Composing for students: Composers’ reflections on the process of creating educational music

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the process of composing educational music. As part of a research project titled Sound Connections: Composing Educational Music Canadian composers completed email interviews, responding to semi-structured questions about the process of composing educational music. Using qualitative data analysis, we sought to understand better this process and found that the composers in this study used a variety of compositional techniques at all stages of the compositional process (conceptualizing, writing, and refining) to promote the development of student musicians. Key findings included the importance of balancing skills review and challenge; the use of form, timbre, and harmony for the development of communication and listening skills specific to the ensemble context; the use of elements from various musical styles to support music appreciation; and the encouragement of student collaboration in the creative process of composition. An unexpected finding was the importance of composer collaboration with teachers and students in the composing process. The knowledge gained in this study adds to the literature on this under-researched topic, and may help composers, student composers, and composition teachers develop a better understanding of and appreciation for educational music, thereby encouraging educational music composition. In addition, the findings of this study may assist teachers in the difficult task of choosing educational music for their students.

Keywords

arts education creativity educational music music composition music education curriculum music teacher education musical creativity pedagogical music

The composition of educational music was examined as part of an Ontario Trillium Foundation funded project titled Sound Connections: Composing Educational Music, in which Canadian composers created new music for student musicians. The purpose of the larger research project was to gain an in-depth understanding of how professional composers create music aimed at the development of musical skills in instrumental music students enrolled in Canadian school music programs and private music studios. This article describes a component of the research project in which Canadian composers were asked to reflect on the process of music composition, specifically on pedagogical aspects of composing music for student instrumentalists. The purpose of this study was to explore the process of composing educational music: that is, repertoire that promotes musical skills development in instrumental students.

Musical skills are the technical and expressive abilities that are characteristic of expert music performance (Sloboda & Davidson, 1996). Hallam and Bautista (2018) proposed an extensive list of potential skills acquired in instrumental music learning, such as aural, cognitive, technical, musicianship, performance (communication with audience and ensemble members), creative, and evaluative (listening, appreciation) skills. Sloboda and Davidson (1996) describe the technical skills of instrument learning as “those required to ensure accuracy, fluency, speed, and good control over such characteristics as intonation, evenness of sound, and timbre” (p. 173). Technical skills are complemented with expressive skills that underscore the features of music for the listener through variations in timing, dynamics, and pitch (Sloboda and Davidson, 1996). This description of musical skills assumes that music ability is based on skills development rather than on inherent ability or talent (Lehmann et al., 2007).

In this study, educational music refers to repertoire that is composed using Western staff notation for performance by student musicians and is designed to support their musical development (Andrews, 2013). The terms pedagogical music, and ensemble repertoire or literature are also used to refer to educational music. Forrester (2017) defined this genre of music as “a medium through which musical concepts are taught and aspects from other areas of musical study (theory, history, composition, and various musical genres) are reinforced to foster students’ growth and development as musicians” (p. 14). The composer and educator Dmitry Kabalevsky (1964) described the importance and complexity of composing music for student musicians:

In order to compose music for children, it is not enough to be only a composer. One has to be at the same time a composer, a teacher, and an educator . . . A composer will see to it that music is good and fascinating. A teacher will see to it that the music is expedient from the pedagogical standpoint and useful. An educator will have in mind that music, like any art, educates children: cultivates not only their artistic taste and creative imagination but rears in them love of life . . . and helps them understand the world. (p. 49)

Educational music is commonly used in Western classical instrumental music education programs, and it is focused on the development of “high levels of musical skill or expertise” (Hargreaves, 1996, p. 150). Educational music is a central component of music learning (Apfelstadt, 2000; Battisti & Garofalo, 1990; Caslor, 2018; Kaschub, 2020; McCallum, 2007; Reynolds, 2000; Sheldon, 1996; Tan, 2017), and the choice of repertoire is important for the development of music skills in student instrumentalists (McCallum, 2007; Reynolds, 2000; Sheldon, 1996). Music composition involves the arrangement of music elements such as melody, rhythm (duration, tempo, beat, and meter), dynamics, harmony, form, texture, and timbre (i.e., instrumentation), and educational music composing foregrounds pedagogy in the arrangement of music elements. Composing also involves a creative process that begins with an idea that is developed and refined into a composition, usually notated in manuscript form (i.e., a score).

