musical and community p

ersonal growth,

mul

tiple

ave

nues

Figure 1: Situating the interrelationship between creativity and technology inmusical learning.


years. Yet, if it is possible for teachers to radically change how they teach,then coming to new understandings of how creativity and technology canmediate the learning environment as creative spaces in which pupils (andteachers) learn collaboratively, is crucial. We need to take account of ‘how’these environments conform to the learner and ‘what’ role is played in thecomplementary recasting of home and school use of music technology.

Framing point 2: Building flexible educational environmentsthat conform to the learner – a shifting amalgamThe second framing point involves the tool of ‘reframing’ self/others(i.e. teachers and learners) together in an adaptive learning environment.Moreover, in taking account of new thinking about pedagogy and themaking of links between local communities and the global community,then we need to reframe the expanding classroom environment. Whatevidence do we have for ‘how’ pupils (and teachers) learn collaboratively?‘When’ and in ‘what’ contexts is the establishment of creative spaces madeimplicit as technologically and pedagogically coupled?

Educational environments differ from those characterized in earlierdecades, as exemplified in music classrooms. The rich connections built asconsequences of using integrated, pervasive networks to support innova-tions in teaching have been well documented and theorized in educationalresearch (see Loi and Dillon 2006; Deaney and Hennessy 2007); less so inmusic education research. Studies have been published, however, on thepossibility of media-rich sources of musical information (Dillon, S. 2006),the opportunity to interact and collaborate with people who otherwise areinaccessible (Seddon 2007), and the use of digital networked technologiesin adaptive educational environments where these facilitate creative musicactivities (Ruthmann 2007).

We have seen that technology frees time for creative developmentthrough automation. Several studies have pointed to time saved whenteachers use online technologies and collaborative tools, which includeblogs, podcasts and wikis used instrumentally in their practice to amplifyand extend pre-existing instructional practices (Loveless et al 2001;Nordkvelle and Olson 2005) and develop reflective practices which increasecollaboration within and beyond formal school settings (Ruthmann, 2007b).Somekh (2000), Savage (2005, 2007), Ruthmann (2007a; 2007b), Brownand Dillon (2007), along with Jennings (2007), maintain that digital tech-nologies offer the opportunity to extend the spaces for creativity by bringingcommunities together – for example, in collaborative partnerships betweenschools and other learning sites at the level of individual artist, arts organiza-tion, school and university. Composers, performers, audiences and artistsoffer teachers new, collaborative kinds of interactivity (see for exampleMusical Futures2 and Interconnected Musical Networks or IMNs3) whichextend the spaces available for interaction and exhibition. For example, in astudy of synchronous communication (based on real0time interaction) andasynchronous communication (based on delayed interaction), Seddon(2007) highlights key considerations to be made in an on-line classroomand the benefits of interactive e-learning, not only within and betweenschools but also in terms of group composing in global classrooms. Thesemusical networks occur through the technology. There are many examples


2. Musical Futures provides online accessto specialist musictechnology expertsand resources.

3. InterconnectedMusical Networks (orIMNs), a phrasecoined by Weinberg(2005), are computersystems that allowplayers toindependently shareand shape eachothers’ music in real-time, facilitating bothsynchronous andasynchronouscommunication.


in the literature of evidenced-based classroom practice where technologymakes it possible to plug into, create and share and shape music throughthese networks in real-time (see examples T. Dillon 2007; Brown andDillon, 2007). It also becomes possible to experiment, be innovative, takerisks and close the traditional gap (and relationship!) between the ‘inside’and ‘outside’ school communities of learning. This line of research has beenhighlighted in the work on collaborative composition and performancewith new technologies in the work, amongst others, of Challis and Savage(2001) and Espeland (2006). In a recent study of learner’s musical identity,Challis (2007) investigated how teenagers in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU)were motivated to use music technology to extend Key Stage 4 studentswho had little or no experience of composition (see also exemplars fromNational Music Management Group4. See also the work of Sefton-Green(1999) on digital arts and Ledgard (2006) for a discussion of the work ofthe Teacher Artist Partnerships (TAP) consortium).

The potential of the Internet as a new learning environment has resultedin several organizations developing online music-learning communities5.The Associated Board, for example, recently launched an innovative freewebsite, www.soundjunction.org. SoundJunction comprises a set of dynamictools for exploring, discovering and creating music. The site offers oppor-tunities to link creativity with technology.

Another online learning environment for stimulating creativity withinnovative technological practice is Sonic Postcards. This is a nationaleducation programme devised and delivered by Sonic Arts Network,which promotes and explores the art of sound via the Internet (www.sonicartsnetwork.org). The way it works is through enabling pupils fromacross the United Kingdom to explore and compare their local sound envi-ronment through the composition and exchange with other schools ofsound postcards via the Internet. It illustrates how the impact of digitaltechnologies, intersecting with civic life, can affect a small community oran entire nation. This is a promising use of technology that involves bothpupils and teachers developing new strategies and ways of thinking inresponse to new experiences. In this way, it extends rather than reinforcestraditional models of music teaching and learning.

Recent research has shown how online, mobile and wireless networks arecreating new learning environments at the intersection of formal and informaleducational settings (Webster and Hickey 2006; T. Dillon 2007). The Internethas shown itself to be a dynamic teaching tool for exploring, discovering,creating, communicating about and playing in virtual music-making con-texts. It provides a mechanism for connecting a network of places,spaces (both physical and symbolic), musical worlds, music makers, gener-ators, performances and productions. In doing so, it enables participationacross places and fields through multiple forms of expression. (Examples ofwhat this kind of learning environment offers are illustrated by Futurelab6.)

The establishment of a community of engagement was possibly implicit inperspectives on nurturing creativity in a computer-mediated learningenvironment by the team involved in Ignite, a programme for exceptionalyoung people in England, funded by the National Endowment for Science,Technology and the Arts (NESTA7). This initiative offered a combinationof residential Creativity Labs (for 10- to 15-year-olds) and Creativity

42 Pamela Burnard

4. National MusicManagement Groupprovides advice onembedding ICT intothe music curriculum.This initiative isfunded by the BritishEducationCommunicationTechology Agency(Becta) and theDepartment forEducation and Skills(DfES).

5. Many of the onlinemusic-learning communities use collaborative toolssuch as blogs ascourse websites, peer-feedback, peer-teaching, onlinemedia and musicsample galleries andWikis as spaces forgroup collaboration(see Ruthmann,2007b for valuableways for music educa-tors to engage andextend students’learning unsingonline technologies).

6. Futurelab developsinnovative resourcesand practices thatsupport newapproaches to learn-ing. http://www.futurelab.org.uk/.

7. NESTA is a forward-looking fundingpartially government-related body forcreativity in Englandestablished throughan endowment in1998 from theNational Lottery.


Fellowships, with mentors and creative advisers (for 16- to 21-year-olds).The accounts of the 10- to 15-year-olds highlight the need to overcomefear of failure and feelings of self-consciousness (Burnard 2006b). Similiarly,the kinds of barriers that teachers face, such as pedagogical beliefs,teacher confidence and technical skill are equally influential and mayaffect how those who aspire to excel creatively view themselves in relationto technology use at school (Craft et al. 2004).

Each of these organizations described a shifting amalgam of creativity andtechnology as vital dimensions in transforming learning and teaching prac-tice. The challenges posed by aiming to facilitate – both technologicallyand pedagogically – adaptive educational environments that conform tothe musical needs and interests of the learner (rather than the learner tothe system) are great indeed. The paradox lies in establishing an appropriateorganizational climate (i.e. of course structures) and adaptive environ-ments (a model proposed by Loi and Dillon 2006 for creative spaces) in themidst of a policy agenda which sometimes treats teachers as techniciansrather than artists and centrally controls both curriculum content andteacher practice (Craft 2005).

What, then, are the principles that might apply to and support class-rooms as creative spaces that hold out the possibilities for and implementationof new kinds of relationship between creativity and technology? Howmight we proceed with knowing how (not whether) to position and definenew kinds of relationships between creativity and technology in the curricu-lum? How do we create, perform, learn and talk about music in wayswhich, are at least compatible with existing pedagogy and at best, stimulateinnovation and changes in teaching practices and result in a positiveimpact on pupils’ musical learning? At present, these are all factors whichmay have an impact on the working contexts and educational environ-ments in which music teachers currently find themselves.

One such model for conceptualizing educational environments, such asmusic classrooms, is suggested by Loi and Dillon (2006). Loi, an architect,and Dillon, an educational researcher, theorise educational environmentsas creative spaces in which interaction with the situational and socialdynamics at play are designed to be adaptive. The model shows the relation-ship between adaptive educational environments and creative spaces byshowing how the positioning of individuals (and one’s sense of self) interactwith the environment through which the potential for transference and syn-thesis as well as analysis, qualities which need to be implemented bothtechnologically and pedagogically, occur. In adapting this model, I havepositioned creativity and technology (rather than self and environment)through which the potential for transfer and synthesis is facilitated throughmusical networks which elicit new forms of musical participation and stimulatethe emergence of innovative practices (i.e. a process of pedagogical evolu-tion). The music classroom – both inside and outside of the physical space –is experienced as an adaptive learning environment which extends andenhances creative possibilities for musical learning which is supported by arange of technologies (not just including mobile, locative, virtual and otherhighly interactive collaborative platforms). The music classroom is whereinnovation and adaption occurs; a creative space where communicationand interaction can take both real-world and virtual forms, in some cases



with face-to-face interaction and side-by-side interaction whilst in othercases the interactions can be synchronous or asynchronous where learningis facilitated, influenced, shared, shaped and responded to by key stakehold-ers both inside and outside of the classroom and of class time.

If, as mentioned at the outset of this article, a universal aspiration of allmusic educators is to improve the quality of musical learning and its rele-vance to the young learner, then we need to rethink how a teacher’s capac-ity to effectively use technology matches the pupils’ learning needs.A common finding across educational research in general, and music edu-cation research in particular, is that learners need to build on their experi-ences and existing relationships with places and people. They need tocollaborate over tasks, contribute to curriculum planning, interact with newforms of musical participation, networks and practices in adaptive learningenvironments (Figure 2) (Jeffrey 2004; Craft 2005; Burnard 2006a).

The case for establishing (and researching) adaptive learning environ-ments in music education needs highlighting here. Documenting, analysingand theorizing on what teachers might usefully do to create an adaptivelearning environment for their pupils, particularly for descriptions of prac-tice, participation and collaborative networking, requires careful attentionto the detail of (the systems of) activity that support and nourish them.If we are to understand how music education might be reshaped for achanging and interdependent world we need a perspective that alsofocuses on unravelling the interplay of the social and material resources

44 Pamela Burnard

TECHNOLOGY CREATIVITY

INTEGRATED MUSICAL NETW

OR

KS

NEW

FORMS OF MUSICAL PARTICIP

ATIO

N

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICES

Figure 2: Framing classrooms as adaptive learning environments.


that are salient to learning (and the detail of the systems of activity thatsupport it) at a macro (i.e. the social/collective level) and micro level (i.e. atthe individual learner level) of analysis. Teaching and learning are self-organizing events framed by activity. These activity systems include peda-gogical practices and involve the elements of community, rules, divisions oflabour, object-oriented actions, norms of practice and sense making(Daniels, 2006).

Activity Theory (AT) provides a theoretical tool and means for studyingmusical learning as the expansion through change and development ofpedagogy. It has the potential to overcome some of the most profoundproblems that have plagued attempts to look well below the surface ofinteractions – at the exchange sequences and mechanisms of creativityand technology mediating pedagogic processes (and musical learning).Furthermore, it relates to what music educators (and researchers) mightusefully do to create, consult and research adaptive learning environmentsin music education settings.

Framing point 3: The potential of Activity Theory (AT)for studying adaptive learning environmentsAs with most sociocultural theory and practices, the starting point is theprinciple that individual learning is a social activity mediated by psycho-logical tools (e.g. language and other symbols) and shaped by culturalartefacts (e.g. music, literature, computers), expectations, ‘rules’/conven-tions and norms as defined by membership of groups within a wider com-munity (cf. Bannon 1997; Cole 1999). The agency of the individuallearner is facilitated by the Vygotskyan concept of internalization wherebythe mind creates mental models of artifacts as tools (in this instance, forcreative thinking) by intervening in and interacting with them – enablingthe possibility of consequent change within the culture. An ongoing medi-ation process in how the individual interacts with the world around themis a key concept in Activity Theory (AT).

As shown in Figure 3, Engeström’s model (1999a; 1999b) of AT acknow-ledges the ‘object’ of an action by (or on) a ‘subject’ as being culturally‘mediated’ by ‘mediating artefacts’ (such as computers, speaking, gestures,music, instruments). In the lower part of the figure, the model is extendedto encompass the individual and at the level of the collective operatingwith tools in which ‘rules’, a sense of ‘community’ and ‘division of labour’(division of effort) are also evidenced.

Research using AT, often referred to as cultural-historical activity theory(CHAT), which evolved from Vygotsky, continues to the present with theanalysis of interaction in medical workplace practices or the ICT industry(Edwards 2001); university-school initial teacher education and trainingpartnerships (Wilson 2004); cross-case comparison of journal sharing(Gutierrez and Stone 2000); primary literacy classrooms and human com-puter action (Nardi 1996; Zinchenko 1996) and methodologically inaction research (Edwards 2001). Use of AT in music education research,however, remains relatively under-represented (Barrett 2005; Welch 2007;Burnard and Younker 2007).

Theoretically, AT provides a means of tracking, over time, the intercon-nections between creativity and technology embedded, enabled, and/or



46 Pamela Burnard

Labo

ur

Tools and Signs

SENSE

OUTCOME

MEANING

Subj

ect

Community

SUBJECTrefers to teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions, tasks and activity within the classroom environment

ARTEFACTSare tools both physical and of the mind (e.g. language) in use within the classroom envirnment

RULESshape the activities within the classroom environment

COMMUNITYor social/musical practices which shape the classroom environment

DIVISION OF LABOURas power distribution, roles and relations set up within the classroom environment

OBJECTrefers to the products and outcomes of learning

Mediating Artefacts:

Object

Div

isio

n of

Rules

Figure 3: The structure of [the classroom environment as] a human activitysystem (Engeström 1998: 33).

central to teaching and learning, though not perhaps manifest in the initialcontact between teacher and students. Through the myriad of systemsexhibiting patterns of contradictions and tension, AT can make visible therelationships and structures within music participation and the roles andrules within practices. In this way, it has the potential to illustrate the keycomponents of the relationship between creativity and technology as theydevelop in different learning communities.



So, what might the interrelationships between creativity and technologybe and what can we say about pedagogy in exploring these? This is a chal-lenging question, which the National Advisory Committee on Creative andCulture Education report (NACCE 1999) perhaps anticipated in recognizingthe close relationship between teaching for creativity, creative teachingand creative learning. The report notes that ‘Young people’s creative abilitiesare most likely to be developed in an atmosphere in which the teacher’screative abilities are properly engaged’ (NACCCE 1999: 90).

Most significant is that music education has long been criticized for itsuse of restrictive pedagogic ideologies (Hogg 1994; Burnard 1995; Cox2002). While there have been substantial studies on creative music makingusing technology, there are relatively few identifying the resources ofresearch in practice and pupil consultation on teaching – learning strategiesthat use technology creatively. AT offers a theoretically nuanced empiricismthat focuses on and relies as much on students’ reflections and participationas teachers’ actions. Pedagogic discourses and the values underpinning nor-mative practices that prevail in music classrooms, reinforced through therules and regulations governing, among other things, roles and relation-ships, provide the focus. How these are mediated verbally and through non-verbal, meaning-making systems provides a way forward in identifying thedual threads of creativity and technology as they simultaneously constructand shape the products and learning outcomes that characterize how peda-gogic action and learning activity changes. Both are grounded in the specifichistorical and cultural circumstances of the community of learners and cre-ate the contexts for future actions. As in any societal activity, individuals’understandings of the ‘rules of the game’ in which they are involved(whether it be composing, improvising, listening, performing, reflecting orappraising music), provide clues to the nature of the action and inform howthey behave. This makes tacit ways of doing things in music explicit.

