The Kodály Concept in the United States: Early American Adaptations to Recent Evolutions

Research Questions and Methodology

Questions that guided the research were: (1) Who was Zoltán Kodály and what was his philosophy of music education? (2) Who were some of the American music educators who initially implemented the Kodály concept in the United States and what role did they play in the spread of the concept? and (3) How has the Kodály concept evolved in the United States?

To address these questions, I examined numerous primary sources and select secondary sources. Kodály wrote prolifically on music, music education, and the role of music education in Hungary; however, it was important to view the Kodály concept through the eyes of American music educators. Therefore, I examined the publications and written documents of those who were influential in the American Kodály movement from the mid-1960s through the present day, in addition to writings by and about Kodály. To gain a clear understanding of Kodály’s own interpretation of his concept, I drew on several of his essays which have been translated by Ferenc Bónis; however, the main body of this research is drawn from the writings of significant contributors to the Kodály movement in the United States. Many of these writings have been published as books, essay collections, and articles. Additionally, I reviewed a collection of drafts and transcripts of presentations and lectures given by American contributors that is currently held by the New Orleans Theological Seminary and categorized under the title Lectures and Information About the Kodály Concept of Teaching. Understanding the interpretations and actions of these educators and pedagogues was key to tracing the development and implementation of the Kodály concept in the United States. Finally, I examined more recent Kodály-based texts and other publications by current scholars and music educators. The content of these sources illuminated the evolution of the Kodály concept in the United States and provided guidance for possible future research.

Zoltán Kodály and His Philosophy

Zoltán Kodály, a Hungarian composer, ethnomusicologist, and music educator, is known widely for his philosophical and pedagogical contributions to music education. ⁵ Early in his career, Kodály gained notoriety for his research and collection of Hungarian folk songs. These folk songs heavily influenced Kodály’s compositional style, so much so that Kodály, along with fellow composer Béla Bartók, were well known for their creation of a new style of art music based on the folk music of Hungary. ⁶

Kodály began collecting Hungarian folk songs in 1905, ⁷ eventually writing his thesis, A Magyar népdal strófaszerkezete (The Stanzaic Structure of Hungarian Folk Song), about the music he had collected. ⁸ Once he received his PhD in 1906, Kodály moved to Buda (part of Budapest, Hungary), where he expanded his research of Hungarian folk music, composed a number of works, and began writing and publishing scholarly works. ⁹ Kodály worked closely with Bartók to publish what became a significant collection of Hungarian folksongs taken from the recordings of Béla Vikár. ¹⁰ Many of Kodály’s scholarly works were compiled into the volume The Selected Writings of Zoltán Kodály, translated by Ferenc Bónis in 1964. An English translation followed in 1974. ¹¹ This collection included essays and speeches on the topics of folk music, fellow composers, music education, and his own works, with the first essay dating to 1906 on the topic of Hungarian folksongs.

In the 1940s, Kodály began to shift his attention toward music education in Hungarian schools, marked by his essay on “Music in the Kindergarten” written in 1941, in which he emphasized the importance of music for young children. He wrote that “Language is the first subconscious keystone of Hungarian-ness” and that music is the “other subconscious keystone” which in Kindergarten may be even more important than language. ¹² Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Kodály worked to improve music education in Hungary. He believed that it was his “mission to give back to the people of Hungary their own musical heritage and to raise the level of musical literacy, not only in academy students but also in the population as a whole.” ¹³ He wrote: “It is the right of every citizen to be taught the basic elements of music, to be handed the key with which he can enter the locked world of music.” ¹⁴

In 1950, Kodály convinced the Ministry of Education to give him access to one class in Kecskemét. He, along with Márta Nemesszghy, taught music lessons in that class every day and used Kodály’s own materials and sequence. ¹⁵ The teaching experiment was so successful that since then, more than 160 music primary schools (sometimes referred to as singing schools) have been established. ¹⁶ Music was and is treated as a core subject in these schools. ¹⁷

Despite being frequently referred to as the Kodály “method” around the world, it is unlikely that Kodály viewed his approach as a method. A number of Kodály experts from the United States have discussed the misconception of there being a method. Mark Williams, an American music educator, simply stated: “There is no Kodály method.” ¹⁸ Denise Bacon, in a speech given in 1982, described it not as a method, but as a philosophy of teaching and living. ¹⁹ Most Kodály scholars have adopted the term “concept” as a more accurate description of the approach. ²⁰ Mícheál Houlahan and Philip Tacka stressed that the approach is a philosophy, and note that the “method” many refer to is a collection of tools used to “facilitate instruction and learning,” including moveable do solmization, hand signs (attributed to John Curwen), rhythmic syllables, and stick notation. ²¹ Lois Choksy ²² outlined Kodály’s educational philosophy, noting five specific components:

Kodály firmly believed that music was for everyone, not only the elite. Therefore, it was necessary for all children to receive excellent, daily musical training in the schools, and that early instruction should be based on folk songs of the highest quality from the child’s native culture. ²³

Singing is a central component of Kodály’s approach to teaching music. ²⁴ Kodály believed that because every person has the ability to access his or her singing voice, ²⁵ it was the most “direct means to a musical education.” ²⁶ Additionally, Kodály believed that singing is natural for children, and it is rare for a child to truly lack the ability to sing. Those who struggle to sing often have had their musicality curbed by adults and have become self-conscious. ²⁷

Kodály believed that music was the right of every human being. Seeing music falling out of the lives of the citizens of his own country inspired him to conceive a philosophy that would bring music to the lives of the general public. The ideas found in Kodály’s philosophy were universal and resounded with music educators around the world, including those in the United States.

