Technology in Music Education: Brick by Brick

Barton Polot, The University of Michigan

I’d like to tell you the story of a fictional character: I’m calling him "Christopher." Christopher is a high school senior and is applying for admission to the undergraduate degree program in music education at the University of Michigan. As part of my responsibilities at Michigan, I’m involved in the admissions process: I read the transcripts and the letters of recommendation, I attend auditions, and I conduct a lot of interviews. Christopher, although not real, is an amalgam, a composite of the high school seniors I have interviewed. Allow me to tell you about Christopher; his story sheds some light into our profession.

Christopher

As I mentioned, Christopher is a high school musician; his principal instrument is trumpet.

Let’s go back to his earliest experience with the trumpet. He began his instrumental music instruction in a beginning instruments class in the fifth grade. He and many other interested fifth graders received a "loaner" instrument from the school during the first year of instruction. During that year Christopher’s parents were pleased with their son’s progress and interest, and so they decided to rent a trumpet from a local music store during Christopher’s sixth and seventh grade years. They purchased a student-caliber instrument when he became an eighth grader, and traded up to a better instrument when he entered tenth grade.

Christopher’s fifth grade instrument class studied from one of today’s popular method books for beginning instruments. Christopher learned the rudiments of embouchure, tone production and fingering from his method book, which included a cassette home practice.

Christopher’s trumpet playing also benefited, of course, from the excellent instruction he received from his fifth grade music teacher, and he continued to receive good instruction when he moved up to middle school the next year. He played in his middle school band, his high school band, marching band, and in his senior year, his high school orchestra. Also in his senior year he served as student conductor of his high school band.

When he was in eighth grade Christopher’s parents decided that he would benefit from private lessons on the trumpet. He studied for two years from a retired music teacher, then three years with a member of the local symphony orchestra.

One of the highlights of each school year was the day Christopher’s high school band went to "Festival." Christopher also attended the Solo & Ensemble Festival four times; in three of those years he earned "one’s" at the state level.

Christopher spent two summers at Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp and two summers at the music camp at Interlochen. For two years he was a member of the Michigan Youth Orchestra. He enjoys attending symphony concerts and has a large record collection.

I will be interviewing Christopher when he comes to the University of Michigan campus next month. He will present himself well, will play a fine audition, and the faculty will vote to admit him to our program in instrumental music education.

The Music Education Infrastructure

Christopher’s story is a nice story. Fiction, yes, but not unusual. The fact is that there are a lot of Christophers in high schools all over the U.S., and the reason is that there are a lot of dedicated teachers doing a successful job of the business of educating young musicians. And, of course, there are literally tens of thousands of students who will not major in music in college but whose lives will forever be enriched by their wonderful music experience during their school years.

As teachers, we cannot take full credit for Christopher’s success. As my story illustrates, Christopher’s success was the result of several independent and interdependent factors: the school system that supported instrumental music in the elementary schools, including the instrument loan program; the local music merchants who make available all variety of student instruments for sale or lease; the instrument manufacturers who develop and market student instruments; the many excellent method books and quality literature, supported by music publishers and marketed by local merchants; the network of private instructors; professional music teacher organizations, providing not just the state and local festivals, but professional leadership as well; and dozens of quality programs like the regional youth ensembles and the summer music camps. And there are several less visible but equally important parts of Christopher’s story: the many universities that train music teachers and provide in-service for today’s practitioners; the state boards of education that certify music teachers and provide the guidelines for certification; the influence of the National Association of Schools of Music on curricula in music education; and national programs like Goals 2000 and The National Standards for Arts Education. Without all these support factors, Christopher’s music teachers might have been able to nurture his talent and interest, but almost certainly to a much lesser extent.

Take these factors as a whole — the school music programs, the music industry, the professional organizations, the teacher training institutions — and you have what I call the "music education infrastructure." You can trace the origins of the music education infrastructure all the way back to Lowell Mason and 18th century Boston. The singing schools, shape notes, the earliest method books, each was a brick added to the infrastructure. With each generation, new bricks were added to strengthen and enhance the infrastructure: the founding of university schools of music, the founding of MENC, the band contests. You have the great pedagogues like Kodály and Suzuki, you have great leaders like Joe Maddy and Bill Revelli. Each generation builds upon the brickwork of previous generations: the Tanglewood Symposium, the Ann Arbor Symposium, and today the National Standards.

Pessimists may point to the cracks in the infrastructure, making an issue of the problems facing music education today. What 200-year-old infrastructure doesn’t suffer a few cracks and faults? But the fact remains that this infrastructure provided the foundation of support for Christopher and for thousands of young musicians like him at every turn of their musical development. In every state in the union you can find music being made in the public schools, much of it wonderful, some of it of the highest caliber, forever enriching the lives of its participants. For that you can point to all the elements of the music education infrastructure, of which we are all a part, and feel a sense of pride.