Framing point 4: A framework for researching pedagogicchange in music educationResearch, like teaching, involves the fundamental act of reflection. Thearguments for its value and the purposes it serves are reiterated throughoutthis article. We know that real change in values and attitudes which takesplace through professional reflection leads to more effective practice inteaching. If music teaching is to become not just a research-informedprofession but a research-based profession, as thought to be the mostenduring and successful way of ensuring progress in high-quality musicallearning, then we need a genuine attempt to engage the whole profes-sional community of music teachers in reflecting on their pedagogicalpractice. Reflective practice could act as both catalyst and response in cre-ating a practical agenda for pedagogic change and improvement. In thisway, pedagogy becomes a means by which the teacher is able to sustainthe self and retain professionalism. It involves connection with otherteachers and time to discuss professional issues.

When considering how creativity and technology can be repositionedin the music curriculum, we need to have clear understandings. Whilethese understandings may be rooted in all kinds of research, the mostimportant is practitioner (or teacher) and pupil research, since this is the


process whereby teachers (along with their pupils) look critically not onlyat their own practice (and learning) but at broader educational questions(Burton and Bartlett 2005; Hargreaves 1996; Burnard and Hennessy2006; Fishman et al. 2006). This should involve both teachers and pupilsdeveloping new strategies and ways of thinking in response to new experi-ences of musical networks, new forms of musical participation and newtechnological practices. As Figure 4 illustrates, when technology andcreativity are construed as closely interrelated, Activity Theory (AT) canprovide a means of investigating musical learning understood as theexpansion of the learning environment through pedagogic change.

Teachers are currently under increasing pressure – they have less timeand opportunity for professional risk taking, innovation and deep engage-ment with the principles and tensions between practice and policy (DfES2003, 2004). Yet, as researcher practitioners, it is possible for teachers toauthor change from inside the classroom. Teachers can combine observa-tional data with interviews of learners as they interact with and react uponthe issues they seek to understand. This is not a pretentious claim because thehuman capacity for sheer adaptation is as defining of teachers’ work as it is oftheir life histories (Anderson 1997; Baker 2005; Day et al., 2006). Althoughmusic education ‘enjoys’ the educational potentials of creativity and technol-ogy, in order to do so vigorously, teachers need to recognize the problemsbesetting music education as opportunities for change (Iemma 2006).

Teachers need to view the educational experience through the eyesand perspectives of their pupils. They also need to understand, and tracethe roots of, success and failure in classroom practice, and motivation anddemotivation in both themselves and their pupils.

Some ideas for practitioner-researchers’ pedagogic enquiries have beenarticulated in this article. Others might include:

• Exploring how the real creative use of technological platforms for newmedia and creative production helps and potentially may inhibit pupilcreativity.

• Identifying how this (wired) generation of creative users (along withthe technophobic users) differs from other generations.

• Developing deep understanding of what the relationship with the tech-nology reveals and conceals about how adaptive learning environmentsand creativity interact and support music teaching and learning.

• Evaluating the affordances (or enabling conditions and limitations) of web-based and e-technology environments for advancing the development ofmusical creativity, i.e. what technology reveals and conceals as opportuni-ties in creative production or in teaching when blocked by technologicalrather than musical problems (see Dillon, S. 2006; Heidegger 1977);

• Consulting pupils (i.e. giving learners a critical and democratic or genuinesay) about the acquisition of technologies, how to use new learningtechnologies and opportunities to create their own learning technolo-gies. These may be different kinds of technological spaces that enhancecollaborative and personal creativity.

If understanding is to be the goal, then future practitioner research needsto involve both teachers and learners. We need much more classroom

48 Pamela Burnard


enquiry into aspects of what is distinctive about views at the level of (1)learner and classroom and (2) learner and out-of-school settings. We needto take into account the institutional and home factors that contribute tolearning and thereby to new models of creative teaching with technologies(as illustrated by the reframings offered earlier). We need to understandwhat learners say and do as a consequence of how they interpret theworld. Importantly, we need to understand more about experiences, inter-actions and events from the viewpoints of students.

Teachers need to aspire to work as practitioner-researchers and to con-sult their pupils in contexts where researching their own classrooms andlearning together is the norm (Price 2005). University lecturer-researcherscan help with mentoring conversations in producing new classroom-basedenquiry and the effective use to which academic research may be put byteachers anxious to learn from research findings (see Wubbels andPoppleton 1999; CapeUK 2006; Creative Partnerships 2004a, 2004b).

In the 1970s, Stenhouse (1975) advocated classrooms as sites forteacher research. He also advocated learning itself as a research processand research as the basis for teaching (Stenhouse, 1983). Schools andteachers need to acknowledge classrooms as collaborative, adaptive learning


TEACHERS AS RESEARCHERS

EXPERENCING

CREATING

MAKING

REC

EIVIN

G

CREATIVITY

INTEGRATED MUSICAL NETWORKSNEW FORMS OF MUSICAL PARTICIPATION

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGICAL PRACTICES

Rules

Labo

ur

Tools and Signs

SENSE

OUTCOME

MEANINGObject

Subj

ect

Community

Mediating Artefacts:

PUPILS AS RESEARCHERS

TECHNOLOGY

Div

isio

n of

Figure 4: Researching pedagogic change using an activity theory researchperspective.


environments as well as potential research sites that extend across andbeyond the walls of classrooms and schools; to develop new ways of think-ing about classroom practice, to be better able to provoke and releaselearners rather than to impose and control them. It is this that is the fun-damental point. Understanding how effective learning should happen inmusic education requires a realignment of both learner creativity and thecreativity of the teacher with the ICT reform agenda. Moreover, the con-nections between school learning culture and that of musical learning ingeneral, and e-learning in particular, need to reflect the real world ofmusic making in policy and practice.

One hope for the reframing of technology and creativity for pedagogicchange in music education is that it may offer teachers informal and for-mal opportunities for collegial interaction and encourage both teacherand pupils as researcher. Students have a right to and should be involved(in collaboration with teachers and software developers) in making recom-mendations about their learning environment and be involved in theimplementation of change.

As Rudduck and Flutter argue (2004), we should ‘take seriously whatpupils can tell us about their experience of being a learner in school – aboutwhat gets in the way of their learning and what helps them to learn’ (p. 2).The design of such studies may help surface some of the social, cultural andcontextual opportunities and challenges that warrant greater research atten-tion in the coming years. Perhaps, most significantly, teacher and pupilresearch (as shown in Figure 4) will bring agreement, at least, about the‘who’ and ‘how’ of creative teaching and learning practices. This is the bigchallenge for developing e-confident music teachers and schools. We need tofoster innovative and effective teacher research and resist the current trendtowards the domination of curriculum and pedagogy by ‘technical standards’based on ‘expert research’ and imposed in a ‘top-down’ manner by educa-tional administrators and policy makers. In the grips of the early twenty-firstcentury, we need to make progress in empirical work which allows us to iden-tify and investigate issues of serious concern which undermine music teach-ers’ professionalism and self-worth. We need to share practice via networkedlearning communities that can play a critical role in providing opportunitiesfor exploration and familiarization with new technologies in order to boostteacher confidence and solicit commitment to pedagogic change.

Works CitedAiry, S. and Parr, J. (2001), ‘MIDI, music and ME: student’s perspectives on com-

posing and MIDI’, Music Education Research, 3(1), 42–9.

Anderson, L.W. (1997), ‘The stories teachers tell and what they tell us’, Teachingand Teacher Education, 13: 1, 131–36.

Bauer, W. (2001), ‘Student attitudes toward web-enhanced learning in a musiceducation methods class: A case study’, Journal of Technology in Music Learning,2: 2, 2–20.

Baker, D. (2005), ‘Voices in Concert: Life Histories of Peripatetic Music Teachers’,unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Reading.

Bannon, L. (1997), Activity Theory, www-sv.cict.fr/cotcos/pjs/Theoretical Approaches/Activity/ActivitypaperBannon.htmAccessed 24 October 2005.

50 Pamela Burnard


Barrett, M.S. (2005), ‘Musical communication and children’s communities ofmusical practice’, in D. Miell, R. MacDonald and D.J. Hargreaves (eds), MusicalCommunication, pp. 261–80, New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown, A.R. and Dillon, S. (2007), ‘Networked improvisational musical environments:learning through online collaborative music making’, in J. Finney and P. Burnard(eds), Music Education with Digital Technology, pp. 162–77, London: Continuum.

Burnard, P. and Younker, B.A. (2007), ‘Using Engeström’s Activity Theory (AT) asan analytical lens to investigate interaction in children’s collaborative creativemusic making’, International Journal of Educational Research, in press.

Burnard, P. (2006a), ‘Reflecting on the creativity agenda in education’, CambridgeJournal of Education, 36: 3, 313–18.

Burnard, P. (2006b), ‘The individual and social worlds of children’s musicalcreativity’, in G. McPherson (ed.), The Child as Musician: A Handbook of MusicalDevelopment, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 353–74.

Burnard, P. and Hennessy, S. (eds) (2006), Reflective Practices in Arts Education,Dordrecht: Springer.

Burnard, P. (1995), ‘Task design and experience in composition’, Research Studiesin Music Education, 5, pp. 32–46.

Burton, D. and Bartlett, S. (2005), Practitioner Research for Teachers, ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

CapeUK (2006), Creative Action Research Awards 2: The Handbook, A programmeinitiated and commissioned by Creative Partnerships, led and managed byCapeUK, Leeds: CapeUK.

Challis, M. (2007), ‘The DJ Factor: teaching performance and composition fromback to front’, in J. Finney and P. Burnard (eds), Music Education with DigitalTechnology, pp. 112–24, London: Continuum.

Craft, A. (2005), Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas, London: Routledge.

Craft, A., Miell, D., Joubert, M., Littleton, K., Murphy, P., Vass, E. and Whitelock, D.(2004), Final report for the NESTA’s Fellowship Young People Project, Ignite, September,London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA).

Cole, M. (1999), ‘Cultural psychology: some general principles and a concreteexample’, in Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, and R.L. Punamki (eds), Perspectiveson Activity Theory, pp. 87–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, G. (2002), Living Music in Schools 1923–1000: Studies in the History of MusicEducation in England, London: Ashgate.

Collins, D. (2005), ‘A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music compo-sition’, Psychology of Music, 33: 2, pp. 193–216.

Creative Partnerships (2004a), Catalyst: This Is How Education Should Be, Isn’t It?London: Creative Partnerships.

Creative Partnerships (2004b), Creative Partnerships Website. Available at:http://www.creative-partnerships.com/aboutcp/ Accessed July 2004.

Daniels, H. (2006), ‘Activity, discourse and pedagogic change’, in R. Moore, M.Arnot, J. Beck and H. Daniels (eds) Knowledge, Power and Educational Reform,pp. 163–178. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G. and Sammons, P. (2006), ‘The personal and pro-fessional selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities’, British EducationalResearch Journal, 32: 4, pp. 601–16.

Deaney, R. and Hennessy, S. (2007), ‘Sustainability, evolution and dissemination ofinformation and communication technology-supported classroom practice’,Research Papers in Education, 27: 1, pp. 65–94.



DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003), Excellence and Enjoyment.London: HMSO.

—— (2004), Key Stage 3 National Strategy: ICT Across the Curriculum, London: DfES.

Dillon, S. (2006), ‘Before the eyes glaze over’, Music Forum: Music Councilof Australia, 13, pp. 32–33.

Dillon, T. (2003), ‘Collaborating and creating using music technologies’,International Journal of Educational Research, 39: 8, pp. 893–97.

Dillon, T. (2004), ‘It’s in the mix baby: exploring how meaning is created withinmusic technology collaborations’, in D. Miell and K. Littleton, CollaborativeCreativity, Contemporary Perspectives, London: Free Association Books.

Dillon, T. (2006), Exploring Young People’s Collaborative and Creative Processes UsingKeyboard and Computer Based Music Technologies in Formal and Non-FormalSettings. Milton Keynes: Open University.

Edwards, A. (2001), ‘Researching Pedagogy: a sociocultural agenda’, Pedagogy,Culture and Society, 9: 2, pp. 161–86.

Engeström, Y. (1998), ’Reorganising the motivational sphere of classroom culture:An activity-theoretical analysis of planning in a teacher team’, in F. Seeger,J. Voigt and U. Waschescio (eds), The Culture of Mathematics Classrooms,pp. 125–40, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1999a), ‘Activity theory and individual and social transformation’,in Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R. Punamaki (eds), Perspectives on ActivityTheory, pp. 19–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1999b), ‘Communication, discourse and activity’, The CommunicationReview, 3: 1–2, pp. 165–85.

Espeland, M. (2006), Symposium papers on Internet Based Music Education inSchools presented at the International Society of Music Education (ISME) WorldConference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, July.

Fautley, M. and Savage, J. (2007), Creativity in Secondary Education, Exeter:Learning Matters.

Finney, J. and Burnard, P. (eds) (2007), Music Education with Digital Technology,London: Continuum.

Fishman, W., DiBara, J.A. and Gardner, G. (2006), ‘Creating good educationagainst the odds’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36: 3, pp. 383–98.

Folkestad, G. (2006), ‘Formal and informal learning situations or practices vs.formal and informal ways of learning’, British Journal of Music Education,23: 2, pp. 135–46.

Gutierrez, K.D. and Stone, L.D. (2000), ‘Synchronic and diachronic dimensions ofsocial practice: an emerging methodology for cultural-historical perspectiveson literacy learning’, in C.D. Lee and P. Smagroinsky (eds), VygotskianPerspectives on Literacy Research: Constructing Meaning through CollaborativeInquiry, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hargreaves, D. (1996), ‘Teaching as a Research Based Profession: Possibilities andProspects’, TTA Annual Lecture, April.

Heidegger, M. (1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans.and with an introduction by William Lovitt, New York: Garland.

Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., and Brindley, S. (2005), ‘Teacher perspectives on inte-grating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution andchange’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37: 2, pp. 155–92.

Hickey, M. (1997), ‘The computer as a tool in creative music making’, ResearchStudies in Music Education, 8, pp. 56–70.

52 Pamela Burnard


Hogg, N. (1994), ‘Strategies to facilitate student composing’, Research Studies inMusic Education, 2, pp. 15–24.

Iemma, M. (2006), ‘Six ways to iPoD: MP3 tools for your classroom’, Music inAction for Australian Educators, 4: 1, pp. 26–27.

Jeffrey, B. (2004), ‘End of Award Report’, Creative Learning and StudentPerspectives (CLASP), submitted to ESRC, November.

Jennings, K. (2007), ‘Composing with graphical technologies: representations,manipulations and affordances’, in J. Finney and P. Burnard (eds), MusicEducation with Digital Technology, pp. 134–55, London: Continuum.

Kirkman, P.R. (2007), ‘An investigation of the composing strategies employed byGCSE music students in a computer-mediated environment’, unpublishedM.Phil. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Ledgard, A. (2006), ‘Fair Exchange: Shared professional development and reflec-tive action’, in P. Burnard and S. Hennessy (eds), Reflective Practices in ArtsEducation, Dordrecht: Springer.

Leong, S. (2007), ‘Strategies for enabling curriculum reform: lessons fromAustralia, Singapore and Hong Kong’, in J. Finney and P. Burnard (eds), MusicEducation with Digital Technology, pp. 276–79, London: Continuum.

Loi, D. and Dillon, P. (2006), ‘Adaptive educational environments as creativespaces’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36: 3, pp. 363–82.

Loveless, A., DeVoogd, G.L. and Bohlin, R.M. (2001), ‘Something old, somethingnew… Is pedagogy affected by ICT? in: A. Loveless and V. Ellis (eds), ICT, Pedagogyand the Curriculum: Subject to Change, pp. 63–83. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Mills, J. (1997), ‘A comparison of the quality of class music teaching in Primaryand Secondary Schools in England’, Bulletin of the Council for Research in MusicEducation, 133, pp. 72–6.