Bringing the Kodály Concept to the United States: 1962–1975

Many people can be credited with playing a key role in the implementation of the Kodály concept to the United States; however, it would be outside the scope of this article to discuss the contributions of every single person associated with the Kodály movement in its early years. To determine which American music educators to include, I decided that it was best to examine one lineage of educators. Mary Helen Richards, Denise Bacon, Lois Choksy, and Sr. Lorna Zemke, each of whom made notable contributions to the American Kodály movement, all share connections to one another and served in significant roles in the early days of the Kodály movement.

The Kodály Concept in the Late Twentieth Century

Educators who embraced the Kodály concept found themselves in a unique situation during the educational reforms of the 1980s and 1990s. Poor economic conditions, lack of resources, and declining enrollments contributed to the low quality of education in the United States in the 1970s. This spurred the accountability movement, and the eventual release of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform in April 1983. ⁸⁸ Educational reforms focused on defining a core curriculum and preparing students to succeed in a technologically advancing society. This led to the publishing of the National Standards for Music Education in 1994, which prominently featured many of the aspects of music education that the Kodály concept had always promoted. ⁸⁹ Choksy noted that the National Standards included the following aspects: “music for all, not just the talented few; singing as the basis for musicianship; moving to music; the development of analytical skills and music literacy, familiarity with the heritage of great musical masterworks; ability to improvise and compose.” ⁹⁰

The Kodály concept continued to spread during the 1990s. Sr. Mary Alice Hein described how teachers who had studied the concept were entering the classroom with enthusiasm and dedication, ready to impact the lives of both children and adults. ⁹¹ The structure and sequencing of the Kodály concept enabled teachers to adapt to new educational requirements set forth by national standards.

Lois Choksy’s The Kodály Method, first published in 1974, continued to be accepted as the format of lesson planning, sequencing, and teaching within the Kodály movement during this time period. Choksy’s teaching model, and the teaching model of many Kodály teachers, included four steps: prepare, present, practice, assess. ⁹² Within the preparation phase, there were suggested activities for physical, aural, and visual experiences with the new musical element. New elements were presented with the name (solfege or rhythm syllable) and the notation simultaneously. Following presentation, the new element was practiced, and the students were assessed on their understanding.

Choksy’s teaching model was used as part of a spiral curriculum. When a new element was being prepared, the previously learned element was being practiced. This is a hallmark of the Kodály concept. No music element is compartmentalized. While Choksy’s teaching model is widely known, it is not the only adaptation of the concept that developed in the United States.

Ann Eisen and Lamar Robertson published the first edition of An American Methodology in 1996. The second edition followed in 2002. The authors presented an approach very similar to Choksy’s teaching model. ⁹³ The principal objectives of both approaches focused on the development of children’s innate musicality, giving children the tools for music literacy, making the children’s own musical culture known to them, and making the great art music of the world available to children. ⁹⁴

The Kodály Concept in the Twenty-First Century

The American Kodály teaching model went through limited changes from the mid-1960s until the mid-2000s. Teachers followed the prepare–present–practice–assess sequence without having little more than basic child development research to inform their practices, despite Kodály scholars agreeing that the Kodály concept is rooted in child development. ⁹⁵ Characteristics of child development should determine the overall sequence of a curriculum; however, details can vary between countries, and even within countries. ⁹⁶ Leaders in the Kodály movement have considered these variances and have consistently noted that their published curricula and sequences are suggestions, and should be adapted to suit the culture and needs of the students. ⁹⁷

More recently, several Kodály pedagogues have made a turn toward developing more research-based models and sequences that are better suited for schools in the twenty-first century. Some of these pedagogues include John Feierabend, Susan Brumfield, and Micheál Houlahan and Philip Tacka, all of whom have contributed to the evolution of the Kodály concept in unique ways.

John Feierabend has published numerous materials influenced by the Kodály approach. Although he has spent many years teaching in Kodály training programs, Feierabend moved away from the traditional model and teaching sequence of melodic and rhythmic concepts. ⁹⁸ He recommended presenting mi-re-do before sol-mi, and introducing simple and compound meter simultaneously as this approach may be more reflective of American music history and culture. Most American folk music is based on a mi-re-do pattern and includes music in both simple and compound meter. This departure from the traditional Kodály model likely played a role in the establishment of the Feierabend Association for Music Education (FAME), an organization rooted in Feierabend’s work that is not affiliated with OAKE.