The Story Changes

But wait: I’m not yet through with my story about Christopher. In fact, I’m just getting to the good part. My story takes a Hollywood turn — a "Frank Capra" turn — a "Spielberg" turn. I’m going to turn back the clock, go back in time, back to that fateful moment in 1987 when Christopher was in fifth grade. All other factors in my story will remain the same: Christopher’s musical aptitude and interest in music, his family’s interest and support, his school music program — all are the same. But one key factor in this story is about to change: Christopher’s choice of instrument. Given the opportunity to choose a musical instrument, he does not select the trumpet. In this scenario, Christopher elects to play the synthesizer.

Imagine that: the synthesizer. Let’s put Christopher’s decision in some sort of historical perspective. In the fall of 1987, when Christopher entered fifth grade, MIDI was in its fifth year of existence and was already a mature and pervasive technology. MIDI sequencing software was available for all personal computers. The Yamaha DX7, the most popular MIDI keyboard of its day, was already in its second version release. Multitimbral sound modules were being developed by all the major manufacturers. And, of course, Christopher heard the sound of synthesizers in music everywhere he listened. He wanted to create those sounds. He wanted to build music part-by-multitimbral-part. Even at his young age, he wanted to be an electronic musician.

So let’s follow Christopher in his pursuit of an education in synthesis and sequencing.

To start with, Christopher’s parents were supportive of their son’s interest, so they spoke with his school’s music teacher. What they learned was that the school provided instruction for band and orchestra instruments, not for electronic instruments. No school in his district had a program in music technology, and none of the music teachers felt qualified or equipped to teach such a program. Consequently, Christopher did not participate at all in his school’s instrumental music program.

Looking elsewhere, Christopher’s parents called the local music merchants seeking lessons. While several of them provided piano lessons or referrals to area teachers, none offered lessons in synthesizers. Self-study books were no help, either: although many explained the technical issues of creating music with electronic tools, none actually taught the musical skills Christopher would have needed to create in a musical and meaningful way.

Christopher’s parents had no better luck in their attempt to obtain an instrument for their son. Their hopes of leasing a synthesizer from a music store were soon dashed: not a single music store was willing to rent or lease a synthesizer, and with good reason. Synthesizer technology was changing too rapidly, the instruments lost their resale value too quickly. Christopher’s parents, faced with having to purchase an instrument for their son but wary of investing a lot of money for a beginner, ended up buying a battery-operated keyboard. This modest instrument, with all its "bells and whistles," captivated Christopher — for a month or two. The novelty eventually wore off, however, and lacking any structured instruction, Christopher played his keyboard less and less until, after a year, it hardly left the closet. Christopher hardly played any music at all during his sixth grade year.

Alarmed by their son’s disinterest in music-making, Christopher’s parents decided to make another investment. When Christopher entered seventh grade, they purchased a new instrument, a real synthesizer, a Kawai K-1. With its multitimbral capability and full MIDI implementation, Christopher’s new synthesizer provided a real outlet for making the kind of music he carried around in his head. Also, that same year Christopher’s father purchased a new computer and gave his old Apple II to his son. Christopher purchased a MIDI interface and a program called Trax; he was now a bona fide MIDI musician.

Christopher enjoyed using his equipment to duplicate his favorite popular songs. He would sequence a drum part, then add the bass part, then keyboard and guitar parts. His piano skills were limited, so he recorded a lot of his music at slow speeds or in step time; when he played the music back in his sequencer he sounded like a virtuoso. It was very inspiring.

Over the years Christopher added to his system, purchasing a sound module, and a MIDI drum pad. He created some original music, and sometimes shared his tapes with his friends. By the time he graduated from high school, Christopher had great expertise in using MIDI equipment. However, the quality his music suffered from his lack of formal training. His original compositions were simple bordering on trite — almost always in C major, almost always with a limited vocabulary of primary chords, almost all set to a fundamental rock beat.

Despite his avid interest in music, Christopher maintained no contact with his school music program. The music teachers in Christopher’s high school do not even know his name.

Christopher has applied for admission to the University of Michigan, but I will not be interviewing him next month. He has applied to the School of Engineering — and he will be accepted. During his freshman year he will learn about the Music and Technology degree program at the School of Music. He will drop by, see our high-tech facilities, and become acquainted with some of our music technology majors. In February of next year he will submit an application to be transferred to the music school. It is at that point that I will probably meet Christopher and listen to his audition tape. Disappointed in his musical naiveté but impressed with his academic record and interest in our program, I will join my colleagues and recommend his transfer.

Comparing Christopher’s Experiences

Remember that it was in fifth grade that Christopher decided that he wanted to play the synthesizer. The implications of his decision are best illustrated by comparing his experience with the synthesizer to his experience on the trumpet.

In short, Christopher and thousands of students like him have been cut off from practically all the enriching benefits our profession has to offer — simply because of his decision to play the synthesizer.

Was Christopher Wrong?