Mills, J. (2005), Music in Schools, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nardi, B. (ed.) (1996), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

NACCCE (National Advisory Committee on Creative and Culture Education)(1999), All Our Futures, Creativity, Culture and Education, London: Departmentfor Education and Employment.

National College for School Leadership (NCSL) (2005), Available at www.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm. Accessed on 22 September 2006.

Nilsson, B., and Folkestad, G. (2005), ‘Children’s practice of computer-based com-position’, Music Education Research, 7: 1, pp. 22–37.

Nordkvelle, Y.T. and Olson, J.K. (2005), ‘Visions for ICT, ethics and the practiceof teachers, Education and Information Technologies, 10: 1–2, pp. 21–32.

Ofsted (2004), Tuning in: wider opportunities in specialist instrumental tuition for pupilsin Key Stage 2, London: Office for Standards in Education.

Ofsted (2006), Inspection reports for schools available at www.ofsted.gov.uk. Lastaccessed 14 July 2006.

Pitts, S. (2001), ‘Whose Aesthetics? Public, professional and pupil perceptions ofmusic education’, Research Studies in Music Education, 17, pp. 54–60.

Prensky, M. (2001), ‘Digital natives, digital immigrants’, On the Horizon, 9: 5,pp. 27–39.

Price, D. (2005), Transforming Musical Leadership: Shaping Music Education – anEmerging Vision, London: Musical Futures/Paul Hamlyn Foundation.



Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2005), Music: 2004/5 annual report oncurriculum and assessment. London: QCA.

Reese, S. (2001), ‘Tools for thinking in sound’, Music Educators Journal, 88: 1,pp. 42–45, 53.

Reese, S., McCord, K., and Walls, K. (2001), Strategies for Teaching: Technology,Reston, VA: MENC, the National Association for Music Education.

Rudduck, J. and Flutter, J. (2004), How to Improve Your School, London: Continuum.

Ruthmann, A. (2007a), ‘The composers’ workshop: An emergent approach tocomposing in the classroom’, Music Educators Journal, 93: 4, pp. 38–43.

Ruthmann, A. (2007b), ‘Strategies for supporting music learning through onlinecollaborative technologies’, in J. Finney and P. Burnard (eds), Music Educationwith Digital Technology, pp. 230–25, London: Continuum.

Savage, J. (2005), ‘Working towards a theory of music technologies in the class-room: how pupils engage with and organize sounds with new technologies’,British Journal of Music Education, 22: 2, pp. 167–80.

Savage, J. (2007), ‘Pedagogical strategies for change’, in J. Finney. and P. Burnard(eds), Music Education with Digital Technology, pp. 248–58, London: Continuum.

Savage, J. and Challis, M. (2001), ‘Dunwich revisited: collaborative compositionand performance with new technologies’. British Journal of Music Education,18: 2, pp. 139–49.

Seddon, F.A. (2007), ‘Music e-learning environments: young people, composingand the internet’ in J. Finney. and P. Burnard (eds), Music Education with DigitalTechnology, pp. 107–116, London: Continuum.

Seddon, F.A., and O’Neill, S. (2003), ‘Creative thinking processes in adolescent com-puter-based compositions: An analysis of strategies adopted and the influence ofinstrumental music training’, Music Education Research, 5: 2, pp. 125–35.

Sefton-Green, J. (ed), Young People, Creativity and New Technologies: The Challenge ofthe Digital Age. London: Routledge.

Somekh, B. (2000), ‘New technology and learning: Policy and practice in the UK,1980–2019’, Education and Information Technologies, 5: 1, pp. 19–37.

Stenhouse, L. (1975), An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development,London: Heinemann.

Stenhouse, L. (1983), Authority, Education and Emancipation, London: Heinemann.

Tafuri, J. (2006), ‘Processes and teaching strategies in musical improvisation withchildren’, in I. Deliege and G. Wiggins (eds), Musical Creativity: MultidisciplinaryResearch in Theory and Practice, pp. 134–58, New York: Psychology Press.

Webster, P. (2002), ‘Computer-based technology and music teaching andlearning’, in R. Colwell and C. Richardson (eds), The New Handbook ofResearch on Music Teaching and Learning, pp. 416–39, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Webster, P. and Hickey, M. (2006), ‘Computers and technology’, in G. McPherson(ed), The Child as Musician: A Handbook of Musical Development, pp. 375–96,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Webster, P. (2006), ‘Computer-based technology and music teaching and learning:2000–2005’, in L. Bresler (ed.) International Handbook of Research in ArtsEducation, pp. 1311–328, Dordrecht: Springer.

Welch, G. (2007), ‘Addressing the multifaceted nature of music education: Anactivity theory research perspective’, Research Studies in Music Education,28, pp. 23–37.

54 Pamela Burnard


Weinberg, G. (2005), ‘Interconnected musical networks: toward a theoreticalframework’, Computer Music Journal, 29: 2, pp. 23–39.

Wilson, E. (2004), ‘Using activity theory as a lens to analyse interaction in auniversity-school initial teacher education and training partnership’,International Action Research, 12: 4, pp. 587–612.

Wubbels, T. and Poppleton, P. (1999), ‘Knowledge about change and its effects onteachers’, in M. Lang, J. Olson, H. Hansen and W. Bunder (eds), ChangingSchools/Changing Practices: Perspectives on Educational Reform and TeacherProfessionalism, pp. 149–56, Louvain, Brussels: Garant.

Zinchenko, V. (1996), ‘Developing activity theory: the zone of proximal develop-ment and beyond’, in B. Nardi (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theoryand Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Suggested citationBurnard, P. (2007), ‘Reframing creativity and technology: promoting pedagogic

change in music education,’ Journal of Music, Technology and Education 1: 1,pp. 37–55, doi: 10.1386/ jmte.1.1.37/1

Contributor detailsPamela Burnard, PhD is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at theUniversity of Cambridge, UK where she coordinates and lectures on the MPhil inEducational Research and the MPhil in Arts, Culture and Education courses,supervisors PhD students and teaches courses on creativity, creative learning andteaching, musical creativity, artist partnerships and visual-based research methods.She is Co-editor of the British Journal of Music Education, Treasurer of SEMPRE, anExecutive member of the Board of Directors for ISME, and co-convener of BERA:SIG Creativity in Education. She has co-edited 3 books including Reflective Practicesin Arts Education, Kluwer; Music Education with Digital Technologies, Continuum; andDocumenting Creative Learning, Trentham; edited the Creativity Section in L. Bresler(Ed) International Handbook of Research in Arts Education and has been guest editorfor special issues of the Cambridge Journal of Education (CJE) and Music EducationResearch (MER). Contact: Pamela Burnard Faculty of Education 184 Hills RdCambridge CB2 2PQ.E-mail: [email protected]






Problem solving with learningtechnology in the music studioAndrew King University of Hull,Paul Vickers Northumbria University

AbstractThis article presents some of the findings from a mixed-methods case study thatinvestigated studio recording for undergraduate students collaborating in pairs. Thestudents were actively engaged in experiential learning (Dewey 1966) and theidea that students will develop within an environment with their peers (Pear andCrowne-Todd 2001). Using a stratified purposive sampling technique studentswere matched with a learner of similar ability via a pre-test, often referred to as asocial-conflict approach (Schneider 2002). The groups of students were then allo-cated a support mechanism (either a learning technology interface or paper-basedmanual) to provide contingent on-demand assistance (Wood and Wood 1999)during the recording of a drum kit. Analysis of observational data revealed thetypes of studio-based problems the learners were encountering, and that thelearning technology solution suggested a quicker and more reliable form ofsupport.

IntroductionWhile to date there have been no empirical investigations into the use oflearning technology to support activity in the recording studio, there havebeen a number of studies both within the music domain and outside; wewill deal with the latter first.

Chang (2001) describes and evaluates a case study in the earth sciencesusing learning technology to support the completion of a test. In additionto the computing technology, the student also has access to a number ofother resources such as maps, weather images and precipitation data.Spicer and Stratford (2001) investigated the use of computing technologyto implement a virtual field trip for students with embedded questionswithin the hypertext. Not surprisingly, students reported that they preferredthe actual visits to the virtual.

In addition to these studies that centre on computers supportingpractical activity, there are also a number of other studies in the area of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL). Weinberger andFischer (2005) propose a framework for analysing knowledge constructionin a CSCL environment. This is analysed and segmented into four differentdimensions of learning: participation, epistemics, argument and socialconstruction; while Baker et al (2003) specifically highlights argumentwithin an online collaborative learning environment.


Keywordsrecordinglearning technologystudio practicemusicproblem solvingcontingent learning

JMTE_1.1_05_art_King.qxd 11/7/07 9:45 PM Page 57

Within the music domain there has been considerable research intousing computers to support or develop skills such as music analysis, auralawareness and music synthesis by groups of researchers at Huddersfield(the CALMA project) and Edinburgh universities. Other empirical studiesinclude the development of a unique symbolic language for the study ofcomposition in the form of networked drum steps (McCarthy et al 2005) andHarmony Space (Holland 1989), which is an interactive interface to aid bothnovices and more experienced composers with aspects of tonal harmony.

More recent researches into the use of computers in music educationinvolve designing online communities for creative musical activities(Salavuo 2007) and how young people listen to, compose and sharemusic with technology (Gall 2007). Dillon and Brown (2007) discussthe philosophical implications of introducing technology into music making,and put forward methods and ideas for exploration. The need for an inves-tigation area of practical activity in a situated environment (Lave andWenger 1991) such as the recording studio has thus far been neglected.

Technology in the studioThe use of technology in the music curriculum poses a problem for theeducator: how can students gain access to support when using complextools in creative work, and what is the nature of the problems they areencountering? Software packages such as Cubase and Pro Tools offersupport in the form of online help and minimal manuals embedded withinthe software; however, little help is provided beyond the proceduralknowledge (Anderson 1996) concerned with these tools. In addition, supportfor the use of hardware recording devices such as mixing desks, signalprocessors (noise gates, compressors) and signal generators (reverb, delay,chorus etc) usually relies upon either the student’s ability to take effectivenotes in a workshop, or the use of manuals.

These hardware recording devices are often used by audio professionalsand the manuals are written for this particular audience, and this canpresent a problem for the student of music and technology. A survey of150 students over three years conducted at the University of Hull revealedthat students were more likely to seek studio support guidance from amember of staff (43%) or a peer (41%) than a manual (16%) or a textbook(0%). Indeed, while overburdening the student with technical specificationsand data concerning maintenance of a particular item, rarely (if ever) dotextbooks or manuals include within their pages pedagogical strategies forproblem solving. It is possible to see the number of potential pitfalls for astudent when considering a basic input (Figure 1).

Figure 1 illustrates the various stages followed by a source sound (suchas a voice or guitar) through a mixing-desk channel: sound is convertedfrom acoustical to electrical energy by the microphone, transmitted out ofphase via a balanced cable and then put back into phase at the mixingdesk. The student of sound recording is then faced with a series of options:selection of the type of input (microphone or line), whether the phase ofthe signal needs to be inverted, the possibility to decrease the inputamplitude (pad switch), a gain (potentiometer) dial, parametric equalization,auxiliary sends, panning, signal routing (to a group fader or main studiomonitors) and finally the slider that controls the overall amplitude of thesignal. If any stage is set incorrectly, this can lead to an unintentional

58 Andrew King and Paul Vickers


alteration, misdirection or colouration of the sound; alternatively (andmore typically) it will result in no sound being produced at all.

Thus it is possible to see the complexity of using such tools in thecreation of a recording in the studio, especially when what we have outlinedso far is one of the most basic of operations: that of routing a microphonesignal through a mixing-desk channel. Often student users require on-demand support to solve problems in the studio. However, the studiosession is generally conducted outside of normal office hours (65% of studiosessions take place after 6 p.m. or at the weekend), when the level of tech-nical support is either reduced or non-existent. In the following sections aninvestigation of the use of learning technology in the studio is presented.

Problem solving with learning technology in the studioThe participants in this study completed a drum kit recording in the studioin pairs. The students had access to support material to carry out the

59Problem solving with learning technology in the music studio

Source

Microphone

Cable

Mixing desk

EQ

Input

Aux

StereoPlacement

SignalRouting

AmplitudeLevel

Figure 1: Mapping out the process from sound source into the mixing desk channel.


task: a learning technology interface (LTI) and a paper-based manual(control). The information contained in the support materials was identical.The students were given a specific amount and type of studio apparatus(discussed below) and then expected to complete the task using the availableresources. The information given to the students in the support materialwas to provide technical support; issues such as aesthetics were not covered.For example, the learner could access the support material for informationon how to use parametric equalization and what, in essence, is its function.However, information such as ‘for more low-end weight on the kick drumapply some boost at 70–90 kHz’ was not included. There is a multitude ofdifferent ways to achieve different drum kit recordings depending uponthe kit, the style of music, the acoustic of the room and the player. It wasthe intention of the support materials merely to aid the novice user toovercome problems such as signal routing, while also providing an under-standing of areas such as equalization, although suggestions were maderegarding the position of microphones and which of the available apparatusmight be more appropriate on a certain part of the instrument (such asusing the D112 for the kick drum). Thus, what can be examined is theways students are able to solve problems using the equipment and supportmaterials available.

Design and methodologyThe empirical research carried out for this study was motivated from asocial-constructivist standpoint. Students of similar abilities were pairedtogether after analysis of pre-test results (the pre-test was a written paperthat assessed the students’ knowledge and experience of recording-studiopractice), and in line with the social-conflict (Schneider 2002) theory oflearning. Learners were set the task of recording a drum kit during a two-hour studio session (the drum kit was already set up). The idea was toreflect professional studio practice in which recording time is at a premiumand studio users need to be able to deliver within strict time constraints.The goal of the session was to produce a 2-minute audio recording of adrum kit on compact disc.

The study had a between-subjects design, and used an opportunitysample of 64 undergraduate students reading for a BA (Hons) in CreativeMusic Technology at the University of Hull (mean age = 18.4 years).Based on pre-test scores, students were matched according to performanceand assigned to pairs. The groups were divided equally into group 1(experimental) and group 2 (control). There were two dependent variables(DV): (1) the pre- and post-test percentage scores for each student; and(2) the completion of the set task. The independent variable (IV) was the useof an LTI for one group (experimental condition) and the use of handoutsfor the other (control condition). The handouts contained exactly thesame information as the LTI, but were in the form of a manual.

Materials and apparatusThe apparatus used in the study is shown below. The following list detailsthe main hardware associated with the drum-kit recording that is locatedin the recording studio as well as the equipment used for observing thestudents during the study:



• Multimedia computer (AMD 2.2 GHz, 1024 megabytes of RAM, 200 gigabyte hard disk and a compact disc writer)

• Soundcraft Ghost mixing desk and microphones• Signal generators and processors• Multi track (Alesis HD24) and two track recorders (Tascam CD writer)• Microphones (2 x AKG 414, 1 x Shure SM57, 3 x Sennheiser e604,

1 x AKG D112) and• Three Panasonic VHS video cameras, each mounted on a Velbon tripod.

The support material included either the LTI or a manual, one of which wasplaced in the control room of the recording studio. The drum kit was set upin the studio floor for the duration of the study, while all the necessarycables, microphones and stands were stored in the studio ready for use.

The following material was used in the assessment and evaluation ofthe study:

• A blank compact disc (CD)• A pre-test and post-test• A feedback questionnaire.

A blank CD was given to each pair of students for their audio recording.The pre-test and post-test were designed to evaluate students’ knowledgeof the theory and practice of drum-kit recording. Both tests followed thesame format, so the nature and standard of questions was equivalent.The feedback questionnaire contained open and closed questions (seeOppenheim 1992; Gillham 2000) to allow students to comment on thetask and the support material.

ProcedureThe directions given to the participating students are shown below. Notethat each pair was allocated a 2-hour session in the studio to completethe set task and the drummer was available in the studio to performwhen required. The musician did not interfere with the music technologystudents, except to play a drum sequence.

Preliminary task:• Complete pre-test.

