Abstract
This article looks at the iPad’s role as a musical instrument through the lens of a live performance ensemble that performs primarily on iPads. It also offers an overview of a pedagogical model used by this ensemble, which emphasizes musician autonomy in small groups, where music is learned primarily through aural means and concerts are interactive shows. Such a model could also be well suited to those using any type of instruments and would have significant potential to attract students who do not currently take part in our traditional school ensembles.
Keywords
Although some might balk at considering the iPad a real musical instrument, the reality is that it offers myriad possibilities for ensemble playing and music learning.
Recent music education journal articles describe the use of iPads, and other digital technologies, in music class settings. Deborah Nelson examined iPads as a way to help reach students with special needs. 1 Patricia Riley described iPad use by preservice music practicum students. 2 Vanessa L. Bond suggested that iPads could be a part of a social constructivism approach in music classrooms, 3 and Chad Criswell documented potential effects the iPad and other hardware could have on music education and shares teachers’ ideas for using iPads for creativity and performance. 4 In addition, there is a plethora of articles and resources describing various ways iPads are being used in music business. 5 The iPad, along with other digital technologies, certainly offers new potential to music teachers.
As part of the music program where I teach, we have an iPad ensemble. The performers in this ensemble, myself included, make music using iPads as instruments. We are iPadists. We play music from a diverse range of styles, including arrangements of classical music, covers of rock songs, and original music written specifically for the unique musical capabilities of the iPad. We also model a pedagogical technique that is very different from the traditional band/choir/orchestra paradigm.
There are individuals who condemn this activity or, at the very least, consider it less deserving than our traditional music-making activities. It is not unusual for some people, especially from traditional performance areas, to make disparaging remarks about the activity. Often, comments involve the perceived inadequacies of the iPad, any relationship it might have with popular musics, and a general mistrust of anything related to digital or electronic music technology. Much of this condemnation, by the way, comes from individuals who have never seen nor heard our iPad ensemble.
This attitude is not restricted to college performance faculty. A survey comment from an anonymous music teacher about a recent state music conference echoes this position: “Each year it seems there are more sessions and performances that do not align with what our core mission is as music educators. iPad ensembles and rock bands are not the direction that we should be heading. We need to be seeking out students and exposing them to quality art.” In the same survey, another teacher added, “I would like to see more clinics about band, chorus, and orchestra, and less about music technology, guitar, etc. Those things should not be taught in schools because there is not artistic merit.” 6
Of course, there are those who do not share these sentiments and remain open to new possibilities; however, making music on iPads is certainly not considered by some to be as honorable as making music in concert bands or string orchestras. This thinking is often based on the belief that the iPad is not a real musical instrument. At best, it is only like a musical instrument, but certainly not worthy of study by serious musicians.
On the other hand, the oboe is most surely a genuine musical instrument. Along with the violin, trumpet, and clarinet, the oboe is the real thing and, unlike the iPad, is capable of producing profound music. However, there is a serious error in reasoning here, especially for music educators, and it holds critical consequences well beyond the use of iPads to make music.
What is a musical instrument? A musical instrument, according to the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “a device used to produce music.” 7 When used to produce musical sounds, what does an oboe and an iPad have in common? There are at least six attributes shared by both the iPad and the oboe, as well as by all musical instruments:
In the hands of the right person, an oboe can be played beautifully. In the hands of the right person, an iPad can be played beautifully. Both can be used to showcase magnificent musicality.
In the hands of the wrong person, an oboe can be played very badly (chances are you have experienced this). In the hands of the wrong person, an iPad can be played very badly. Both can be used to produce sounds wanting in musicality.
A person most likely needs to practice to play an oboe well—sometimes for an agonizingly long time. A person most likely needs to practice to play an iPad well—sometimes for an agonizingly long time. Practice is important for improving musical performance on any musical instrument.
It is necessary for a person to build technique in order to get better at playing an oboe. It is necessary for a person to build technique in order to get better at playing an iPad. Improving technical proficiency most often helps a performer develop musicianship.
There are limitations on what a person can perform on an oboe. There are limitations on what a person can perform on an iPad. Both can be used in certain musical circumstances with great success, but not so much in others.
An oboe will do nothing if a person does not touch it. An iPad will do nothing if a person does not touch it. Neither device will produce sound without help. Both are inanimate objects.
Did you notice there is one commonality across all six attributes? It is the human being—the person. This is, after all, from where musicianship, creativity, and imagination originate. The most important aspect of human music-making is not the instrument—it is the human! The instrument is little more than a tool through which a person can produce music. The oboe, after all, is a piece of hollowed wood with holes drilled in it. The iPad is basically aluminum, circuits, and glass. Neither is really very mystical. The magic is supplied by the performer.