Was Christopher wrong— choosing the synthesizer instead of an acoustic instrument? Hardly. In this room filled with enlightened music educators, I’m guessing most of us would agree with Christopher’s choice. Would any of us contend that the technologies of synthesis and sequencing are transient — will cease to exist in a few years? (No.) Would any of us contend that synthesis and sequencing are inherently nonmusical — incapable of conveying a musician’s artistry or musicianship? (No.) Would any of us contend that a student well-schooled in the art of synthesis and sequencing would be less likely to find a career in music than, say, a bassoonist? (No!)

In many respects, Christopher’s decision shows more insight and foresight than our profession has achieved to date. The purpose of this paper, then, is to assume that Christopher was correct — that the time is right and the reasons are right for students to study music technology in the schools. The purpose of this paper is to propose that music technology achieve a degree of parity with our school programs of band, orchestra, and choir. To achieve this parity requires the construction of a new infrastructure of music technology education, and the purpose of this paper is to show how this infrastructure would be constructed, brick by brick.

Incorporating Music Technology in the K-12 Curriculum

In the Music Classroom

Although new technology has generated many new opportunities for music activities in schools, my recommendations focus on the two major revolutions in music-making: synthesis and sequencing. I doubt anyone here today needs these terms defined, here they are:

Synthesis is the process of making music using electronic timbres. Taught properly, a student should learn to perform on an electronic synthesizer with the same artistry and musicality that an acoustic musician brings to his instrument. In addition, a student well-schooled in synthesis should understand the process of creating and manipulating timbres.

Sequencing entails the use of a hardware- or software-based device that allows the user to record, play back, and manipulate MIDI performance data. Using virtual multiple tracks, the musician performs each part of a score, using the technology to combine the parts into a whole.

Training Teachers

For synthesis and sequencing to gain a foothold in America’s schools, changes must be made in the way America’s music teachers are trained. Few of today’s undergraduates experienced music technology in their own school life, and so few undergraduates give consideration to the role of technology in the classes they hope to teach. Indeed, most undergraduates choose a career in music education to perpetuate their own fond experiences in school music. I seek to break this cycle.

Music teacher certification programs generally call upon students to become acquainted with all the orchestral instruments. For example, at Michigan, instrumental music education majors will elect courses like Trombone 111, Oboe 111, etc. To this we should soon be adding a new required course: Music Technology 111. In so doing we acknowledge the birth in this century of a new family of instruments, and of the importance that each music educator gain expertise in this new genre. Music Technology 111 would include an introduction to synthesis and sequencing, synthesizer ensemble experience, as well as exposure to all the alternative wind, string and percussion MIDI controllers.

Universities can go further to demonstrate the pervasiveness of electronic music-making in today’s music world. They should organize synthesizer ensembles, and offer a formula for participation in such groups to satisfy the ensemble requirement in the core curriculum. They should provide incentives that would encourage faculty to incorporate technology routinely in the way course material is presented and in the way assignments are made — requiring that theory assignments be note-processed, for example. And lessons in synthesizer performance should be offered as an applied instrument. Unless the academy assumes the responsibility for elevating the art of electronic music performance, the progress of electronic artistry will continue to lag behind the progress of music technology.

Additionally, teacher-training institutions need to use every opportunity to ingrain the new technology in the classrooms of today’s teachers. In-services, workshop sessions, summer courses, consultations and clinics are some of the ways that today’s music teachers can be influenced. Last Thursday in Ann Arbor, I co-directed a full-day conference on music education technology. It was attended by more than two hundred music teachers from Michigan schools. I’m beginning to see signs of progress in my state.

Universities can also provide great service to pre-college students. They can offer weekend and summer workshops, regional youth MIDI ensembles, and school intern programs. While the teaching profession catches up with the today’s technology, our universities have many of the resources to help fill the gaps.

Concluding Remarks

And so, that’s it: my vision of an infrastructure in music technology education: the teacher training, the schools, the industry, and the professional organizations. Surely, if music education profession fails to serve the growing number of young people who are drawn to electronic music-making, if it turns its back on Christopher, it is at its ultimate peril.

As music teachers, we should feel encouraged: we stand today on the threshold of a new category of music education, a category defined by a kind of music-making that was new ten or twenty years ago but is now well established in the professional world; a new category that shares with the rest of music education all the traditional elements of music, yet is as different from the rest of music education as band is different from choir. This is a new chapter in the history of music education, and the first page is barely written. In the history of music technology education, we are the Lowell Masons, the Karl Orffs, the Bill Revellis. And just as we look back in admiration at previous generations of music educators, so should future generations of young electronic musicians, and their teachers, look back with gratitude at our efforts.

We have the opportunity to build a new infrastructure in music technology education, and the way to begin is the way our predecessors began: brick by brick.

Editor's note: Dr. Polot's presentation includedd many excellent ideas for building a new infrastructure which were deleted from this publication in the interest of space.