Main study (1 week later):• Complete set task with student peer using the support material for

guidance as required• Produce audio-CD recording of drum kit (2 minutes in length) • Complete feedback questionnaire.

Data analysisA considerable amount of data was produced as part of the study. For thepurposes of this article the following data was analysed:

• 64 completed pre-tests• 16 data logs of students’ interactions with the LTI (group 1 only)



• Video data (32 recording sessions of maximum 2 hours each)• 32 audio recordings of a drum kit.

The video cameras collected around 200 hours of data. Three cameraswere used to collect the data (two in the control room of the studio andone on the studio floor). In order to analyse this data, the tapes from thethree video cameras were played simultaneously on separate monitors.This was then dual-coded (verbatim) and utterances were categorizedusing Interactive Process Analysis (IPA) (Bales 1999). IPA is a method ofcategorizing utterances based upon direct observation. There are twelvecategories of utterance (e.g. shows tension release and asks for opinion)which are further sub-divided into four main areas: positive and negativesocial emotional responses, and questions and answers concerning a task.These are sub-classified further into the following six areas: orientation,evaluation, control, decision, tension management and integration. It isthen possible to assign a particular utterance to one of the twelve observa-tional categories. Afterwards, a comparison of the quantity and type ofutterances with the mean profiles developed by Bales is possible. Bales andhis team analysed thousands of groups of different sizes and in differentcontexts to discover the types and amount of utterances the individualsused. All this data was compiled into a single set of tables that investiga-tors can use to compare their own work.

AnalysisBroadly speaking, it is possible to consider the process of studio recordingin three main areas: pre-production, production and post production.Pre-production involves preparing for a session by setting up technicalequipment (microphones, mixing desks and recording apparatus) andmusical (drum kit) instruments. Production is the actual recording, andpost-production the modification and balancing of the recorded tracks.However, it is worth pointing out at this stage that some industry experts(and educators) prefer to think of the process more holistically and theterm production is used to describe the whole process. For the purposes ofthis study it is easier to consider the recording in these three stages inorder to understand the problems encountered by learners, and at whatstage of the process they arise.

The most common problem to emerge in the recording sessions for allof the students was the use of the talkback system. Using the timingsrecorded in the transcriptions, it was also possible to work out how long ittook for each pair to arrive at the solution. It is evident from this data thatall of the students who encountered problems using the studio talkbackwere able resolve the problem by using the LTI. The average time spentusing the LTI to resolve the problem was 2 minutes 57 seconds. The datarelating specifically to those students who used the manual shows thatonly three of the seven pairs in the group were able to resolve the problemof using the studio talkback. The average time spent using the manual toresolve the issue was 6 minutes 30 seconds for all of the pairs; for thethree pairs who managed to resolve the problem, the average time takenwas 7 minutes 10 seconds. In all cases, the students tackled the problemby consulting the support material.



A range of other problems was encountered across each stage of therecording session. For example, technical problems at the pre-productionstage included positioning the microphones and deciding upon their prox-imity to the instrument. The following four problems at the productionstage were especially common:

• Phantom powering (when to use it and where to locate it)• Alesis HD24 recorder (how to set up and record the drum tracks using

this device)• Signal routing (getting sound into the mixing desk, and out again

through the monitors)• Using the auxiliary sends (for adding effects such as reverb).

These problem areas reflect a similar story to the issue of using the studiotalkback: while all of the students who had access to the LTI were able toresolve a given problem having consulted the support tool, the problemsthat hampered the students who were using the manual were not alwaysresolved. Moreover, in these cases the students did not always manage theproblem by exclusive use of the manual; use of trial and error was evident.The average time spent resolving these technical issues was 1 minute36 seconds for pairs in the LTI group, and 4 minutes 18 seconds for pairsusing the manual.

The problems encountered during the post-production stage of therecording sessions were as follows:

• Signal processing• Recording practice• Signal routing.

Interestingly, more problems arose at the post-production stage for stu-dents in the LTI group than those in the manual group (this relates to thefact that the latter adopted an alternative process (without signal genera-tion) at this point).

In addition to the technical problems discussed above, a number oftask-related issues arose in the recording sessions. Overall, there were fourmain areas of task-related discourse:

• Problem-solving (mainly technical)• Planning/management of task• Division of labour• Feedback.

Figure 2 provides an example of one of these four mains areas.An example of planning is given above. The students planned the task

by deciding what to do first, then worked collaboratively with the supportmaterials, deciding which microphones to use in which part of the drumkit, and how they should be positioned. There is evidence here of both long-term planning (overall session) and short-term planning (pre-production:how to allocate and manage the resources to set up the recording).



It should also be noted, however, that other pairs in the manual groupdid not consult the support material at the pre-production stage at all, sothe management of the task arose in a more ad hoc fashion. Figure 3 is anextract of transcript taken from the pre-production stage of a session inwhich the students launch immediately into the practical activity withoutconsultation about the process. Here, management of the task is implicitand not made verbally explicit, so there appears to be a lack of planning inhow to go about the task.

In Figure 3, student B requires information regarding the deploymentof the microphones; student A gives mixed information based on personalknowledge. If the manual had been consulted, these students would havefound out that while the SM57 can be used with a floor tom, it could be a


Figure 2: Example of planning/management of task (Pair 18, manual group).

Row Student Discourse/Action IPA Apparatus Time

1 A+B [pick up and start toread support material]

Manual 0’00

2 B

“What shall we dofirst? Shall we set upthe mics or look at mic positions?”

8 Manual 0’30

3 A “Yeah.” 3 0’33

4 A“I reckon we shouldturn this [points atmixer] on first.”

5 0’38

5 A+B[Look at microphonesand position in themanual.]

Manual 0’45

6 A “I’ll make a start.”[goes to studio floor]

4 1’45

7 B [Continues to look atmanual] Manual 1’46

8 A [Sets up microphoneon bass drum]

D112 1’55

9 B[Leaves studio f loorand heads for controlroom.]

2’43

10 A[Takes microphone to position on snaredrum.]

SM57 2’50

11 B“What shall I do?” [up to this point hehas been watching A]

8 4’20

12 A “Just jump in.” 4 4’23


more suitable choice for the snare drum in this particular set-up becauseof the microphones available. From the outset, therefore, the students haveperhaps deployed a less suitable microphone on the snare drum, consider-ing the other microphone resources available.

Discussion and future directionsLearning technology facilitated problem solving by reducingtrial and errorIn the learning process, one of the main areas of task-related discourseconcerned problem solving. Examples of problems encountered in therecording process were drawn from across the data, using the transcrip-tions, and were discussed with reference to how they were resolved (whatmechanism was used) and how long this took. The students in the LTIgroup solved problems more rapidly than those using the manual. In thelatter case, the resolution of problems was often prolonged by the use oftrial and error techniques either before or after aborting consultation of themanual. Learning technology thus facilitated problem solving by reducingthe need for trial and error (studio equipment is expensive and sensitive;learning by trial and error can sometimes damage this equipment).

Learning technology facilitated problem solving by enabling(guaranteeing) resolutionOn some occasions, students in the manual group could not solve theproblems they encountered. In particular, one of the main problems notedacross the data concerned the use of the studio talkback facility. All of thestudents in the LTI group who had difficulty operating this equipmentmanaged to solve the problem after consultation of the support tool. Thestudents in the manual group, however, did not always manage to over-come this problem and, as a result, had to perform the task without thestudio talkback. In these cases, the consequent lack of communicationthrough the sound-proofed glass between the control room and the studiofloor slowed down activity (students had to continually walk from area to


Figure 3: Example of management (Pair 21, manual group).

1 A+B

[Students leavecontrol room and gostraight to studiofloor]

0’00

2 A[Starts to positionmicrophone on bassdrum]

D112 0’32

3 B“What do you usethis microphoneon?”

7 SM57 0’45

4 A “It’s a SM57 so snareor floor tom.”

6 0’50

5 B [Positions SM57 onfloor tom]

SM57 0’55


area to communicate with the musician). This problem (among otherunresolved ones) did not impinge directly upon task performance becauseall of the students in the manual group completed and passed the set task.

Learning technology facilitated problem solving by reducingthe time taken to overcome problemsAs mentioned above, the students in the LTI group completed the set taskmore quickly than those in the manual group. Given that problem solvingwas the most prevalent area of task-related discourse, it is important toreiterate the impact of time on the completion of activity: the data showedthat problems were solved (on average) more quickly by students using theLTI. This contingent tool, therefore, facilitated problem solving by reduc-ing the time taken to find a solution, and this in turn influenced the over-all time required to complete the set task. This point also implies that, ifless time were taken resolving problems, more time could be devoted tofine-tuning performance on the set task.

Themes within the dataIt is evident from this study that problem solving relating to technical issues(such as signal routing) was not the only issue to arise. In addition, it wasapparent that there were three other areas of task-orientated discourse:planning/management of a task, division of labour, and feedback. Theeducator needs to consider these areas when planning effective collaborativeassessments. Also, the types of problem encountered by the learners may notalways be consistent, because different environments may raise differentissues. It is important to note that the students carrying out this project wereonly 4 weeks into the first year of an undergraduate programme; the fact thatthey were able to complete the project in a studio they had little experience ofusing is commendable. Futures studies will involve not only drum-kitrecording but also vocal, guitar and keyboards. In addition, a study is plannedto examine the use of different types of support material over a longer periodof time, with different group sizes, instead of a single studio recording session.

Works citedAnderson, J. R. (1996), The architecture of cognition, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baker, M. J., Quignard, M., Lund, K. and Séjourné, A. (2003), ‘Computer supportedcollaborative learning in the space of debate’, in B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen andU. Hoppe (eds), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments:Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for CollaborativeLearning 2003 Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 11–20.

Bales, R. F. (1999), Social Interaction systems: Theory and Measurement, New Jersey:Transaction.

Chang, C. Y. (2001), ‘A problem-solving based computer-assisted tutorial for theearth sciences’, Journal of computer assisted learning, 17, pp. 263–74.

Dewey, J. (1966), Democracy and Education. An introduction to the Philosophy ofEducation, New York: Free Press.

Dillon, S. C. and Brown, A. (2007), ‘Realising the possibilities of technology in musiceducation research and philosophy’, in Proceedings of The Fifth InternationalResearch in Music Education, Exeter University.

Gall, M. (2007), ‘Youth and the new digital age: how are young people usingmusic technology in their lives?’ in Proceedings of The Fifth International Researchin Music Education, Exeter University.



Gillham, W. (2000), Developing a questionnaire, London: Continuum.

Holland, S. (1989), Artificial intelligence, education and music, Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity.

King, A. (2006a), ‘Contingent learning for creative music technologists’, unpublishedPh.D. thesis.

King, A., 2006b: ‘Problem solving with learning technology’, Leeds InternationalMusic Technology Education Conference, Leeds College of Music.

King, A., 2007: ‘Student collaboration with learning technology in the music studio’,in Proceedings of The Fifth International Research in Music Education, ExeterUniversity.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (eds), (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral partici-pation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, C., Bligh, J., Jennings, K. and Tangney, B. (2005), ‘Virtual collaborativelearning environments for music: networked drumsteps’, Computers inEducation, 44, pp. 173–95.

Oppenheim, A.N. (1992), Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measure-ment, London: Pinter.

Pear, J. J. and Crowne-Todd, D. E. (2002), ‘A social constructivist approach tocomputer-mediated instruction’, Computers and Education, 38, pp. 221–31.

Salvuo, M. (2007), ‘Both sides now … designing an online community for creativemusical activities and learning’, in Proceedings of The Fifth International Researchin Music Education, Exeter University.

Schneider, D. (2002), ‘Community, Content and Collaboration ManagementSystems in Education: A new chance for socio-constructivist scenarios?’Proceedings of the 3rd congress on Information and Communication Technologies inEducation, Rhodes, pp. 2–11.

Spicer, J. J. and Stratford, J. (2001), ‘Student perceptions of a virtual field trip toreplace a real field trip’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, pp. 345–54.

Weinberger, A. and Fischer, F. (2005), ‘A framework to analyze argumentativeknowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning’, Computerin Education, pp. 25–32.

Wood, H. and Wood, D. (1999), ‘Help seeking, learning and contingent tutoring’,Computers in education 33, pp. 153–69

Suggested citationKing, A. and Vickers, P. (2007), ‘Problem solving with learning technology

in the music studio,’ Journal of Music, Technology and Education 1: 1, pp. 57–67, doi: 10.1386/ jmte.1.1.57/1

Contributor detailsContact: Dr Andrew King, School of Arts and New Media, University of Hull,Scarborough Campus, Filey Road, Scarborough. North Yorkshire, YO11 3AZ, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. Contact: Dr Paul Vickers, School of informatics,Northumbria University, Pandon Building, Camden Street, Newcastle upon Tyne,NE2 1XE. UK.E-mail: [email protected]





Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.1.1.69/1

The ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS)Leigh Landy De Montfort University

AbstractThis article introduces the reader to the ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS,www.ears.dmu.ac.uk). It examines the site’s raison d’être, its history thus far, chal-lenges encountered, and then moves on to introduce the project’s future plans, inparticular within electroacoustic music education for children. A key focus is howthose working on EARS are attempting to make the site relevant to anyone involvedin the field of electroacoustic music studies, regardless of previous experience.

ContextAs we welcome this new education journal for music technology, a ques-tion comes to mind. To what extent are we aware of the subjects thatshould ideally constitute music technology courses? One of the areaswithin music technology is that of electroacoustic music. Its associatedfield of studies will be the focus of this article.1

Electroacoustic music tends to be taught in music and, more recently,music technology departments, an entirely logical state of affairs. Anincreasing percentage of staff members of many of these music departmentsis now represented by technological development researchers, particularlyin American universities. Again, this seems rather logical, given the twowords of the phrase ‘music technology’. The humanities side, that is, thestudy of the music, its history, theoretical bases and its place in culture, isoften seen to be a bolt-on. This state of affairs may be considered somethingof a shame, because the success of any type of art is the sum of its appreci-ation, knowledge related to it and, in our case, knowledge of the technologysupporting it as well.

Perhaps the humanities side has been kept to a minimum partially due tothe fact that the field of studies related to electroacoustic music is currentlysomewhat ill defined. How might one delineate this field? Which disciplinesare involved? Does it even have a commonly accepted name? Furthermore,how easy is it for people interested in studying electroacoustic music tolocate the research of others working within the same area of specialization?

At the beginning of this decade, it appeared that whenever one wantedto discover something about the technological aspects of electroacousticmusic, the information was normally not difficult to trace. Similarly, therewas a reasonable selection of histories related to this music.2 However,most specialists in the field would also have been aware of the challengesfacing them as well as many of their students when searching for sourcesrelated to musical issues.

Part of that challenge is relevant to education and deserves mentionwithin this contextual introduction. The scholarship available today in


1. In recent years, thereseems to be a tensionbetween the usage ofthe termelectroacoustic musicon the one hand andsonic art on the other.For those whose workis with sounds morethan notes, sonic artmay be seen as thebetter designator, butthere is an awkwardissue with this term. If you consider sonicartworks to be music– and the word‘music’ is absent fromthe term – sonic artgives people theopportunity toseparate its worksfrom music.Electroacoustic music,on the other hand, isnot involved with, forexample, acousticsound works, and also includes a fairlysignificant number ofnote-basedcompositions. Toavoid thisconundrum, I haverecently coined theterm, sound-basedmusic (Landy 2007).It would be a radicalstep to rename EARSto take this intoaccount at this point

Keywordselectroacoustic musicstudiesInternet resourcesonline learningaccess

JMTE_1.1_06_art_Landy.qxd 11/7/07 9:46 PM Page 69

our field is reasonably abundant as is evident given the size of EARS’s bib-liography; however, other than those historical overviews, to what extentdo we have foundational level publications for people interested in learn-ing more about electroacoustic music from the musical point of view?Taking this one step further, to involve pre-university students: to whatextent are we developing electroacoustic music courseware of all sorts forentry-level students at secondary (or even primary) schools? The fact thata good deal of useful foundational material is missing has done the field ofelectroacoustic music studies little good.