There is a long tradition of composers who have created educational music, including Bach, Mozart, Robert Schumann, Bartók, Kodály, and Kabalevsky, the latter of whom also wrote about composing for children (Kabalevsky, 1964). Yet despite the importance of repertoire for student musicians (McCallum, 2007; Reynolds, 2000), and some existing scholarly discourse about the state of educational music (Budiansky & Foley, 2005) and the difficulty of selecting it (Apfelstadt, 2000; McCallum, 2007; Schupp, 1964; Sheldon, 1996; Wasiak, 2010; Watson, 2013), there is little empirical research on the process of composing educational music. The music composition process in general has been studied (Andrews, 2004b; Bennett, 1976; Denisov, 1973; McCutchan, 1999), as has composer learning during the composition process (Duarte & Constantinidi, 2021). In the context of music education, there is a relatively large body of empirical research about teaching and learning composition in the classroom (Berkley, 2004; Doig, 1942; Koops, 2013; Odena, 2012a; Wiggins, 2007; Younker & Smith, 1996), including the composer’s role in music education—what Laycock (2005) called creative music-making. Nevertheless, there remains a lack of empirical research about the process of composing for student instrumentalists (Andrews, 2004a, 2009; Wendzich & Andrews, 2019). To address this paucity of research, we explored composers’ perspectives on the process of creating educational music. A better understanding of the process of composing educational music is one way to appreciate the complexity of composing for student musicians, to encourage composers to create music for student musicians, and to assist music teachers in selecting educational music.

Method

The Sound Connections Project used a four-dimensional theoretical framework from creativity research that was adapted for music composition by Andrews (2015): prerequisites, person, process, and piece. This article reports on the process component of the Sounds Connections Project; that is, the composition process of creating educational music. Process, in this context, refers to the strategies, techniques, and sequencing used by composers in the creation of music for student instrumentalists. Building on the work of other researchers (Bennett, 1976; Collins, 2005; Denisov, 1973; Sloboda, 1986; Wiggins, 2007), Andrews (2012) proposed a three-stage model of the music composition process: conceptualizing, writing, and refining. Andrews and Giesbrecht (2014) outlined this composition process model as follows:

Conceptualizing refers to the composer’s consideration of “the musical abilities of the students, the current knowledge and skills of the performers, and the organization of the piece”;

Writing describes the “development of musical ideas, the compositional strategies implemented to promote music learning, and the instructional obstacles”;

Refining includes the resolution of problematic issues, as well as “any further adjustments to the compositions” (p. 27).

In this study, we asked about the process of composing educational music. Specifically, in consideration of the composition model presented above, we wondered “How do composers conceptualize educational music?” “What do composers consider in writing educational music?” and “How do composers refine their work for final presentation?”

For this study, we chose an interpretive approach to qualitative research, well-suited for researchers who seek to describe, understand, and interpret the subject of research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Merriam (2009) wrote, “The researcher is interested in understanding how participants make meaning of a situation or phenomenon, this meaning is mediated through the researcher as instrument, the strategy is inductive, and the outcome is descriptive” (p. 6).

Participants

At the outset of the larger project, upon receipt of ethics approval from the University of Ottawa, 15 professional composers were commissioned to create new music to support the development of musical skills in student musicians in a partnership with the Canadian Music Centre (CMC), a not-for-profit organization that promotes the work of Canadian composers. The regional director for the CMC advertised a call for proposals to its composer members and assigned commissions through a juried process, the jury consisting of senior composers and members of the Ontario Region CMC staff. The 15 composers who won commissions were both emerging and experienced composers. However, none had been commissioned to compose educational music previously, although some were music teachers and had written pieces for their students. These composers were invited to contribute to the research project and 11 composers (3 women and 8 men) agreed to participate in this study and granted their informed consent. Composer participants were paired with music teacher participants, who were either classroom music teachers, certified by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT), or private music teachers, members of the Ontario Registered Music Teachers’ Association (ORMTA). This article reports on data collected from the composer participants in this study, and we used pseudonyms to de-identify them.

Procedure

Over the course of one school year, the composer participants were paired with music teacher participants in a collaborative effort to create new music for instrumental students with a focus on the development of musical skills. Composer and teacher participants were encouraged to meet at least four times, and composers and students were to meet at least twice, although this was not always achieved due to scheduling conflicts. The study was set in the teacher participants’ classrooms and private music studios, and the music teacher participants taught their students to perform the compositions created for them by the composer participants. The students ranged from 12 to 17 years of age, and classroom students were in lower or upper secondary school. The musical skill level of the classroom and private studio students varied widely, from beginning musicians to advanced performers. To assist in student skill assessment, the composer participants consulted with teachers and with the following musical skills measurement tools: Royal Conservatory of Music (RCM; 2015) Syllabus and/or Andrews’ (2011) Music Complexity Chart (MC²) for school ensembles. The RCM Syllabus is a progressively sequenced curriculum and assessment structure (Royal Conservatory of Music, 2015). The syllabus was first developed in Canada in 1886, is revised continually, and is supported by a governing body of professional musicians and pedagogues from North America. The assessment structure ranges from preparatory to advanced levels of performance, and it is available for more than 20 musical instruments as well as voice, and speech arts and drama. The MC² Chart was developed by Andrews (2011) as a guide to describe “the characteristics of the levels of difficulty of instrumental compositions for school ensembles” (p. 109). The research-based framework was designed to assist composers in assigning grade levels to their work, to help teachers to evaluate repertoire, and to support publishers in marketing educational music (see Appendix 1). Regarding level of difficulty, most compositions in this study six were easy, two were medium, two were advanced, and one was mixed—a duet for beginner and advanced violinists. Most compositions were created for string orchestras (6), but there were also compositions created for string and percussion ensemble (1), duo (1), solo (1), and solo with piano accompaniment (2). See Table 1 for a summary of the context, level of difficulty, and instrumentation.