All six of these statements are true for any musical instrument a person chooses to use. My list of instruments would include such things as a tuba, triangle, clarinet, voice (with some obvious distinctions), cello, computer, koto, microphone, spoons, snare drum, lute, turntable, and Orff xylophone. There are plenty more. In any given setting, a certain instrument, an oboe perhaps, might be an appropriate choice. This does not mean the oboe is a better instrument—it is only more fitting for a specific use. In a different setting another instrument, an iPad, for example, might serve the purpose better.
Our mistake in traditional music education is that we elevate the importance and worthiness of certain instruments. This is a mistake because it tends to marginalize other instruments and, by default, the musical styles with which they are usually associated—not to mention the humans who participate with, and gain meaning from, such musics.
The instruments we have traditionally held in highest regard are the instruments (including the voice used in a particular manner) that come from the western European classical tradition. These are, of course, the instruments most closely associated with the musics we use in the classroom. The music education profession has a long history of dismissing other instruments and musical styles as unworthy.
The 1930s witnessed the way jazz and dance music changed the American musical landscape, but it was almost forty years before these styles found any widespread acceptance in school music programs (ironically, about the same time they were dropping out of public favor). The electric guitar, along with rock-and-roll, rose to popularity by the mid-1960s, but we have not been very interested in bringing these into the school music room until only recently. Electronics expanded musical possibilities in the 1980s, but not for music education, and now digital music has changed how music is made, performed, and heard; but again, our profession wants to look the other way.
We have successfully closed ourselves off from virtually all aspects of musical culture in today’s society, choosing instead to continue championing musical instruments and styles that are now all but absent outside the classroom—especially in youth culture. We continue to believe there is only a short list of real musical instruments and of high-quality musical styles. We have convinced ourselves that it is our job, our duty, to keep these instruments and musical styles alive so school students can find musical salvation.
Is it any wonder we have trouble interesting the majority of school students in enrolling for school music programs when we offer basically one type of musical experience and we continue to marginalize the various musical involvements these students find most meaningful? We implicitly, and often explicitly, communicate to students, “Come out of your mire of unmusical clutter, and I will help you understand real music!” One might imagine Emma Lazarus could have been thinking of a music teacher alone in a school music rehearsal room when she wrote, Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
8
Back to our iPad ensemble: It is actually a quintet—an ensemble that in more cultured musical circles would be considered a “chamber ensemble.” In reality, it is something of a hybrid, being part string quintet, part rock band, part electronic ensemble, and part something else. The possibilities for this type of digital ensemble seem unlimited and are restricted only by our own imaginations. It could become almost anything the players can imagine, and even though the group is only a couple of years old, we have imagined quite a lot.
As with any musical ensemble, there are challenges and limitations regarding iPad performance. The most problematic issue we have faced involves timekeeping. There is so little movement required to make sound on an iPad that it can be difficult to achieve rhythmic cohesion, especially during performance of music that lacks a definite beat. We have come to appreciate the kinesthetic motions normally associated with violin performance that help performers visualize rhythm and beat. To compensate, we have learned to exaggerate movements when possible, and we resort to standing close together when necessary for visual connections.
We also recognize limitations of the instrument. Every app we use does something very well but will be limited in some way. We have found it important to remain within the capabilities of specific apps and to choose apps that are appropriate for what we are trying to realize musically. The good news is apps are consistently being updated and improved, and new apps appear regularly so that new possibilities are added all the time. In the short period in which our iPad ensemble has been together, we have witnessed an amazing improvement in the functionality and the sound of various apps, and there is nothing to suggest that this trend will not continue.
Our iPad ensemble, which is named Touch, has a few goals that guide most of its activities. The first is musical performance. Above all else, we strive to play musically, understanding this may mean different things depending on the style of music being performed. For example, balance means something quite different during the performance of a classical string quintet versus a rap piece, just as rhythmic concepts differ between jazz and classical genres. Our ensemble members spend considerable time individually working and practicing with different apps to hone playing technique in order to achieve the most musically correct sound. When playing together, the ensemble members are busy listening with musical “ears” in search of the most musical results. This is nothing different than what would be considered necessary in any good musical ensemble, but that is just the point—there is no difference as far as musicality is concerned.
Second, the members of Touch work very hard to incorporate various collaborations in performances. To date, we have worked with vocalists, rappers, dancers, poets, actors, and visual artists. Future plans have the ensemble collaborating with engineers and architects in realizing new musical works. Most collaborations require us to compose original music for a specific setting. One interesting collaboration involved four poets who each shared one poem with the audience. The musicians worked with each poem to realize the text in sound. We also paired dancers with each poet. The dancers, sometimes alone, sometimes in small groups, realized the text in motion. The performance combined live reading with music and choreographed and improvised dance, as well as the incorporation of video and lighting effects, which created a very moving experience for both the performers and the audience.