EARS: Why it was neededEARS has come into being due to the issues just raised: the difficulty oneencounters in finding sources related to a musical area within electroa-coustic music studies and the fact that the discipline has not yet been prop-erly delineated nor been provided with a widely accepted framework. Such aframework could be easily integrated with studies in electroacoustic musicmaking, relevant aspects of computing and other forms of technology, etc. Inshort, it has direct bearing on our music technology curricula.

There is one further subject that deserves some discussion before pre-senting the EARS site, another issue of foundational importance. To whatextent do we, music technology specialists, use our terminology in a consis-tent manner? Let’s start with a curious example, ‘computer music’.Granted, this term is not used very often in the United Kingdom; but it isquite common in many countries around the globe, not least in the UnitedStates. But what does it mean? Ages ago one was taught that computerscould be used musically as assistant composers, such as in algorithmiccomposition and/or to produce audio, as in computer synthesis. The‘and/or’ is quite important, as the first-known computer composition wasthe ‘Iliac Suite’ for string quartet by Lejaren Hiller and Leonard Isaacson(1957). In other words, traditional instruments can perform computermusic. However, many use the term ‘computer music’ to mean music pro-duced and performed by a computer. To complicate matters further, there isthe annual International Computer Music Conference in which everythingranging from any technological development related to computers andmusic, music cognition and computational analysis and much more are allwelcome, and thus form part of computer music. Yet old analogue elec-tronic or electroacoustic works that are not digital do not fit under com-puter music – but how many are aware of this? Is this separation of anyparticular relevance today? ‘Computer music’ is but one of many terms thatare highly problematic.3 Of course, even the term ‘electroacoustic music’knows several variances in its definition. For the purposes of this article andto avoid any further ambiguity it will now be defined in its broadest sense:‘Electroacoustic music refers to any music in which electricity has hadsome involvement in sound registration and/or production other than thatof simple microphone recording or amplification’ (Landy 1999: 61). Sufficeit to say that not everyone uses the term this way. Such terms are indeed atthe foundation of our field, and without some consensus, the rest of thatfoundation may remain difficult to construct.

This lack of consensus regarding terminology usage was a furtherstimulus for creating the original EARS site. The idea was to find a way to

70 Leigh Landy

and, therefore, theterm, electroacousticmusic has been maintained.

2. Regarding these histories, note thatmany of them misstwo opportunities: (1) they tend to focuson art or pop music –few look acrosselectroacousticmusic’s broadhorizon; and (2) theytend to be technology-driven or person- orstudio-driven, butrarely combine historical, musical,technological andsocio-cultural developments, all ofwhich contribute toelectroacoustic musichistory.

3. Regular readers of theCEC Conferenceforum (www.concor-dia.ca/cec-conference/index.html) will beaware of how manyterms are causingproblems similar towhat is presentedhere.


provide the general public an unbiased view of the state of play in terms ofour terminology, create the architecture for the field of electroacousticmusic studies and use this architecture to help interested parties findresearch results in their particular area(s) of focus. These goals arereflected in the site’s glossary, its structured index and its bibliographyrespectively; they will now be introduced.

EARS: Its development up to the presentInitially, before embarking on this rather ambitious journey, colleagueswere contacted around the globe and asked what might be needed on thesite. Clearly, future advisers were being sought. Other than the UQAM(Montreal) Dictionnaire des arts médiatiques (www.comm.uqam.ca/GRAM/),which consists of a modest glossary of terms relevant to new media,including electroacoustic music,4 there was nothing available that wascomparable to what was being planned. The general view was that therewas a need for EARS and that, as suggested, it should focus on terminol-ogy and resources.

Funding was received from the then Arts and Humanities ResearchBoard (now Council, AHRC), the first of three grants that EARS has receivedfrom it thus far. The goal was to set up an international consortium, definethe goals of the EARS project and suggest a planning scheme for its initialphases. This was achieved by 2001, the original consortium consisting ofKevin Austin (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Marc Battier(Sorbonne, Paris, France), Joel Chadabe (Electronic Music Foundation, EMF,Albany, New York), Bernd Enders (University of Osnabrück, Germany) andSimon Waters (University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom). It wasdecided to attempt first to create the glossary and structure a subject indexthat would help delineate the field, before embarking on the much moreambitious bibliography project. The discussions also involved creating theparameters of operation of this steering board.

The second grant supported a six-month part-time postdoctoralresearch fellow, Simon Atkinson (who has since become co-director of theproject). Some 360 defined terms, 165 referred terms (see ‘x’) and 375keywords were collected in the initial index, a number of which appearmore than once.5 The point of departure was to include terms that couldbe called upon as keywords regarding electroacoustic research related tothe music, thus not solely technological. Granted, within acoustics, forexample, there are literally dozens of terms to choose from, obviously aselection was made. This notion of music-related research remained thekey criterion for choice because otherwise the project would simply havebecome unfeasible. Wherever possible, multiple definitions have beenincluded to illustrate eventual inconsistent word usage. Preferences arenot suggested; the focus is simply on current word usage.

Making sense of the entries in terms of creating the index structurewas a marvellous exercise in finding an optimal solution. It took monthsbefore the site’s six main headings were chosen. They were (and still are):

Disciplines of Study (DoS)Genres & Categories (G&C)Musicology of Electroacoustic Music (MEM)

71The ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS)

4. The UQAM team, ledby Louise Poissant,now has plans toexpand its project intoan ‘Encyclopédie desarts médiatiques’ (see www.teleinfo.uqam.ca/projets/gram/).

5. A reasonable propor-tion of the 360 termswere for the glossaryonly, as we did notexpect articles to referto them specifically. In2006 it was decidedthat this was an inef-ficient approach. Afew terms wereturned into referreditems, as they wererelatively obscure;most of them wereadded to the index.


Performance Practice and Presentation (PPP)Sound Production and Manipulation (SPM)Structure, Musical (Str)

The first heading underscores the interdisciplinary nature of electroa-coustic music studies. The listening experience is important to the secondand third, although there are exceptions such as poietic analysis,6 that is,analysis based on construction based; furthermore there is an anotherexception as many categories name the technology used in making awork, thus having little to do with the reception. The final three categoriescould easily be identified as typical categories related to computer music.They all belong to what might be called the creative practice, not to men-tion the technological side of electroacoustic music.

We will now briefly look at the six headings individually. The first,Disciplines of Study (DoS), currently lists 21 sub-headings, clearly illustrat-ing how electroacoustic music and its field of studies is informed by manydisciplines. Many of these represent clusters, such as InterdisciplinaryStudies. The subject areas range from science to philosophy. More pre-dictable entries include Acoustic Communication, Acoustics, AudioEngineering, Cognitive Science, Computing, Music Education andPsychoacoustics. Musicology is treated separately (see below). Less pre-dictable, but extremely pertinent entries nevertheless, include Archiving,Critical and Cultural Theory, Linguistics and Media Theory. Areas such asGender Studies and Semiotics appear at the third (sub-sub-heading) level. Aclose look through this list demonstrates the amazing breadth of the field. Itraises another question concerning how much our students need to knowof each of these areas in electroacoustic music studies as well as in moregeneral music technology courses.

Genres and Categories (G&C) is an essential part of the site, as it is herethat many a battle has been fought and will continue to be fought in termsof much of our basic terminology. When the site was originally set up thesame approach to nesting terms hierarchically was used as is the casethroughout the rest of the EARS site. Some terms ended up appearing sev-eral times under broader categories. However, given the fact that manyterms had no unique definition, these decisions were often based on one ofthe definitions of a higher-level term. In 2006 a decision was reachedwhereby terms were no longer hierarchically placed; the 80 terms are cur-rently listed alphabetically. The search for cohesion among the genres andcategories will need to be achieved in a different manner than for the otherfive areas.

What is most peculiar about the G&C list is how few genres one is ableto identify. The vast majority of terms are categories, many of which arereliant on descriptions of the technique or technology involved (for exam-ple, Granular Music or Tape Music). This lack of genres may be influencedby the fact that electroacoustic music developed in the middle of the post-modernist era, when schools of thought were generally avoided at all cost.Still, it is to be hoped that, as interested parties work on terminologicalissues, we may be able to construct some relevant genre terms that will beuseful in terms of bringing much of the repertoire into a cohesive structure.This would aid both the education and appreciation of electroacoustic

72 Leigh Landy

6. For a discussion con-cerning the poietic inmusic, see, for exam-ple, Nattiez 1990.


music. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that genre and cat-egory terms that have had an extremely ephemeral existence have not beenincluded. The index would simply become too cumbersome and therewould be a risk of bibliographic items’ keywords not working efficiently.Through referral, these terms do appear on the site; a less ephemeral genreor category is called upon to represent the area in question.

The Musicology of Electroacoustic Music is, in many ways, the heart ofthe EARS site. A list of the second-level sub-headings is useful in terms ofgaining a view of the types of areas represented.

AestheticsAnalysisHistory of Electroacoustic MusicMusic CriticismMusic TheoryPhilosophy of MusicSocio-cultural Aspects of Electroacoustic Music7

The third level (sub-sub-heading) under Music Theory includes:

Classification of SoundDiscourse within Electroacoustic MusicListening ExperienceSchaefferian Theory8

Much of this represents to the study of electroacoustic music what generalmusical studies represent to students in music departments. The key dif-ference here is the integration of these areas of focus with the other disci-plines that appear under the DoS heading.

The Performance Practice and Presentation heading is fairly wideranging. It considers issues from collaboration to new forms of virtuosity,9

real and virtual environments, spatialization and venues as well as elec-troacoustic performance techniques ranging from live electronics toturntablism.

Sound Production and Manipulation (SPM) is the key technology-based EARS main heading. It covers a vast area, ranging from electroa-coustic devices and instruments to synthesis and resynthesis techniques,sound shaping and associated aspects such as recording and mixing.Jumping to where the EARS site is today, the number of items listed in theEARS bibliography that appear under SPM is smaller than the list of termsmay suggest. This is due to the selection process. EARS has developed apolicy of including published works that in some manner address essen-tially technological subjects from a musical point of view. Let’s take a lookat an example. Physical modelling is one of many areas of development inthe area of sound synthesis. Annually dozens of papers are published onthe subject. Of those, at most a handful discuss musical issues or potentialmusical application of, for example, physical modelling, but not one singleexample demonstrating both technical and musical content analysiscomes to mind. It is only this minority group that is of interest to us.


7. Socio-cultural aspectsinclude access andimpact issues as wellas culture-theoreticalissues, among others.

8. Pierre Schaeffer is singled out as themost prolific author,not to mention one ofthe earliest, to havecontributed toelectroacoustic musictheory (see, for example, his most-cited work, Traité des objets musicaux,Schaeffer 1977).

9. The Russian construc-tivist term faktura hasbeen found to be ofimportance as onemeans of discussingthis subject (see, forexample, Battier2003: 249–55).


Similar examples can also be cited within the Performance Practice andPresentation and Structure, Musical headings.

Analogous with concepts of sound production and manipulation arethose related to musical structure (Str). Musicians involved in the applica-tion of formalism in electroacoustic music, such as algorithmic composition,will find a number of relevant terms in this list. Structure can be approachedat different levels. The sub-headings Macro-level and Micro-level Structureassist in this differentiation. Of course, an increasing number of people arecreating formalisms that work at several levels, so some of their writing mayfall under more than one Str header.

These six main headings and all entries under them delineate anddefine the structure of electroacoustic music studies. The terms delineatethe field; the disciplines and subjects of inquiry form the site’s contents.Clearly, there are things that have been missed. As EARS is an Internetresource, what’s wrong can always be put right with little or no delay. It isfor that reason that user feedback is essential to its success.

The original LaTeX-based EARS site went public in 2002. The follow-ing year UNESCO adopted it as part of its DigiArts initiative (portal.unesco.org/digiarts). As will become clear below, EARS is now workingeven more closely with UNESCO, reflecting the desire that EARS’s contentin the future become even more relevant to people in developing nations.

In 2004 a third EARS-related grant was received from the AHRC. Thistime substantial funding resulted in two postdoctoral researchers joiningus over the period 2004–2007. Pierre Couprie joined the project in 2004and Rob Weale a year later. During this period the creation of the bibliog-raphy has been the key focus.

Pierre Couprie redesigned the site immediately, using SPIP (www.spip.net) for the organization of the site’s data. This has led to significantimprovements, although it is hoped that a future version will allow for theimplementation of an even more sophisticated form of search protocolthan that currently available.

Throughout this period, the glossary and index have undergonedynamic changes under the editorial direction of Simon Atkinson, includ-ing a major updating process in 2006/2007 when the number of glossaryterms exceeded 500. Still, the main task during the period was to createthe site’s bibliography.

During the first two years, all bibliographic items were entered solelyin English, regardless of the original language. Where relevant, transla-tions of titles and, for books, chapter titles are included. As more andmore entries for non-English-language publications were entered, itbecame clear that it would be useful to be able to look up these works intheir original language as well. Therefore, today, for example, Italian-lan-guage publications’ abstracts and keywords appear in Italian and inEnglish; French, Spanish and German texts are similarly treated. To facil-itate this, translations of the index and, wherever possible, of the glossarywere needed. Thus far the glossary has appeared in French (PierreCouprie) and Spanish (Ricardo Dal Farra). At present a possibleMandarin translation, requested by UNESCO, is under investigation and aGerman translation is planned. The index is also available in German(Martin Supper) and Italian (Laura Zattra). Consortium member Marc

74 Leigh Landy


Battier proposed the publication of an international thesaurus of terms.The thesaurus can currently be found on EARS in five languages.

At the time of writing, EARS is approaching its three thousandth bibli-ographic entry. In English and French, at least, the phase has beenreached where those involved in the project are dealing with items that aremore difficult to obtain, as well as with the normal abstraction of newlyappearing publications. Items in other media that are of relevance to theproject continue to be sought.

The project has been significantly internationalized during this three-year period and the intention is that this will continue in the future (seebelow). This internationalization is reflected in today’s consortium in whichBattier and Chadabe continue alongside Ricardo Dal Farra (NationalUniversity of Tres de Frbuaro, Buenos Aires, Argentina), Kenneth Fields(Central Conservatory of Music and University of Peking, Beijing, China),Rosemary Mountain (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada) and MartinSupper (University of the Arts, Berlin, Germany).

One of the frequently asked questions about EARS is how its editorialpolicy was created. A question often accompanying this is why the projectdoes not use a Wiki approach to data acquisition. Part of the answer hasto do with user feedback: in terms of catching minor errors on the site,making suggestions for new terms, adding new definitions and, of course,new items for the bibliography. These suggestions, alongside the work ofthe core EARS team and the network of researchers affiliated with the pro-ject, have led to the current total of 3,000 bibliographic entries and thelarge-scale glossary. Still, a majority of the suggestions made for referencesto be entered onto the site concern technology-only publications, some-thing that was decided early on not to include, as they would have madethe project too large and too unfocused. In this way, project members actas a filter for incoming suggestions, more than as editors. Team membersdo consider themselves to be working on an open platform, albeit onewithout direct Wiki-like user input.

Recently the opportunity to publish relevant texts on the EARS site hasbeen established. The first publication was Antonio de Sousa Dias’sPortuguese translation of Schaeffer’s Solfège de l’objet sonore from 1967(Schaeffer, Reibel and Ferreyra 1998). John Dack and Christine North’slong-awaited translation of Michel Chion’s Guide des objets sonores (Chion1983) in English is expected in the near future. Chion’s text treats allmajor Schaefferian terms introduced in his Traité des objets musicaux(Schaeffer 1977). The site obviously will not focus solely on Schaefferiantexts; there are plans to publish EARS-related materials, in the widestsense, more frequently as time goes on. EARS-related articles for whichrights have been obtained have also been recently republished on the site.