Table 1.

Composer Compositions.

Composer	Level of difficulty	Instrumentation	Context
Val	Easy	String orchestra	Upper secondary school
Sam	Easy	String orchestra	Private instruction
Pat	Easy	String orchestra	Lower secondary school
Mel	Easy and advanced	Violin duet	Private instruction
Louise	Medium	String orchestra and percussion	Lower secondary school
Lee	Easy	String orchestra	Lower secondary school
Kim	Medium	Double bass and piano	Private instruction
Eli	Advanced	String orchestra	Upper secondary school
Dana	Advanced	Harp	Private instruction
Cam	Easy	Viola and piano	Private instruction
Ari	Easy	String orchestra	Upper secondary school

Throughout the study, the composer participants completed reflective written reports demonstrating a problem-solving approach to overcoming musical challenges—specifically, the use of compositional techniques to develop musical skills in student instrumentalists. In their reports, each participant responded to semi-structured questions (see Appendix 2) that were developed previously for similar research projects (e.g., Andrews, 2004b, 2009). The questions for participants were structured around the composition process model used as our framework. The principal investigator distributed and collected the composer reports by email, a method that provided the opportunity for greater participant reflection than may be offered in face-to-face interviews (Gaiser & Schreiner, 2009).

Analysis

Using a qualitative data analysis approach (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), we examined the composer participants’ reports. After aggregating data of the composers’ reflections, we began reading and writing memos to get an overview. We then reread the data, highlighting significant words and phrases that were pertinent to our research inquiry about the process of educational music composition. To code our data seeking similarities and differences, we used organizational, substantive, and theoretical categorizing, described by Maxwell (2012) as

Organizing categories are broad areas or issues that you want to investigate, or that serve as useful ways of ordering your data . . . Substantive categories are primarily descriptive, in a broad sense that includes description of participants’ concepts and beliefs; they stay close to the data categorized, and don’t inherently imply a more abstract theory . . . Theoretical categories, in contrast, place the coded data into a more general or abstract framework. These categories may be derived either from prior theory or from an inductively developed theory . . . They typically represent the researcher’s concepts . . . rather than denoting participants’ concepts. (pp. 107–108, original emphasis)

Our organizing categories were based on our research purpose and on the music composition process model used as our framework. Substantive categories were formed using words or phrases from the composers’ responses to our questions—an in vivo approach. Theoretical categories came from our reading of the data in relation to the related literature and the composition process model. Instead of considering all data as “equal and worthy of analysis,” we followed the recommendation of St. Pierre and Jackson (2014), “using theory to determine, first, what counts as data and, second, what counts as ‘good’ or appropriate data” (p. 715). In a recursive process, we made notes in the data document as we reread the composers’ responses to our questions and considered the literature about the process of composing as it relates to musical skills development. Next, we created a concept map (Appendix 3) using Cmap Tools™ concept mapping software. This tool provided a way of visualizing the composer report data using graphics and text to facilitate analysis and explore connections between concepts. The constant process of rereading the data continued into the writing stage of the study as we checked our understanding of the data and considered new interpretations.

Findings

As mentioned, music composition involves the arrangement of elements such as melody, duration, dynamics, harmony, form, texture, and timbre. Composing also involves a creative process that begins with an idea that is developed and refined into a final composition. In this study, we were interested in learning from composers themselves about their process and use of musical elements to create new music for student instrumentalists, and we have selected quotations from the composer participants to illustrate our findings. We found that the main compositional method used to reinforce skill development involved the use of technical and expressive elements to provide both skills review and challenge for the students. Other reported ways of developing musical skills included providing opportunities for collaboration with the composer in the creative process, presenting music that would increase appreciation and understanding, and providing opportunities to build communication skills important for ensemble work. A summary of our findings about the use of compositional techniques and/or strategies in educational music is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Compositional Techniques/Strategies and Targeted Areas of Music Skills Development.

Compositional techniques/strategies	Musical skills
Balance of review and challenge Use of form Length of composition Use of melody (i.e., motivic gestures) Use of timbre (i.e., instrumentation) Use of duration (i.e., syncopation and rhythmic structure) Refinement of notation	Technical performance skills
Balance of review and challenge Balance expressive intent with technical demands Use of form Use of melody Use of timbre (i.e., instrumentation) Use of dynamics	Expressive performance skills
Creation of ensemble music Use of form Use of timbre (i.e., instrumentation) Use of harmony (i.e., to create texture)	Communication and listening skills
Creation of new educational music Use of historical influences/elements Use of various styles (e.g., traditional and contemporary) Use of timbre (i.e., new or unfamiliar sounds) Use of form	Appreciation skills
Opportunity to collaborate with a composer	Music creativity skills