Susan Brumfield published a teaching guide, a resource pack, songbooks, and other materials under the umbrella title of “First We Sing” in 2014. In these materials, she offered an updated version of how to implement the Kodály concept in elementary music classrooms. ⁹⁹ Her materials have similarities to those which have come before, including the prepare–present–practice–assess model of teaching and an emphasis on the use of American folk music; however, she explicitly emphasized that the contents of her adaptation should be used as a guide and that all materials, sequences, and procedures are suggestions that should be adjusted as necessary. Interestingly, Brumfield chose to use the term method in her materials and pointed to Choksy’s use of the term as support.

Mícheál Houlahan and Philip Tacka sought to bring a more research-based approach to Kodály teaching with the publication of Kodály Today in 2008. Their teaching model presented the most significant change to the traditional model in more than 30 years. The components of Kodály’s philosophy remained as the guiding principles of Houlahan and Tacka’s approach; however, central to their approach was a research-based sound to symbol learning theory model. This revision served as an update to the standard Kodály-based model that had been in place for more than twenty years. ¹⁰⁰

The Houlahan and Tacka model of music learning is based on the theories of Pestalozzi, Jerome Bruner, and Edwin Gordon. Prepare, present, and practice are not used as labels for each phase of the teaching sequence. Instead, cognitive, associative, and assimilative are used as labels and are based on Bruner’s theory of instruction. ¹⁰¹ Houlahan and Tacka noted that in the cognitive phase, students are given the opportunity to gain kinesthetic, aural, and visual awareness through specifically sequenced experiences. ¹⁰² They stressed the importance of the specific sequence of musical experiences. The aural awareness phase is particularly important because if students are unable to describe what they hear, then their aural skills will not develop in “tandem” with their visual skills. ¹⁰³

Another significant difference found in the Houlahan and Tacka model is what they label as the associative phase (“present” phase in older terms). Choksy’s teaching model calls for the teacher to aurally label the new element (solfege or rhythm syllable) while simultaneously presenting the notation. Houlahan and Tacka first present the name of the element aurally without the visual notation. Once students are able to identify the new element aurally, then the notation is presented.

Conclusion

The Kodály concept, first developed by Zoltán Kodály in Hungary, is a philosophy and approach to teaching music to children that is rooted in the belief that it is every human being’s right to receive a music education and to be given the necessary tools to read and understand music, particularly the music of his or her own culture. Several American music educators found value in the concept and put forth a notable effort to adapt and implement the concept into the American music education system. Mary Helen Richards was one of the first Americans to bring the Kodály concept to the United States; however, it was Denise Bacon who dedicated herself to learning about the concept and to bringing it to other music educators. Bacon’s contributions, including the establishment of Kodály training programs, helped to solidify the presence of the Kodály concept in American music education. Lois Choksy contributed to the Kodály movement through her publication of several books in which she presented one of most recognizable and widely used adaptions of the concept. Sr. Lorna Zemke’s scholarly publications, including her dissertation, helped to encourage a clearer understanding of the Kodály concept, particularly in the early years.

These four music educators believed that the Kodály concept had the potential to make an impact on American music education, and worked to spread the philosophy and approach throughout the United States. They recognized Kodály’s belief that it was necessary to make adaptations based on the culture in which the concept was being implemented. Although their early adaptions likely worked for the school programs of the 1970s and 1980s, several other music educators and scholars recognized the need to update the concept, including curricular frameworks, teaching techniques, and materials. Choksy, along with Eisen and Robertson, and Brumfield, published updated versions of the concept, but did not stray far from the traditional model. Feierabend has established his own approach to music teaching, which includes a focus on a sequence that is more reflective of the characteristics of American folk music. He has remained rooted in Kodály principles despite having shifted his work toward the establishment of FAME. Houlahan and Tacka have presented the first significant departure from the model presented by Bacon, Choksy, and Zemke in the early years of the Kodály movement while also remaining true to the Kodály concept. They based their model on the work of the Kodály educators who came before them, but they also rooted their work in the theories of Pestalozzi, Jerome Bruner, and Edwin Gordon.

Although there have been many publications on the Kodály concept, Phillips and Doneski noted a considerable lack of research related to the Kodály approach to teaching. ¹⁰⁴ Recent years have seen a paucity of empirical studies on the philosophy and approach. The majority of publications have come from those who are heavily involved in the Kodály movement in the United States. Researchers are encouraged to conduct studies examining the teaching process utilized by Kodály teachers, as it has the potential to inform the teaching practices of all music educators, including those who may not strictly adhere to the philosophy. Houlahan and Tacka’s current work and slight step out from the main line of the traditional American Kodály concept is indicative of an initial shift toward a more research-based approach. Additionally, Kodály music educators and researchers should seek avenues of publication outside of the Kodály Envoy, a journal published by the Organization of American Kodály Educators. If the Kodály movement is to continue and grow, it is necessary for those within the movement to reach outside and share their knowledge. Sharing knowledge, techniques, and philosophies is beneficial to all music educators, Kodály and otherwise.