What has been gratifying for the EARS team is to watch its usage sta-tistics rise year on year. After one of my talks on EARS in 2006 a lecturercame to me and said: ‘We are all grateful to you for creating this resource,but it is also upsetting as it has made our students’ lives so easy. They areconstantly quoting it.’ The usage statistics can, of course, be a bit difficultto comprehend. Nevertheless, the trend has grown enormously through-out the years and the ease whereby EARS comes up under major searchengines supports the view that EARS is a much-used portal in today’s field



of electroacoustic music studies. Another reason for increasing usage isthe fact that in 2007 UNESCO funded a project whereby all relevant infor-mation on its DigiArts portal became hyperlinked to EARS and vice versa.

In the autumn of 2007 the three-year AHRC funding came to an end;plans have been developed for an even more dynamic future for EARS. Asthis article is being written, EARS finds itself at a crossroads. This haspartly to do with future funding opportunities, but more significantly to dowith its having grown in importance so rapidly. Those involved with theproject have decided to: (1) continue the work of the project as it is, per-haps altering it, taking into account new approaches to semantic webdesign; and (2) start a large-scale project provisionally called ‘PedagogicalEARS’. These plans form the subject of the next two parts of this articleand bring us directly back to the subject of music education.

Moving forward 1: a greater global focusSo far as the continuation of the current work is concerned, it is clear thatEARS can no longer rely on British support, because the site’s weaknessescan be found to a large extent in other language areas rather than in thosethat are already represented. The project is now reliant on the goodwill ofthe current team as well as network members working with the team toachieve language-area funding. For example, a bid of Martin Supper’s wassupported by the Universität der Künste Berlin as this article was beingprepared. This means that the German translation of the glossary and fur-ther bibliographic work can be expected in the not-too-distant future.Similar initiatives are under way regarding Mandarin, Greek and Portuguesetranslations. The Italian glossary translation will go online in late 2007.

EARS will and must continue to internationalize its presence in all threekey areas of the site. It will also pursue its recent efforts in terms of increas-ing the list of online publications that can be downloaded from the site.Finally, in collaboration with Kenneth Fields, opportunities will be investi-gated within the realm of new approaches to ontologies. In a recent article(Fields 2007) he asks several relevant questions concerning the somewhattraditional presentation of EARS, and illustrates current alternativesincluding ‘folksonomies’ that are now on offer. The EARS principle will notchange, but its design will, it is hoped, appear more intelligent. This part ofthe project will take place in collaboration with the University of Peking.

All of this will allow EARS to become accessible to a greater number ofinterested people around the globe; its usage and user input should developsimilarly. As access has always been part of EARS’s raison d’être, it has, fur-thermore, been decided to work towards the creation of Pedagogical EARS.

Moving forward 2: ‘Pedagogical EARS’The story of Pedagogical EARS started at UNESCO’s offices in Paris. JacoDu Toit, former member of the DigiArts team, asked: ‘Would it be possibleto create a version of EARS with a reduced number of terms for peoplestarting out in the field?’ This single question started the ball rolling, lead-ing towards the design of a three-part project that will be developed in par-allel with the current EARS site. This project is being prepared specificallyfor the young – and other interested parties of all ages – and will go severalsteps beyond serving as a structured Internet portal for information.

76 Leigh Landy


Du Toit’s question made complete sense and the EARS team’s immedi-ate reaction was positive, especially given today’s lack of opportunitiesavailable regarding electroacoustic music instruction at pre-university lev-els and the fairly ‘how to’ approach applied to music technology educationin many schools internationally. Pedagogical EARS could potentially offera clear, educationally innovative alternative. Although making the keydecisions concerning which terms to retain and which to drop for this pro-ject will be extremely challenging, it is clear that definitions adopted forthose with no prior knowledge can be created and supported, where rele-vant, with sound examples and with relevant opportunities to try out con-cepts, such as the various types of filters and of visual representations of agiven recording. In other words all online10 new media and hypermediaaids can be incorporated, something EARS does not yet provide – a trulyexciting opportunity.

However, it is logical to suggest that creating a pedagogical form ofEARS solely based on its current format may not be sufficient. The reasonfor this can be found on the Groupe de Recherches Musicales’s CD-ROMentitled La musique électroacoustique (Ina/GRM-Hyptique 2000). Thissuperb new media publication offers the user three choices upon opening:connaître (understand), entendre (hear) and faire (do). This tripartiteapproach is extremely sensible, focusing on the comprehension of con-cepts and gaining historical knowledge; supporting music appreciationthrough documented examples, with evocative scores providing userssomething to hold on to when first hearing music that is possibly totallynew; and allowing learning to take place through creativity, by providingusers the opportunity to manipulate sounds.

This approach is holistic; its holism would be essential to support therequest made during that meeting in Paris. EARS is therefore planning itsown tripartite project, all based on current initiatives of the Music,Technology and Innovation Centre (MTI) at De Montfort University (DMU).It, too, involves an understanding aspect on what has been named “EARSII”, an adaptable listening methodology supporting access and appreciation,part of the MTI’s ongoing Intention/Reception (I/R) project and a ‘learningby doing’ aspect by way of the Sound Organiser audio software programcurrently under development for any novice user group. All three are intro-duced below.

Supporting Understanding: EARS II This first part of Pedagogical EARS has already been described. Of theapproximately 500 EARS terms, a much more modest set will be chosen,definitions adapted to the audience of young people and adults with noprevious experience, and examples will be provided in the form of listeningclips, interactive opportunities to try out concepts, and hyperlinks to sitesrelated to the subject at hand. An influential example of this multimediaapproach to learning concepts is Barry Truax’s Handbook of AcousticEcology (Truax 1999). An associated learning plan will also be developed.Nevertheless, some flexibility in this must be allowed for, so that differentdidactic approaches and culturally based sound examples can be includedwherever possible. Clearly, it is hoped to have EARS II translated into asmany languages as possible. In this way, the intention is to make learning


10. An offline, stand-alone version couldeventually also be created.


basic concepts accessible to as many people as possible and to provide anenjoyable means of learning at the same time. In 2007 funding wasobtained from De Montfort University’s Institute of Creative Technologiesto support a research studentship directly related to the EARS II project.However, this part of Pedagogical EARS is not to exist in isolation.

Supporting access and appreciation: the intention/receptionapproach The second and third parts of Pedagogical EARS are worthy of their ownarticles in this journal. For the present, summaries will have to suffice. TheI/R project commenced in 2001. Since then it has led to a Ph.D. dissertationand several articles, the most important of which are Weale (2006) andLandy (2006). Although the project has existed happily in isolation thus far,its future version is best integrated into this broader holistic context.

The project has two goals, one of which is more pertinent to the cur-rent discussion. Firstly, it has investigated whether listeners with variedlevels of experience with this musical corpus are receiving composers’intentions during the listening experience of electroacoustic compositions.More important in this context is the project’s aim to gauge how accessibleelectroacoustic works are, in particular to inexperienced listeners. Thehypothesis at the foundation of the project is that much electroacousticmusic has become marginalized in today’s society for a number of reasons,and that this position is unmerited.

The publications cited discuss the project goals and methods at length.For our current purposes a short summary will be provided that largelyexcludes the aspect of the intention/reception loop. Until now composi-tions have been chosen in which real-world sounds are heard or perceived.The reason for this restriction has to do with a long-held view of mine:people are more likely in general to find connections through personalexperience with works that include (perceived) real-world sounds thanwith works that include only abstract sounds. Electroacoustic composi-tions have been chosen within the range of soundscape composition, thatis, works involving overt references to source and context, to works inwhich most sources are not directly identifiable, such as acousmatic onesin which the aspect of not being able to see sound sources or causes isvital. Of course works have also been chosen in between these twoextremes. From the so-called inexperienced listeners groups, includingboth non-musicians and musicians who have had little to no exposure toelectroacoustic music, the I/R project researchers have yet to encounter acomposition where, after one single listening, fewer than a majority of lis-teners wanted to hear the work or similar type of work again. In somecases, the percentage was over three-quarters of listeners. These resultsare far higher than the original expectations and provide ammunition forthose who believe that electroacoustic music should be given more atten-tion in schools and on our communications media. In terms of intention,listeners are provided the opportunity to listen to works three times, thefirst time (after which the question concerning the desire to hear suchworks again was posed) with absolutely no information at all; the secondlistening is preceded by giving listeners the title of the work or, if that wasnot relevant, one aspect of importance; before the third listening, all

78 Leigh Landy


participants are provided the composer’s intention, information based ona previously received questionnaire and any other available information.Inexperienced listeners largely found being provided with this type ofinformation very useful in terms of their finding new works accessible tothem.

Recently a different type of intention/reception project, involving con-temporary dance, was discovered that took place in Australia (see Grove,Stevens and McKechnie 2005). Catherine Stevens of the MARCS AuditoryLaboratories at the University of Western Sydney has been advising theproject, providing input from a psychology point of view. Her empiricalmethodologies go well beyond the more traditional sociology-based ques-tionnaire approach applied in the I/R project thus far. Through the addi-tion of such methods to our project, the idea is to gain greater insight intothe listening experience of people new to electroacoustic music. As with theunderstanding aspect, EARS II, the I/R approach will be developed totake cultural circumstances into account whenever possible so as to facili-tate interest in local electroacoustic works. Chronologically, the I/R aspectof this tripartite project comes first, and continues as people gain moreconfidence with electroacoustic works.

Supporting creativity: Sound Organiser The third and final ‘doing’ part of Pedagogical EARS takes the form of anaudio software package that is currently being developed, provisionallynamed Sound Organiser. The object here is that the package functions in amanner similar to computer games, something many people using it willalready have experienced. The higher the level one reaches, the moreskills, opportunities and artistic challenges will be introduced. To cite anexample of how this works in context: some schools may not be able tooffer children the opportunity to record sounds. Properly recording soundsis not something one encounters early on when learning how to organizesound. Therefore, recording is offered after many levels have already beenachieved and, in fact, an alternative will be on offer in situations whererecording is not possible.

The approach is as user friendly as is possible. Unlike current software,there is no assumption that one can handle several windows at once, com-prehend a Fourier graphic image, understand acoustic concepts or be liter-ate in music notation when one uses Sound Organiser for the first time.

DMU’s Centre of Excellence for Performance Arts (one of the UnitedKingdom’s Centres of Excellence in Teaching and Learning) originallyfunded the Sound Organiser project. A prototype of the initial level of SoundOrganiser was developed by John Anderson and the author to demonstratethe direction of the project, and tested in schools around Leicester. Interestfor the next, main phase of development has come from the Groupe deRecherches Musicales in Paris and the above-mentioned Institute of CreativeTechnologies. The Central Conservatory of Music in Beijing has offered toproduce a Chinese version of Sound Organiser and take the package intoChinese schools for testing, while investigating whether the package isculturally adequately flexible. The Sound Organiser will be usable as a stand-alone program or within the context of networked (Internet) performancefor more advanced users.



Obviously, the three parts of this project will be harmonized in the formof a curriculum so that asp1ects learned on Pedagogical EARS can beheard in context in the I/R environment and applied creatively on theSound Organiser platform. As more and more countries move towardsincluding various forms of music technology onto their schools’ curricula,Pedagogical EARS will be ready for use by younger students. Sound orga-nization is already part of their aural experience and they are extremelyopen to discovery at late primary/early secondary school age. By using anintegrated, holistic system such as the one proposed here, scientific, IT andgraphic concepts can be developed alongside electroacoustic musical ones.

Brief conclusion‘Somebody had to do it’ is the answer to the query, ‘Why did you allembark on the EARS project in the first place?’ As stated at the beginningof this article, the field of electroacoustic music studies was discovered tobe somewhat ill defined. Its related curricula are extremely diverse: someare more related to media, some to traditional music and some to directlyvocational aspects. EARS, a project that might have taken place within alibrary science department, has become increasingly gratifying to thoseinvolved as the years have gone by. Its need has been proven through itsusage. The field of electroacoustic music studies no longer seems like anodd concept. Now the time has come for people in the field to find holes inareas of scholarship through searching the EARS site. The MTI, for exam-ple, plans to develop a large-scale electroacoustic music analysis project inan attempt to discover which analytical tools are most appropriate inwhich circumstances. Alongside such high-level research, specialists mustalso ensure that the foundation of the field is solid, something that ishardly the case at present. Both EARS and Pedagogical EARS will repre-sent a contribution to the creation of that foundation for interested peopleof all ages.

Works CitedBattier, Marc (2003), ‘A Constructivist Approach to the Analysis of Electronic

Music and Audio Art – Between Instruments and Faktura’. Organised Sound, 8: 3,pp. 249–255.

Chion, Michel (1983), Guide des objets sonores: Pierre Schaeffer et la recherche musi-cale, Paris: Ina-GRM/Buchet-Chastel.

Fields, Kenneth (2007), ‘Ontologies, Categories, Folksonomies: An organised lan-guage of sound’, Organised Sound, 12: 2, pp. 101–111.

Grove, Robin, Stevens, Catherine and McKechnie, Shirley (eds) (2005), Thinking inFour Dimensions: Creativity and Cognition in Contemporary Dance, Melbourne:Melbourne University Press (e-book).

Ina/GRM-Hyptique (2000), La musique électroacoustique, Paris: Éditions hyptique.net,CD-ROM.

Landy, Leigh (1999), ‘Reviewing the Musicology of Electroacoustic Music’,Organised Sound, 4: 1, pp. 61–70.

—— , (2006), ‘The Intention/Reception Project’, in Mary Simoni (ed.), AnalyticalMethods of Electroacoustic Music, New York: Routledge, pp. 29–53 + appendixon the volume’s DVD.

—— (2007), Understanding the Art of Sound Organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

80 Leigh Landy


Nattiez, Jean-Jacques (1990), Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music,Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Schaeffer, Pierre (1977), Traité des objets musicaux: Essai interdisciplines, Paris: Seuil.

Schaeffer, Pierre, Reibel, Guy and Ferreyra, Beatriz (1998 [1967]), Solfège de l’objetsonore, Paris: Ina-GRM (book with 3 CDs).

Truax, Barry (1999), Handbook for Acoustic Ecology, CD-ROM edition, Burnaby, BC:Cambridge Street Publishing, CSR-CDR 9901.

Weale, Rob (2006), ‘Discovering How Accessible Electroacoustic Music Can Be:The Intention/Reception Project’, Organised Sound, 11: 2, pp. 189–200.

Suggested citationLandy, L. (2007), ‘The ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS),’ Journal of Music,

Technology and Education 1: 1, pp. 69–81, doi: 10.1386/ jmte.1.1.69/1

Contributor detailsLeigh Landy is a composer and researcher in an area that he calls sound-basedmusic. He has written five books, including the recent La musique des sons / TheMusic of Sounds (OMF/MINT Sorbonne, 2007) and Understanding the Art of SoundOrganization (MIT Press, 2007) and is editor of the journal Organised Sound. He isdirector of the Music, Technology and Innovation Research Centre at De MontfortUniversity and co-founder/director of the Electroacoustic Music Studies Network.He is also Artistic Director of the company Idée Fixe – Sound and MovementTheatre. Contact: Leigh Landy, Music, Technology and Innovation ResearchCentre, De Montfort University, Clephan Building, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.E-mail: [email protected]






DubDubDub: Improvisation using thesounds of the World Wide WebJonathan Savage Manchester Metropolitan University andJason Butcher Egerton High School

AbstractDubDubDub was an educational project conducted by staff at Egerton HighSchool, Manchester Metropolitan University and UCan.tv. It introduced a newtype of musical instrument to the classroom, the DubDubDub player, whichdeveloped pupils’ musical performance and improvisation skills by using the sonicenvironment of the Internet. Users of DubDubDub remixed the sonic content ofthe Internet, arranged sounds and prioritised them in real time to form newmusical works. The name DubDubDub references the three ‘w’s of internet URLs:http://www. The musical improvisations generated by DubDubDub can becombined with other instruments, as illustrated during DubDubDub’s firstperformance at the Discourse, Power and Resistance conference (hosted by the University of Plymouth and Manchester Metropolitan University on 21 April 2006). This paper reflects on the development of DubDubDub and thisfirst performance, providing an insight into how technologies can facilitate newmodels of musical performance and improvisation that may be beneficial foreducational application.