Conceptualizing

The conceptualizing stage of educational composition refers to the composer’s organization of the composition and consideration of the students’ musical abilities and knowledge. The conception of a composition involves what Bennett (1976) referred to as the “germinal idea” (p. 7). Bennett described this initial idea or inspiration as taking a variety of forms, as “a melodic theme, a rhythm, a chord progression, a texture, a ‘kind of sound,’ or a total picture of the work” (p. 7). We asked the composer participants how they developed musical ideas for their commissioned compositions. Generating ideas often involved experimenting and improvising on a piano and/or on instruments that were included in the orchestration of the composition. For example, Dana developed his ideas by playing a harp, in addition to a piano. He reported that developing his ideas and new techniques while playing the harp helped give him a better understanding of the mechanics of playing the instrument. In this way, the development of ideas on both harp and piano helped inform the composer’s pedagogical goals for the piece.

Pedagogical considerations were incorporated into the compositions from the earliest stages of the compositional process. Several of the ideas pertained to expressive skills development, although the composers were also mindful of technical skills development. Ari wrote, “My intent was to find clear emotional expression that young musicians (age 8–16) might find engaging—interesting—and combine that expressive intention with equally clear technical demands.” Attention to pedagogical goals also influenced the types of ideas that were generated. We asked the composer participants how they would organize their compositions to develop the students’ musical skills. We found that the compositions were organized using form, melody, and instrumentation to benefit the growth of student musicians. Most composers wrote about the ways in which musical form was used to organize their compositions to build on the students’ musical skills. Sometimes each movement of the composition was dedicated to the development of a specific skill; for example, Val wrote, “Each movement had a specific goal in mind, technical and expressive, that was addressed.” Sam elaborated, “I organized my piece into three separate movements so as to focus on different skill developments in each. The three movements focus on a particular sound world and technical aspect of their instruments.” Other times, the overall form was used for the development of expressive performance skills, listening skills, and music appreciation. For example, Mel wrote, “The form and narrative of the piece (tracing the journey of a drop of water through various locations) allows for an exploration of many different musical styles.”

A couple of composers addressed the development of music appreciation and understanding through repertoire. Val wrote about the potential of educational music to “expand the students’ ideas of what music can be, beyond what they encounter in music instruction scenarios and in popular culture . . . New music can open up new auditory worlds that wouldn’t be available otherwise.” Lee stated that the composition he created for this project provided students

with insight into how different instrumental techniques influence the overall effect of a composition; for example, the combination of pizzicato in a few voices with legato bow technique in other voices shifts the listeners’ emphasis towards the stronger (usually the bowed) sounds.

Two composers adopted historical influences such as the doctrine of affections,¹ and samples of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7. Another composer fused traditional writing for string orchestra with hip-hop elements. Several composers expressed their desire to introduce students to new or unfamiliar sounds, such as electronic recordings. These techniques provided ways of increasing musical appreciation by exposing students to new experiences.

Several composer participants noted that the creation of educational music specifically for ensemble performance could aid student development of various communication and listening skills. Examples of such skills included, “accompanying a solo instrument,” “leadership skills,” and “careful listening for accompaniment.” One composer, Pat, characterized ensemble skills development as follows: “Listen to fellow musicians, play in tune with each other, and each section learns to play together.” Another, Louise, wrote that her composition developed ensemble skills in “playing together towards a goal, learning a ‘new’ work and hold[ing] the piece together.”

Although not a compositional technique or strategy, several composers discussed the collaborative process between students and composers as a way of developing creative abilities. Dana wrote, “For a young player to work directly with a living composer, it foregrounds creative agency, and gives the performer insight into different creative avenues, while also getting them to think about their own expressive capacity.” Composer participants also mentioned collaboration with their educator partner concerning student skill level and goals for skill development. For example, Val reported that the educator he worked with suggested that the composition be simplified by dividing it into short movements that had a “distinctive visual or evocative connotation.” Another composer, Kim, summarized the relationship between the creative conception of the idea, the pedagogical considerations, and the consultation process: “In actually generating material, there was a back and forth between the needs of the musical material and the right level of challenge, pedagogically. Much of this was influenced by my consulting educator.”

Writing

Writing describes the development of musical ideas, the use of compositional techniques to promote musical skills development, and the management of potential instructional obstacles.

In the writing stage of composition, the composer works and reworks a draft of the composition that arises from the initial “germinal idea” (Bennett, 1976, p. 7). This phase involves processes such as sketching and elaborating the initial ideas. The germinal ideas are considered in a reflexive feedback process (Collins, 2005) within the overall framework of the composer’s conception of the work as a whole (Wiggins, 2007).