Other collaborations have involved the resetting of a children’s book with live reading, acting, and dancing. As with the poetry, here the iPad performers realized the story text in sound, serving both as accompaniment for the other performers and as a kind of tone poem representation of the story. Another piece had us working with a visual artist in a timed piece where she created a painting of the ensemble as the iPadists performed music directed by her choice of colors. The piece was composed by a student composer and required the artist to use five colors. Each iPadist responded with sounds of his or her choice when the color assigned to him or her was used. This resulted in a loosely structured piece that slowly developed into a blues jam and a completed painting in just seven minutes.
I am often asked what apps our performers use in performance, and while we each certainly have our favorites, the list of live performance apps is long and constantly growing. There are hundreds of possibilities, and during one particular book reading, the five performers used eighteen different apps, each allowing the exploration of different tone colors to precisely match the musical effects envisioned.
The third goal has to do with audience participation. During performances, members of Touch work to break down “the fourth wall” that traditionally separates the audience from the performers. In addition to being moved musically, we want very much for the audience to have a good time and feel that they are a real part of a live concert. This begins simply by interacting with an audience by talking to them and making them feel welcome. We also get the audience on their feet, clapping, singing, and moving. The audience is encouraged to use video and flash photography and asked to upload media during the concert. It is also okay to talk with your neighbor during Touch concerts.
Opportunities are planned that create direct audience involvement in concerts. During one medley of dance pieces, the audience was encouraged to dance along with the dancers on stage. Another piece included opportunities for the audience members to perform on their own personal digital devices from their seats. We have had the audience singing specific pitches directed by a band member on stage. In another piece, we retold a well-known story along with actors, sets, and props. This retelling was directed by the audience, who sent tweets to a live Twitter feed that was projected on a huge screen on stage. The actors picked audience suggestions to act out while our ensemble performed our own arrangements of music, as well as improvised music, to fit the action.
We have a quintet of musicians who perform live using iPads as their primary instruments, but you would be missing the whole point if you got the idea that the iPads are the focus. The real importance of our ensemble extends far beyond iPads. The iPad, after all, is nothing more than a digital music instrument from a long line of electronic and digital instruments. It is even quite likely the iPad will no longer exist in the near future, being replaced by something even better. Touch certainly takes advantage of the portability of the iPad and the diverse range of sounds we have at our disposal, but much of what the ensemble does could be accomplished with various combinations of digital and acoustic instruments. Most any combination of instruments, including diverse integrations of wind, string, and percussion instruments and voices, could be used in much the same way.
The focus of what Touch does as an ensemble is not the iPad; instead, the emphasis is on the pedagogical model used. Several researchers and authors have examined the traditional large- ensemble pedagogy in comparison with other pedagogical approaches. 9 Touch actually serves as an example for our music education majors as a method of pedagogy that is significantly different from the traditional large-ensemble model. It is a pedagogy that could be accomplished with most any combination of instruments (including the voice), and it is one example (from among many) of what music education could look like in schools. The model is one that shares much in common with how individuals make music in popular music settings outside of schools. 10 It is a cooperative, interactive, and democratic process of music-making and differs from the traditional school model in four important ways:
This model, which emphasizes musician autonomy in small groups, where music is learned primarily through aural means and concerts are interactive shows, works well for our iPad-based ensemble. But this model could also be well suited for students using any type of instruments, and it would have significant potential to attract students that presently do not take part in traditional school music ensembles. It is important to note that similar pedagogical models have been employed in schools of the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, and Australasia for several years. Many of these have had a positive impact on student participation and retention, student attitudes, self-esteem, on-task behavior, and the development of a greater range of musical skills and higher levels of musical understanding. 12
When used to make music, the iPad is a musical instrument. It can be performed well or poorly. It takes practice to build performance technique on it. It will do nothing without musicianship, creativity, and imagination supplied by a person. It has musical limitations just like any instrument, but in the right circumstances, it can be used to make amazing music. Even so, the music education profession, as a whole, ignores the iPad as well as a host of other digital musical instruments that are now widespread in our culture. We have a long history of ignoring. We turned a deaf ear to jazz for fifty years. We did not notice the guitar until very recently. We still debate the evils of rock music, not to mention rap. And now we are choosing to tune out digital music and digital musical instruments. Just as important, we are also happy to spurn pedagogical approaches that might be ideally suited for alternatives to the traditional band, choir, or orchestra classes.
As part of the music program where I teach, we have an iPad ensemble. The performers in this ensemble make music using iPads as instruments. They are iPadists. They also model a pedagogical technique that is very different from the traditional band/choir/orchestra paradigm. There are individuals who condemn this activity or, at the very least, consider it less deserving than our traditional music-making activities. This seems to be a widely held notion. However, I have seen the powerful effects that this type of music-making, combined with relevant pedagogies, has on students—especially students who are not interested in band, choir, or orchestra. Yet we ignore this phenomenon. Our profession does too much ignoring, and we continue to do it at our own peril.