IntroductionMusical performance and improvisation with new technologies is anemerging focus area for music education. Researchers have investigatedthe range of applications of technology in the teaching of musical compo-sition (Savage 2002 and 2003), but the use of new technologies to helppupils develop performance skill or technique in classroom settings is rareand less widely reported in the literature. There are some notable excep-tions to this, however, particularly in the field of music education forpupils with special educational needs. Here, innovative products such asthe Soundbeam1 have been used for many years.

In contrast to the rather limited application within education contexts,contemporary musicians are developing, building and performing withnew instruments on a regular basis. There is a yearly conference devotedto ‘new interfaces for musical expression’ (NIME). A review of the researchevidence from conferences like this provides a useful backdrop theDubDubDub project.

Blaine (2005) starts from the position that many young people todayhave a familiarity, and significant dexterity, with a range of potential perfor-mance interfaces. Her investigation includes the application of a number of


1. See www.soundbeam.co.uk

Keywordsmusical performanceimprovisation world wide webInternetmusic technologynew instrument design

JMTE_1.1_07_art_Savage.qxd 11/7/07 9:47 PM Page 83

games controllers as musical instruments. discussing how a user mightlearn a new instrument, she suggests that:

Musical instruments must strike the right balance between challenge, frus-tration and boredom: devices that are too simple tend not to provide richexperiences, and devices that are too complex alienate the user before theirrichness can be extracted from them. In game design, these same principlesor learnability are the fundamental principles of level design used to build aninterest curve to engage players.

(Blaine 2005: 28)

Oore (2005) picks up on a number of these points. Like Blaine, his first con-cern is with technique and how this is developed with a new instrument. Hiskey question is ‘What does one do with a complex new digital instrument?’(Oore 2005: 60). Like Blaine, he makes the obvious point that if an instru-ment was designed to be ‘easy to master’ it would quite possibly not be thatinteresting to play or to listen to once the initial novelty of the instrumenthad worn off. Secondly, he goes on to analyse a range of general conceptsthat, he suggests, might apply to the learning of a new instrument. Theseare couched under a statement that ‘the individuality of a musician ismanifest in their learning process as much as in their performance’(Oore 2005: 61). This may be true, it is not a lot of help for the educator,who has to presume that there will be a common sequence of learning forthe majority of learners and prioritise knowledge accordingly. But the impor-tant point here for the DubDubDub project is that the process of learning tocontrol a new instrument and explore its musical potential is a vital elementin an overall learning process that cannot be short-circuited. Additionally,how a user learns a digital instrument is an important consideration in thatinstrument’s design. As he states in his concluding paragraphs: ‘The new-instrument performer must often be the initiator and driver of the explo-ration of the new instrument […] The true creative journey begins whenthe user’s own goals and style drive the learning, and when basic elementsbegin to be internalized and built upon’ (Oore 2005: 64).

Buxton asks questions that should be central to educators’ thoughts whenusing new technologies to promote musical performance in the classroom.Why should musical performance be live? What difference does it make? ForBuxton, musical performance is a compromise between the presentation ofthe scored and the improvisational where physical, emotional, gestural, activeand reactive components all have a part to play. He draws up a continuumwithin which the visibility or invisibility of musical cause and effect outwork:

I must confess, that I have the same emotional and intellectual response towatching someone huddle over a laptop as I did 20–30 years ago when theywere huddled over a Revox tape recorder. The more invisible the gesture andthe more tenuous my perception of the correlation between cause and effect,the less relevant it is to me that a performance is ‘live’.

(Buxton 2005: 4)

As we shall see, a key informant of the DubDubDub project was to keepmusic live within the classroom. In an age when more and more pupils are

84 Jonathan Savage and Jason Butcher


huddled, staring at computer screens in their music lessons, DubDubDubsought to place an emphasis on live performance in small ensembles at theheart of music education for Key Stages 3 and 4. An introduction to theDubDubDub concept is well overdue.

The DubDubDub conceptDubDubDub was a project conducted by staff at Egerton High School,Manchester Metropolitan University and UCan.tv. It introduced a new typeof digital musical instrument to the classroom, the DubDubDub player,which developed pupils’ musical performance skills by drawing on thesonic environment of the Internet. Within this context, users ofDubDubDub remixed the sonic content of the Internet, arranged soundsand prioritised them in real time to form new musical works. The nameDubDubDub references the three ‘w’s of internet URLs http://www. Theinitial aim of the project was to develop an intuitive software instrumentthat would facilitate effective control of live Internet audio and then to usethis tool in a performance setting. The first DubDubDub performance tookplace with a string quartet from the Royal Northern College of Music anda group of MCs and DJs drawn from an extended schools project held atEgerton High School at the Discourse, Power and Resistance conference(hosted by the University of Plymouth and Manchester MetropolitanUniversity) on 21 April 2006.

Lyrics delivered by ImpulseAdults fink they no bout lyf. (Lyric from UK TRAP delivered during the DubDubDub project by ‘Impulse’, aYear 10 student ‘reppin’ [representing] the L.T.C. (Lyrically Talented Crew).

Egerton High School is a special school for children statemented withsocial, emotional and behavioural difficulties in Trafford, Manchester. Allpupils have been excluded from mainstream schools in the local authorityand have significant gaps in their learning. The project leader and co-authorof this paper was the Expressive Arts subject leader and ICT co-ordinatorat the school. DubDubDub was born out of his own artistic practice andthe opportunities that have arisen from working alongside pupils at theschool. This work has embraced interdisciplinary projects that includemusic technology, film-making and critical studies.

Many of the inspirational features of this work came from the pupils atthe school themselves. For them, music, rapping, beats, DJ-ing and MC-ingare common features of a rich artistic sense of self-expression and a nor-mal part of their day-to-day lives. Through working alongside these pupilsas an artist, teacher and co-learner, the project leader developed an inter-est in how chance informed both his own and their work. In particular,the synergy between music, visual media and technology has been asource of inspiration. The freedom of expression that this synergy bringsallowed pupils to make sense of the ubiquitous violence and problems thatpermeate their lives, sharing and communicating solutions through form-ing and performing in music-focused ‘crews’. These groups include DJs,MCs, beat programmers and producers. Lyric writing (the construction of‘bars’) is prolific, their use of music hardware highly skilful, and pupils are

85DubDubDub: Improvisation using the sounds of the World Wide Web


adept at using a range of freeware, shareware and professional softwaretools for musical composition.

The effective engagement of these disaffected pupils at Egerton HighSchool through allowing them to direct their own learning, develop a highlevel of multimedia ICT skills and develop their passion for music and ver-bal expression, led to early Expressive Arts GCSE examination entry andsuccessful results for pupils aged 14 and above. It was this richly talentedand artistic, yet challenging, group of young people that provided theopportunity to develop the DubDubDub project from concept to reality.

The DubDubDub genesisDubDubDub was preceded by a number of other projects that have takenplace at Egerton High School and Manchester Metropolitan University.These projects provide a useful insight into some of the main features ofthe DubDubDub work and will be briefly traced below.

Found Sound was a CD-ROM song-writing resource produced by theVirtual Learning Environments Foundation for Yamaha UK in 2003. Itcontained video clips and guidance notes for teachers. Part of the resourcehighlighted the processes that StatikSoundSystem, a Drum and Bass outfitbased in Bristol, used to build their individual tracks into songs. Theycreated starting points with sounds sourced from their travels locally andinternationally, recorded them onto Minidisc and took them into thestudio to edit, loop, develop and blend with beats. This process inspired pupilsat Egerton High School. They sourced videos from the Internet of thenatural environment. The incidental sounds that these videos containedwere recorded through the computer’s sound card as the video played.Pupils worked on the resulting files, collating, editing and processing themto form libraries of sound files. These sounds were sequenced withrecordings of instruments or other samples to form compositions. Theresults ranged from videos of urban activities to videos of natural ambiencesin isolated wilderness spaces. This type of study resulted in pupils becomingmore aware of their own sonic environments. Subsequently, these havebeen recorded on their mobile phones and brought into school to convertand work with in a similar manner.

Parallel to this activity was an investigation of the sound design processthrough a trial of the UCan.tv resource – Sound2Picture (Savage 2005a).This resource enabled pupils to develop their skills in the production ofambient loops, spot effects and other elements by experimenting withsounds and video clips. The resource contained a library of sounds andvideo clips and an interactive mixing environment for trying out combina-tions of sounds and visuals quickly and intuitively. Pupils used sounds theyhad created themselves rather than exclusively using the samples pro-vided; examples of their work can be experienced at www.sound2pic-ture.net. The process of completing a sound design to a video facilitated animprovement in the pupils’ software skills, sound manipulation andsequencing. It promoted sound design as an accessible way of composingthat was not dependent on playing traditional musical instruments. Theclassroom within which these projects took place contained no MIDI key-boards or traditional musical instruments. However, the headsets pupilsused comprised headphones and microphone, and this led to some pupils



generating sounds with their voices and manipulating the waveforms tocreate new samples.

The third project at Egerton High School that helped fine-tune theDubDubDub concept was part of a ‘Super Learning Week’ on recycling in2005. The timetable at the school was collapsed for a week and pupilsworked in vertical groupings (i.e. with a mixture of pupils from each ofYears 7 to 11) looking at aspects of recycling across the curriculum. Therewas an interdisciplinary emphasis to activities. The Expressive Arts pro-gramme of study related the work that these artistically literate pupils hadbeen doing to the concept of recycling by re-using audio from the Internetin a random and non-linear way to form compositions. Entitled ‘RecycledAudio Portraits’, the pupils were free to use the Internet as they wanted foran hour providing that they recorded all the incidental sounds that theydiscovered through the computer’s sound card. Pupils were informed thatthe resulting sounds would be used to create an individual aural portraitof their Internet usage. For this reason, it was suggested that they place anemphasis on visiting bookmarked sites so as to present as broad a reflec-tion of themselves as possible. A complementary task involved recyclingprose by cutting words out of poems and picking them out of a bag at ran-dom to form new syllabic expressions. Pasting words into new orders rein-forced the recycling concept, and pupils were encouraged to record theirnew verbal pieces on the computer and mix them into their Internetinspired audio portraits. Many initial recordings drawn from the Internetwere edited to fit the length of the recorded vocal track. This provided asimple way of delineate the length of the piece. All the finished tracks weremixed together by a pupil as an extension task and the result was playedas part of a series of performances on the Friday afternoon that celebratedthe work done during ‘Super Learning Week’. Critical studies during theweek included an investigation of the Dada and Surrealist art movements,including art, games and films, and the cut-up technique used and devel-oped by William S. Burroughs and others, as popular d by David Bowie.

Finally, a couple of months prior to the commencement of theDubDubDub project, Urban Classic happened. ‘Urban Classic was a meet-ing of musical cultures that brought together some of the biggest names inUK black music with the BBC Concert Orchestra in a ground-breaking liveevent’ (BBC 2007).

Urban Classic provided a relevant and contemporary context for thework that the pupils were about to engage in and led to a notable increasein their confidence. The collaborative elements of these pupils’ work withpostgraduate students from the Royal Northern College of Music (in thefinal stage of the DubDubDub project) and the experiences of workingtogether within a diverse musical ensemble were authenticated by theGrime scene approval and a BBC rubber stamp. Urban Classic was a timelyand very happy coincidence for the DubDubDub project.

The DubDubDub projectThe aim of DubDubDub was to develop an intuitive performance instru-ment for pupils that would facilitate the control of Internet live audio andits recording and capture in real time. The initial presumption was thatthe interface would allow for everything to be in one place. To this end, an



interactive artist was employed to help design and make the software. Theprototype was produced using Macromedia Flash. It allowed for Internetpages, along with embedded sounds, to be assigned to keys on the computerkeyboard with each page opened or closed by pressing the appropriate key.The prototype that resulted from these early experiments was similar toSoundplant (http://soundplant.org), an excellent piece of freeware withinwhich one can attach sound samples from a computer hard disk to acomputer keyboard; however Soundplant does not allow the access ofsounds contained within Internet pages.

Pupils are Egerton High School tried out the initial DubDubDubinterface. During this trial they commented that they had no problemsusing a standard Internet browser to open several web pages at a timeon their desktop or keep them tabbed on the taskbar. But this methodhighlighted some problems. Although it was easy to navigate the openweb pages, it was not always easy to find out which page was playingwhich audio element. The way in which the DubDubDub interface shouldempower a user’s engagement with Internet audio was of paramountimportance. In this method, there were just too many mouse clicks gettingin the way of creating mixes and performing with Internet audio.

During subsequent searches of the Internet for new browsers, a webbrowser was discovered that allowed for the tiling of pages within onepage. The Avant Browser (www.avantbrowser.com) was free to downloadand proved to be fast, stable, customizable and easy to use. Its use removedthe need for the creation of a specific piece of DubDubDub software. Forexample eight web pages can be opened in any one Avant browser pageeach with different web searches.

A very useful performance application of the Avant browser facilitatedthe collection and storage of sets of favourite pages, enabling the user toreturn to them quickly in a live performance setting. The browser alsofacilitated the mixing of sounds as each ‘tile’ of a web page has controls forvolume and looping its sonic content.

A second piece of software was combined with the Avant browser forthe DubDubDub project. Google Video (http://video.google.co.uk/) is adedicated video search engine that is content-safe to use with pupils.Controls at the bottom of each page include a pause/play button, a time-line cursor to locate or repeat sounds and a volume-control slider. Bydownloading the Google video player rather than just playing back videoswithin the Google video homepage, pupils were able to use these controlsto facilitate a greater degree of versatility in terms of managing audio (aswell as providing an enhanced quality of video playback). Some six videoscould be open at once within the Avant browser, each with controlsaccessible and a thumbnail of the selected video playing.

The combination of Google Video in the Avant browser effectivelyprovided pupils with a sound-mixing environment. The sonic environ-ment of the Internet, or specifically, in this case, the sounds attached tovideos uploaded to Google Video, are manipulated and controlled by theDubDubDub player which is, itself, a conflation of existing technologies.

Audio exists on the Internet for a variety of reasons and serves a num-ber of functions. It may arise incidentally by way of an embellishment to acorporate website or it may have a specific function such as a radio station.



Sounds of the natural environment exist on the Internet and it is certainlyeasier to discover the sounds of a tropical rain forest on the Internet than toorganise the recording of these on location! There is a vast array of othersounds attached to web pages, many of which can be triggered through thecontrol of a mouse. This interaction with a website can become part of theaudio mix, e.g. the controlled output through clicking and triggeringsounds with a mouse can feature alongside various embedded sounds thatexist within the web page.

The DubDubDub player worked on the principle that these sounds willresonate together and that it is the user’s skill, practice and sensibilitiestowards these sounds and processes that produce effective improvisations.This type of musical skill or understanding is not dissimilar to the sensibil-ities needed in a range of other musical activities with which pupils werefamiliar. Firstly, by learning to play vinyl decks, CD turntables or PCs asinstruments pupils were able to develop a range of skills that transferredwell to the DubDubDub project.

As well as the DJing techniques that pupils were familiar with, spitting(free styling bars, rhymes and phrasing) over a spacious grime beat, typi-cally around 135 beats per minute, also harnessed the sensitivity, listeningand responding skills needed for effective DubDubDub use. For pupils, itwas a natural progression to use these DJing and spitting techniques whenusing DubDubDub.

At this stage, the DubDubDub player was a facility comprising a con-flation of web technologies and a taught sensibility, a real-time interactivetool and concept. The final element was a straightforward way to capturethe player’s decisions and record the outcomes for further use, analysis orediting. This tool became the UCan.tv sound recorder. It provided a way torecord any audio that was passing through the computer’s sound cardwithout having to change any computer audio settings (as you wouldhave to do with a piece of freeware such as Audacity). Sound captured bythe recorder can be edited and uploaded to a sequencer for future use. TheUCan.tv sound recorder was the final part of the DubDubDub player.

The first DubDubDub performancePrior to the first performance with DubDubDub, a number of extended teach-ing sessions was held at Egerton High School. These included a number ofstudents from the Manchester Metropolitan University’s PGCE in Music withSpecialist Strings Teaching course (taught in collaboration with the RoyalNorthern College of Music). These students worked with the school pupils todevelop their skills with the DubDubDub player. During these sessions, theMCs and DJs had shared their enthusiasm for music, demonstrated their skillsand discussed ideas for the performance with the university students.