A prominent finding in the writing stage was the use of balancing skill review and challenge as a solution to the potential obstacle of variable levels of ability. Several composers described the ways that they addressed balancing review of technical and expressive skills with the new challenges that their works presented to students. For example, Lee wrote that his composition was “geared towards this particular group of students and their abilities so the process of rehearsing the music should end up being at the ideal level for these students to practice and perfect those particular skills.” Other composers focused on challenging the students technically, while maintaining a balance with skills review. For example, Cam wrote, “Composition can reinforce the development of the skills by carefully presenting a ‘challenge skill’ as an occasional challenge in the context of skills that are already mastered, in such a way that is appropriate for the grade level.”

We also found that the composers named a variety of skills that could be developed through the compositional techniques used in their works. Technical and expressive skills were the most mentioned area of development, followed by communication and listening, and music appreciation skills. All composers wrote about the development of performance skills (technical and expressive), and some were quite specific in their descriptions. For example, Ari listed several technical and expressive skills that students might develop in learning his work: “Articulation control, staccato (off-the-string bowing), matching contact points (bow control), establishing the widest dynamic spectrum, matching expressive gestures (especially preparatory gestures), and using portamento phrase inflections.”

The composers provided insight into the way in which a composition is sketched out systematically, while recognizing pedagogical goals. Pat’s sketch clearly showed the compositional techniques he used to develop various skills, including technical and expressive performance as well as communication skills involved in ensemble performance. He wrote,

The proposed work for string orchestra has six movements, each more “progressive” than the previous one . . .

Movement Description Objective

I. Unison—slow to fast Play in tune with each other

II. Descant melody Play independent melodies

III. Chords with dynamic changes Learn to balance the dynamics

IV. One rhythmic unit for each part Each section learns to play together

V. Special sounds from the strings Explore string techniques

VI. Conglomeration of the above To create a musical piece

Refining

Refining includes the resolution of problematic issues, as well as any further adjustments to the compositions. The refining part of the compositional process involves assessment and adjustments to the new composition. Bennett (1976) wrote, “Here the first draft is reworked and added to where appropriate” (p. 9). Sloboda (1986) described revising as follows: “Its contents are then judged against criteria of ‘rightness’ . . . and, if found wanting, are modified until a satisfactory final form . . . is reached” (p. 119). In the present project, the assessment of student performance refers to the composers’ judgment of the quality of the students’ performance during read-throughs (initial rehearsal), workshops (group discussion), and rehearsals. The results of assessment provided feedback for the composers on the efficacy of the techniques used in composing. One composer, Mel, stated, “I got a good sense of what would work—and almost everything would . . . [The teacher] and I had already discussed difficult elements and I made edits before the students received the music.”

Most composers reported that students struggled with basic musical skills such as music reading, and especially with technical skills; for example, Pat reported that the students had problems with “learning the notes, play[ing] in tune, and in time.” Cam reported similar issues: “Most students missed some accidentals or played a wrong fingering; complete pitch accuracy was rare. Others had trouble staying in time and needed to read at an extremely slow tempo.” Some challenges were caused by compositional choices that were later adjusted. Dana described such a situation that involved notation:

We [composer and teacher] found that certain elements were unclear or misleading from a notational/textual point of view. Some techniques, which I had developed specifically for the piece, did not have standardized ways of being notated/explained. We worked a lot to resolve this.

Lee viewed the performance challenges faced by the student musicians as similar to musicians in general, saying that the students demonstrated “the usual problems associated with the introduction of any new piece of music to any ensemble.”

There were also performance successes. Eli reported that the late-stage performance had “great energy and vigour and, in the passages requiring it, also subtlety and delicacy.” Others noted the students’ positive attitudes among other attributes; for example, Ari wrote, “The ensemble was well coached, enthusiastic, and disciplined.” Val reported an unexpected success: “It was interesting though, that passages that even he [the teacher] thought might be beyond the young players’ ability came off surprisingly well.” Similarly, Cam reported, “Most teachers expressed initial apprehension at the playability of my avant-garde ‘cat noises’ . . . but students almost universally were able to execute it after a short practice.”

Overall, we found that the composers chose specific compositional techniques for the development of student musicians at all stages of the compositional process (conceptualizing, writing, and refining). In a collaborative effort with music teachers and students, composers in this study used various compositional techniques to assist in student skills development. Key findings included the importance of balancing skills review and challenge, encouraging student collaboration in the creative process of composition, promoting music appreciation, and developing skills specific to the ensemble context, such as listening.

Discussion

The composers in this study were cognizant of pedagogical goals and corresponding compositional techniques and strategies as they developed their initial ideas, wrote, and revised their compositions. We asked composers how music composition could support the development of musical skills. In our analysis, we identified five areas of skills development that could be supported throughout the composition process: technical, expressive, communication and listening, music appreciation, and creativity (see Table 2). An unexpected finding was the importance of composer collaboration with teachers and students throughout the composing process.

We found that, in the process of creating educational music, the composers in our study used a wide variety of compositional techniques involving the following musical elements: melody, rhythm, dynamics, harmony, form, texture, and timbre. Similarly, Andrews (2004a) also found that composers used similar techniques to support skill development, especially using elements such as melody, harmony, rhythm, and texture. One technique that composers reported using to reinforce musical skills was repetition, a technique also found by Andrews (2009). Music educator Deborah Sheldon (1996) wrote about the use of repetition and sequence, suggesting that sequences are important for training and can create more listening interest than repetition. Similarly, Andrews (2009) reported on the use of variations of pitch in repetition to challenge student musicians. In contrast, one composer in our study used repetition as a way to make the music easier to learn.

Several of the composer participants discussed the value of providing a balance of review and challenge with regard to technical and expressive performance skills. Similarly, Andrews (2004a) found that composers sought to balance pedagogical goals with the limited skills of student musicians. Sheldon (1996) wrote, “If fundamental music concepts are reinforced and new concepts are introduced in small, achievable increments, the probability for success among students grows” (p. 12). The composer participants were thoughtful in managing the balance of pedagogical goals with repertoire that challenged and engaged the students. In this way, the composers were able to elevate educational music. The music educator Hilary Apfelstadt (2000) wrote, “music that is too easy may bore students; music that is too hard may frustrate them” (p. 21). Apfelstadt also advised, “Generally speaking, good music will meet the standard of teachability because its content and expressive qualities will be sufficient to provide a basis for teaching material” (p. 20). Repertoire need not be difficult to reinforce skills development:

Literature that allows musicians to shape a phrase, focus on dynamic contrast, or develop a variety of tone colours and balance combinations does not have to include complex polyrhythms or intricate subdivisions of the beat . . . If the music selected is at an approachable level, the exercise will increase player confidence. (McCallum, 2007, p. 105)

Hallam (2010) described musical communication as “conveying emotions and moods to an audience, playing and performing with feeling and emotion, interpreting the music, and making decisions about performance” as well as “being sensitive to other musicians within the group and inspiring group performance” (p. 322). We found that the development of communication and listening skills was limited to ensemble performance skills such as listening, playing in unison, and solo performance, although the composers also reported on the use of compositional techniques to encourage the ability to play with expression. Composers used instrumentation and texture to develop communication skills. For example, a motif might be repeated in each instrument part, a technique that Andrews (2009) also found.

On the topic of music appreciation, Regelski (2006) proposed a pragmatic description of “music appreciation as praxis” (p. 281). He wrote that “music is not to be ‘understood’; rather, mindful use (particularly enthusiastic amateuring) is empirical evidence of ‘appreciation’” (p. 281). This view of music appreciation differs from the traditional definition of music appreciation based on music literacy, usually referring to Western classical music. Like Regelski, the composers in our study who discussed the development of music appreciation skills were interested in engaging students and exposing them to new sounds and musical experiences. For example, one composer wrote that he wanted to expose students to “new musical worlds, such as Balinese music.” However, the place of these new musical worlds is complex (Becker, 1986; Kruse, 2015). Apfelstadt (2000) cautioned,

Much of what we do in the name of multiculturalism is merely a weak attempt to pay lip service to music that we do not understand and do not have the technique to perform appropriately . . . The plethora of multicultural music currently available [choral context] both enriches and complicates our repertoire selection process, but if we keep integrity at the forefront of our decisions, we will act responsibly. (p. 20)

Composing music is a creative process. A composer participant, Dana, stated that the opportunity for students to collaborate with a composer offers “a creative counterpart to the more technical/performative aspect of a student’s work.” Apfelstadt (2000) wrote about the importance of connections with composers for the development of creativity and performance: “Ideally, contemporary music by living composers allows the students to communicate with artists who understand the compositional process and can clarify it for prospective creators or performers” (p. 21). In addition, the students’ overall musical skill development can be encouraged by considering how music is made (Odena, 2012b). Although the composers were not asked about their collaboration with the teacher participants and students, this topic arose in their reflections throughout the process of composing. For example, in the conceptualizing phase, composers wrote about the advice they received from teachers about the musical skill level of the students. They also described the value of student assessment in the refining process of composing. Collaboration was an important aspect of the study, building relationships between composers, teachers, and their students. As Apfelstadt (2000) wrote, “the teacher must believe in the music, be committed to teaching it well, and feel that students will be able, with time and effort, to learn it” (p. 21). The importance of collaboration was also a finding of Andrews (2016), who reported that a higher level of collaboration between the artist and teacher resulted in “consensus on the matching of curricular outcomes and artistic activities” (p. 26). Collaboration between composers and students was found to be instructive for composers to assess student abilities and development levels (Andrews, 2004a; Wendzich & Andrews, 2019).

Although we tried to mitigate study limitations, we identify a couple here. Unfortunately, not all participants answered all questions; for example, only 4 of the 11 composer participants answered the question asking for an assessment of the student performance level in rehearsals of the commissioned piece. This limitation may reflect the fact that it was sometimes difficult for composers to meet with teachers and students due to scheduling conflicts. It may also have been a shortcoming of the data collection method (email). However, data collection by email may have provided advantages (i.e., efficacy) that outweighed this limitation. Another limitation was caused by a lack of background information. We did not ask whether composers were also music teachers, and this information might have been instructive. For example, it might have been interesting to explore the compositional process of composers versus composer-teachers. This may be a topic for future research. Further research might also investigate the educational composition process independent of the classroom/studio setting.