As a new type of instrument, the musical material generated viaDubDubDub can be combined with other instruments in a performancesetting. It can sit with any existing style or genre of music, and this is whatthe authors aimed to illustrate during a performance at the Discourse,Power and Resistance conference hosted by the University of Plymouthand Manchester Metropolitan University on 21 April 2006.

For the performance, the DubDubDub player was combined with astring quartet (formed by the PGCE students) and some MCs and DJs from



an extended schools project being held at Egerton High School. Figure 1shows the performance group. More pictures from the performance, a linkto a video of the performance and other resources can be found atwww.dub3.tv.

The performance moved through three sections. The string quartetopened with a traditional performance of Pachelbel’s Canon. During the sec-ond stage of the performance, this was deconstructed as students movedaway from their string instruments, one at a time, to add sounds and musicusing the DubDubDub interface on four Internet-enabled laptop computers.The resulting mix of sounds from the Internet formed the middle section ofthe performance. During the performance, one student searched for Googlevideos of violinists performing the same opening piece and this provided asimple conceptual link to the first section of the performance. The nature ofthe DubDubDub player means that each performance is uniquely differentbecause the content relies on live Internet, in this case complete with itsquirky connection status. The final movement of the performance involvedthe MCs and DJs from Egerton High School and the extended schoolsproject. They introduced and blended in some contemporary grime beatsusing an MP3 player, a CD deck and a cross-fade mixer. Quite naturallythey started spitting lyrics over the resulting sounds. Through these lyricsthey introduced themselves, who they were reppin (representing) andestablished their style. Much of this was freestyling (a kind of vocalimprovisation) combined with the inclusion of existing bars (sections oflyrics) that they had written to suit the occasion. During this final stage ofthe performance the string quartet/DubDubDub players gradually movedback to their string instruments from the laptops and improvised with theMCs and DJs. At the end of the performance all performers were contributingto the piece. The string players were improvising with the MCs and DJs usingthe wider sonics and harmonics of their instruments to complement the


Figure 1: The initial DubDubDub interface.


grime beats through emulating scratch sounds, sub-bass riffs, bass drumgrooves and claps. The original Baroque piece had been transformedthrough a DubDubDub-inspired breakdown into a unique presentation ofimprovised music and expression.

Analysis of the DubDubDub projectThe performance was well received. Afterwards the audience (mainlyconsisting of academics and researchers) had the opportunity to directquestions to any of the team. These included questions about the processesand outcomes and significant interest in the delivery from the MCs andDJs. Several questions focused on the links between improvisation andfreestyling. Here, the authors have drawn a range of conclusions from thesequestions and answers that have helped inform their own judgementsabout the DubDubDub project.

Artistic processes were central to DubDubDubFundamentally, indeterminate art is concerned with artistic process. TheDubDubDub project engaged students and pupils in an indeterminateprocess of musical performance, albeit with a range of pre-establishedreference points that informed their decision-making process (e.g. bookmarksof Internet sites, pre-written lyrical content and musical beats, etc). Wewere pleased to note that both groups of young people were not afraid toexplore the improvisation al process as an integral element of the musicalperformance. More widely, many of them were able to incorporateideas about improvisatory practices drawn from a range of other workthat they had recently completed. For the students from ManchesterMetropolitan University, this included elements of improvisation pedagogydrawn from their Dalcroze studies, particularly principles from eurhyth-mics classes. For the Egerton High School pupils, the projects discussedabove placed the DubDubDub project in a wider context of multimediawork centred on preparations for a GCSE in Expressive Arts (which pupilsundertake in Year 9).

Music and the visual imageDuring the DubDubDub performance the visual output from each of thefour laptop screens was mixed and displayed for the audience on a largescreen. Figure 2 shows how the screen gave the audience the opportunityto see how the DubDubDub player was being used in real time.

Although music was the main focus of the DubDubDub performance,having a screen that presented the decisions about which websites theDubDubDub players decided to visit created some transparency for theaudience and demystified the sources of sounds. In Buxton’s terms(Buxton 2005: 5) it provided the audience with a visible side to musicalcause and effect. Through discussion after the performance, it was apparentthat it enriched the audience’s appreciation of the skills and control of thesounds that the players were manipulating. This is equivalent to watchingstring players’ physical manipulation of their instruments. Using theDubDubDub player is, by nature, an audio and visual experience. It allowsthe user to cut up culture, rearrange and subvert images, video andsounds live from the Internet to create new and unique audio or visual



‘instances’. Whether the user is dealing with sonic or visual elements, orboth, the DubDubDub player facilitates artistic expression through thesonic and visual environment of the Internet, honing an appreciation ofthe role of chance in musical performance.

Democratising performance skillsThe DubDubDub player can be used by anyone so long as they have accessto a computer, an Internet connection and some speakers or headphones.All actions are triggered through a traditional mouse and QWERTY key-board. The skills needed to perform with DubDubDub are similar to thosegeneric musical skills that all improvising musicians should have, i.e. theability to listen, to respond, to select and modify, to take the lead on occa-sions or sit back, to work collaboratively or with a degree of independence,etc. The interface of the DubDubDub instrument is familiar and deliber-ately simple. As such, it is easily accessible and allows the user to getinvolved easily in the process of musical performance. Within the educa-tional context, a networked computer suite is an ideal platform for aDubDubDub performance. From any Internet enabled computer, a pupil isable to apply their natural creative ability to creating music, by findingsounds attached to web pages, managing, mixing and recording them toform compositions and document their processes using screen-capturetools. As the DubDubDub performance demonstrated, music created inthis way sits alongside traditional musical instruments very comfortably.

Musical collages and the immediacy of artistic expressionDubDubDub allows users to combine the sounds attached to variousInternet sites in a way that creates very powerful musical collages. Clearcomparisons can be made to a number contemporary works, e.g. JohnCage’s Roaratorio. This work, constructed by Cage in 1979, would be an


Figure 2: The Avant browser.


excellent resource to illustrate the range of musical outcomes one couldconstruct through the interface between traditional instruments and newtechnologies. Consisting of three main elements, Roaratorio combines anarrated poem with traditional Irish musicians and over 4000 differentrecorded sounds on tape. It is important to remember that Cage producedRoaratorio without the benefits of modern sampling techniques. His state-ment that ‘I never imagine anything until I experience it’ is extremely rel-evant in this context (Cage 2007). It is this sensibility to the spontaneousand immediate working with sound that was central to the DubDubDubperformance. It was pleasing to note that this concept, complete with itstechnological, visual and musical dimensions, promoted the musicalunderstanding and appreciation of two very diverse groups of young peo-ple. Not only that, but it brought them together to share a common musi-cal discourse which, we believe, it would have been hard to imaginethrough any other means.

ConclusionWe [the NIME community] are in a unique position to raise the bar as to thequality and range of experiences, devices, and the expressive capabilities theyinspire, particularly as it relates to music creation and education.

(Blaine 2005: 32)

Many contemporary musicians and artists are exploring the potential ofnew technologies as musical performance tools. In what is a very gradual,but well documented, process, these new technologies are beginning to beapplied and explored within educational contexts in the United Kingdom(Savage 2005b, Savage 2007). This is not without its difficulties. Manyteachers are inherently conservative in their views and reluctant toembrace change:

Many music teachers are reluctant to use ICT extensively in their teaching.It may be for a number of reasons: lack of confidence in their own ICT capa-bilities; fear that their students know more than they do; lack of awareness ofthe potential benefits of using ICT; concerns that technology-based musicmay take over from more traditional approaches.

(Ashworth 2007: 3)

Blaine’s encouragement (2005: 32) to us is to reconceptualise the notionof a musical instrument for the 21st century. Associated with this changein mindset is the opportunity to reanalyse the process of musical perfor-mance and improvisation. There is an opportunity to get beyond thestereotypical notions of technique, interpretation and re-creation as beingcentral to instrumental performance and use new, technological innova-tions in such as way as to support the development of generic, accessibleand intuitive musical performance skills. To do this, Blaine emphasisesthat designers of these new instruments will need to consider a range ofissues, including:

• How gestures can be mapped to musical outputs• Creating more expressive controllers



• Integrating multiple combinations of sensors• Developing musical learning systems alongside new instruments• Adding levels of engagement with new musical instruments that lead

to expert performance (Blaine 2005: 32).

DubDubDub is an example of some of these processes (although the con-cept of a linear progression of instrumental use from beginner to expertperformer seems overly simplistic). It falls within what Bowers andArcher (2005: 6) have called an ‘infra-instrument’. In their useful sum-mary of meta-, hyper- and cyber-instruments a number of themes areidentified that richly contrast with their notion of an infra-instrument’(Table 1).

Despite these apparent reversals of instrument design, they argue thatinfra-instruments are nonetheless ‘aesthetically engaging and technicallyintriguing’ (Bowers and Archer 2005: 6) and worthy of further study,which they go on to do in some detail. Their findings have some relevanceto our discussion here, particularly that infra-instruments are evaluatedbest within the context of a ‘performance setting’: ‘Handling an assemblyof stuff is often facilitated by an infra-instrument designing philosophy,where each device plays its part in a manageable hybrid environment [...]The whole performance setting becomes the unit of analysis, design andevaluation, not just a single “new interface for musical expression”’(Bowers and Archer 2005: 6).

This reflects a recent theme in Bowers’s work, that of ‘performanceecology’. This has a rich resonance for those involved in formal, class-room-based music education. By ‘performance ecology’, Bowers (2003)means a closer analysis of the places for practical action and its display toothers (performers or audience). Examples include desktop performanceecologies (or even classroom performance ecologies) that may:

• Be differentiated (a place for the computational, for the acoustical and forother tools)

• Be integrated in a variety of ways


Meta, Hyper & Cyber-instruments Infra-Instruments

Rich interactive capability Constrained interactive repertoire

Detailed performance measurement

Few sensors or few gesturalmeasurements

Engendering complex music Engender relatively simple music

Expressivity and virtuosity Restricted in terms of virtuosityand expressivity

Table 1: Categorisations of new instruments.

(after Bowers & Archer 2005, p.6)


• Allow opportunities for juxtapositions and for legible, embodied conduct(how performers look for, reach for, touch, communicate in non-verbalways, etc.).

This notion of ‘performance ecology’ reminds us that all musical inter-actions are contextualised. Regardless of whether they are technologicalin the digital sense, traditional in the musical sense, or a juxtaposition ofthe two, musical interactions between young people need to be under-stood in the context of a wider performance ecology. DubDubDub pre-sented a new mode of artistic expression to a group of postgraduatestudents and school pupils. In many senses it is character d by infra-instrument design: it was based on few gestural movements; it was con-strained in terms of operability; it was deliberately simple to use andbased on pre-existent web-based technologies. Did it produce or engen-der simple music? That is a judgement to be made by the listener.Readers of this article can make their own judgement by viewing and lis-tening to the performance hosted on Google Video2 (UCan.tv 2007).Either way, DubDubDub may be one tool that the contemporary musiceducator can use to help develop young people’s musical performanceand improvisation skills.

Works citedAshworth, D. (2007), Electrifying Music: A guide to using ICT in music education,

London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation.

BBC (2007), www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/events/urbanclassic/features/event.shtmlAccessed July 2007.

Blaine, T. (2005), ‘The Convergence of Alternate Controllers and Musical Interfacesin Interactive Entertainment’, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference onNew Interfaces for Music Expression, Vancouver, BC.

Bowers, J. (2003), ‘Improvisationing Machines’, Advanced Research in Aesthetics in theDigital Arts, 4, http://www.ariada.uea.ac.uk/ariadatexts/ariada4/Accessed 10 July 2007.

Bowers, J. and Archer, P. (2005), ‘Not Hyper, Not Meta, Not Cyber but Infra-Instruments’, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on New Interfacesfor Music Expression, Vancouver, BC.

Buxton, B. (2005), ‘Causality and Striking the Right Note’, Proceedings of the 2005International Conference on New Interfaces for Music Expression, Vancouver, BC.

Cage, J. (2007), ‘Roaratorio: An Irish Circus on Finnegan’s Wake, for voice, tapeand Irish musicians’, www.answers.com/topic/roaratorio-an-irish-circus-on-finnegan-s-wake-for-voice-tape-irish-musicians?cat=entertainmentAccessed 4 July 2007.

Oore, S. (2005), ‘Learning Advanced Skills on New Instruments’, Proceedings of the2005 International Conference on New Interfaces for Music Expression, Vancouver, BC.

Savage, J. (2002), ‘Electroacoustic Composition: Practical models of compositionwith new technologies’, Journal of the Sonic Arts Network, 14, pp. 8–13.

—— (2003), ‘Informal Approaches to the Development of Young People’sComposition Skills’, Music Education Research 5: 1, pp. 81–85.

—— (2005a), ‘Developing Compositional Pedagogies from the Sound Designer’sWorld’, Music Education Research, 7: 3, pp. 331–48.


2. The DubDubDubPerformance can beaccessed athttp://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2356848748259785982&q=dubdubdub&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0.


—— (2005b), ‘Working Towards a Theory for Music Technologies in theClassroom: How pupils engage with and organise sounds with new technolo-gies’, British Journal of Music Education, 22: 2, pp. 167–80.

—— (2007), ‘Reconstructing Music Education through ICT’. Research in Education.

AcknowledgementThis project was funded by the Bernarr Rainbow Awards for Music Teachers andsupported by UCan.tv (www.ucan.tv).

Suggested citationSavage, J. and Butcher J. (2007), ‘DubDubDub: Improvisation using the sounds of

the World Wide Web,’ Journal of Music, Technology and Education 1: 1, pp. 83–96, doi: 10.1386/ jmte.1.1.83/1

Contributor detailsJonathan Savage is a Senior Lecturer in Music Education at the Institute ofEducation, Manchester Metropolitan University. His main research interests lie in thefield of developing innovative uses of new technologies within the music curriculum.He is Managing Director of UCan.tv, a not-for-profit company that produces engagingeducational software and hardware including Sound2Game (www.sound2game.net)and Hand2Hand (www.hand2hand.co.uk). Free moodle courses are available atwww.ucan.me.uk. Contact: Dr Jonathan Savage, Institute of Education, ManchesterMetropolitan University, 799 Wilmslow Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 2RR, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Jason Butcher is a deputy head teacher and Head of Expressive Arts at EgertonHigh School in Trafford, Manchester. As well as over twenty years’ experience ofmanaging creative and educational projects with funding from a broad range oforgan s, he has a range of pedagogical, technological, creative and design skills andhas a strong interest communication, teaching and learning in ways that build onpupils’ latent interests in new media.



Journal of

Music, Technology and Education

Journal of Music, Technology and Education | Volum

e One N

umber O

ne

ISSN 1752-7066

1.1

intellectwww.intellectbooks.com

Volume O

ne Num

ber One

intellect Journals | Theatre &

Music

Journal of

Music, Technology and Education Volume 1 Number 1 – 2008

3–5 Editorial

David Collins Articles

7–21 The discipline that never was: current developments in music technology in higher education in Britain

Carola Boehm

23–35 Crossing borders: issues in music technology education Giselle M. d. S. Ferreira

37–55 Reframing creativity and technology: promoting pedagogic change in music education

Pamela Burnard

57–67 Problem solving with learning technology in the music studio Andrew King and Paul Vickers

69–81 The ElectroAcoustic Resource Site (EARS) Leigh Landy

83–96 DubDubDub: Improvisation using the sounds of the World Wide Web Jonathan Savage and Jason Butcher

9 771752 706007

ISSN 1752-7066 1 1

JMTE1.1_cvr.indd 1JMTE1.1_cvr.indd 1 11/13/07 5:36:30 PM11/13/07 5:36:30 PM

Date post:	12-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	intellect-books
View:	3,819 times
Download:	2 times

Journal of Music, Technology and Education: Volume: 1 | Issue: 1

Documents