The knowledge gained from the composers’ perspectives adds to the literature on this topic, and may help composers, student composers, and composition teachers to develop a better understanding of the process of composing educational music. The new repertoire and knowledge gained from this study provides teachers with Canadian music resources and increased knowledge about the relationship between repertoire and musical skill development. This understanding may help in the education of preservice music teachers, and help in-service teachers to evaluate student repertoire—a task that is difficult (Caslor, 2018; Gillespie & Hedgecoth, 2017; McCallum, 2007; Reynolds, 2000; Sheldon, 1996), and in which teachers are not always trained (Bauer, 1996). Finally, the topic of collaboration was a prominent and unexpected finding that informs potential arts education partners about the process of composing educational music, and may encourage collaborative efforts in the classroom, such as through arts education partnerships (see Andrews, 2016).

The findings of this study highlight some ways that compositional techniques are used to reinforce the development of student instrumentalists’ musical skills. In a collaborative process with music teachers and students, composer participants used techniques related to musical elements (melody, rhythm, dynamics, harmony, form, texture, and timbre) to develop technical and expressive performance skills, while also reinforcing communication, appreciation, and creativity skills. Our findings support the process model of composition, while adding insights about collaborative aspects in educational composition, especially in the conceptualizing and refining stages. We also found that the process of composing educational music was similar to composing other genres of music. This finding was expressed by Cam, who summarized composing for student musicians as follows: “The overarching principle of good composition still applies, even (especially!) to educational music: great music tells a story and speaks the emotional language of the soul.”

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3 Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Canadian Music Centre with funds provided by the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Research With Human Participants

An ethics certificate was provided by the University of Ottawa’s Research Ethics Board.

ORCID iDs

Susan Mielke

Bernard W. Andrews

Notes

Author biographies

Susan Mielke is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa. Her research focuses on the impact of ageing on music learning with adults.

Bernard W. Andrews is professor of Education at the University of Ottawa. His research focuses on educational music, interactive teaching strategies, arts partnerships, arts-based research methods, and teacher development in the arts.

References

Andrews

B. W.

(2004a). Conceptualizing new music for young musicians. In Bartel

L. R.

(Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 146–160). Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Andrews

B. W.

(2004b). How composers compose: In search of the questions. Research & Issues in Music Education, 2(1), 1–17. https://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol2/iss1/3

Andrews

B. W.

(2009). Secrets of the pied piper: Strategies for composing music for young musicians. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 13(1), 6–14.

Andrews

B. W.

(2011). The Music Complexity Chart (MC²): Identifying the characteristics of levels of difficulty in educational music. In Bolden

Kennedy

(Eds.), Widening the boundaries of music education (pp. 109–135). University of Victoria.

Andrews

B. W.

(2012). New sounds of learning project: Composing educational music update. Canadian Music Educator/Musicien Educateur Au Canada, 54(2), 48–51.

Andrews

B. W.

(2013). Composing educational music for strings in the Canadian context: Composer perspectives. Canadian Music Educator, 55(1), 10–17.

Andrews

B. W.

(2015). Sound connections: Composing educational music. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 9(1), 13–22.

Andrews

B. W.

(2016). Working together: A case study of a national arts education partnership. Peter Lang.

Andrews

B. W.

Giesbrecht

(2014). Composing educational music for strings in real time. International Journal of Contemporary Composition, 10, 24–38.

10.

Apfelstadt

(2000). First things first: Selecting repertoire. Music Educators Journal, 87(1), 19–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399672

11.

Battisti

Garofalo

(1990). Guide to score study for the wind band conductor. Meredith Music.

12.

Bauer

W. I.

(1996). The selection of concert band music by high school band directors. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 15(1), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512339601500102

13.

Becker

(1986). Is Western art music superior? The Musical Quarterly, 72(3), 341–359. http://www.jstor.org/stable/948146

14.

Bennett

(1976). The process of musical creation: Interviews with eight composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345061

15.

Berkley

(2004). Teaching composing as creative problem solving: Conceptualising composing pedagogy. British Journal of Music Education, 21, 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505170400587X

16.

Budiansky

Foley

T. W.

(2005). The quality of repertoire in school music programs: Literature review, analysis, and discussion. Journal of the World Association for Symphonic Bands and Ensembles, 12, 17–39. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/39c2/cc32f351deea2872ee3ba18ff5127a3705e8.pdf

17.

Caslor

(2018). Of all the bands I’ve heard, this is certainly one of them. Canadian Winds: The Journal of the Canadian Band Association, 16(2), 37–40. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/all-bands-ive-heard-this-is-certainly-one-them/docview/2228585037/se-2?accountid=14701

18.

Collins

(2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition. Psychology of Music, 33(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0305735605050651

19.

Denisov

(1973). The compositional process. Tempo: A Quarterly Review of New Music, 105, 2–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/942977

20.

Doig

(1942). Creative music: III Music composed to illustrate given musical problems. The Journal of Educational Research, 36(4), 241–255. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27528359

21.

Duarte

A. M.

Constantinidi

N. P.

(2021). Learning and music composition: An analysis of composers’ testimonies. Research Studies in Music Education, 43(3), 513–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X19879513

22.

Forrester

S. H.

(2017). Repertoire selection for concert band: Preservice music teachers’ perceptions and development of knowledge. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 19(1), 14–31. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/fmea/rpme/2017/00000019/00000001/art00002

23.

Gaiser

T. J.

Schreiner

A. E.

(2009). A guide to conducting online research. SAGE. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9780857029003

24.

Gillespie

Hedgecoth

(2017). A full orchestra in the schools: Why they are important, where to start, and how to continue. American String Teacher, 67(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/000313131706700104

25.

Hallam

(2010). 21st century conceptions of musical ability. Psychology of Music, 38, 308–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609351922

26.

Hallam

Bautista

(2018). Processes of instrumental learning: The development of musical expertise. In McPherson

G. E.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.), Vocal, instrumental, and ensemble learning and teaching: An Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 108–125). Oxford University Press.

27.

Hargreaves

(1996). The development of artistic and musical competence. In Deliège

Sloboda

(Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 145–170). Oxford University Press.

28.

Kabalevsky

(1964). The composer and music for children. Music Educators Journal, 50(4), 49–50.

29.

Kaschub

(2020). We are mindful of the critical relationship between repertoire and curriculum. Music Educators Journal, 106(3), 8–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119897248

30.

Koops

A. P.

(2013). Facilitating composition in instrumental settings. In Kaschub

Smith

J. P.

(Eds.), Composing our future: Preparing music educators to teach composition (pp. 149–166). Oxford University Press.

31.

Kruse

A. J.

(2015). Preservice music teachers’ experiences with and attitudes toward music genres. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(3), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083714530721

32.

Laycock

(2005). A changing role for the composer in society: A study of the historical background and current methodologies of creative music-making. Peter Lang.

33.

Lehmann

A. C.

Sloboda

J. A.

Woody

R. H.

(2007). Psychology for musicians: Understanding and acquiring the skills. Oxford University Press.

34.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.

35.

McCallum

(2007). Repertoire as curriculum. Canadian Winds/Journal of the Canadian Band Association, 5(2), 105–106. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/repertoire-as-curriculum/docview/201129427/se-2?accountid=14701

36.

McCutchan

(1999). The muse that sings: Composers speak about the creative process. Oxford University Press.

37.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

38.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

39.

Odena

(2012a). Musical creativity: Insights from music education research. Routledge.

40.

Odena

(2012b). Perspectives on musical creativity: Where next? In Odena

(Ed.), Musical creativity: Insights from music education research (pp. 201–214). Routledge.

41.

Regelski

T. A.

(2006). “Music appreciation” as praxis. Music Education Research, 8(2), 281–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800600779584

42.

Reynolds

H. R.

(2000). Repertoire is the curriculum: Repertoire selection has a major impact on what students will and will not learn, and it should help their musical understanding and appreciation. Music Educators Journal, 87(1), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399675

43.

Royal Conservatory of Music. (2015). Piano syllabus. The Royal Conservatory of Music. Retrieved from https://rcmusic-kentico-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/rcm/media/main/documents/examinations/syllabi/s41_pianosyllabus_2016_online_f.pdf

44.

Schupp

R. C.

(1964). Selecting music for junior high school orchestra. Music Educators Journal, 51(2), 97–99. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3390309

45.

Sheldon

D. A.

(1996). Selecting music for beginning and developing bands. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 6(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105708379600600103

46.

Sloboda

J. A.

(1986). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford University Press.

47.

Sloboda

J. A.

Davidson

(1996). The young performing musician. In Deliège

Sloboda

(Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 171–190). Oxford University Press.

48.

St. Pierre

E. A.

Jackson

A. Y

. (2014). Qualitative data analysis after coding. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 715–710. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077800414532435

49.

Tan

(2017). Concept teaching in instrumental music education: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35, 38–45. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/8755123315604455

50.

Wasiak

(2010). Selecting repertoire for young bands. Canadian Winds: The Journal of the Canadian Band Association, 8(2), Article 90.

51.

Watson

K. E.

(2013). Selecting repertoire for jazz ensembles: Curricular and developmental considerations. Canadian Music Educator, 55(1), 42–44.

52.

Wendzich

Andrews

B. W.

(2019). Gone with the wind: What do composers learn writing educational music for young musicians in the Canadian context? Canadian Music Educator, 60(1), 15–22.

53.

Wiggins

(2007). Compositional process in music. In Bresler

(Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 453–469). Springer.

54.

Younker

B. A.

Smith

W. H.

(1996). Comparing and modeling musical thought processes of expert and novice composers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 128, 25–36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40318786