Minggu, 30 November 2014

jurnal international

 International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
 ISSN 2304-4098
 Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

Composing Educational Music for Strings in Real Time
B. W. Andrews and M. Giesbrecht
University of Ottawa

New Sounds of Learning: Composing music for young musicians is a multi-site, multi-year research project partnered with the Canadian Music Centre and the Ottawa Catholic School Board to commission composers to compose new music for students in school ensembles and private studios and to examine the parameters of educational music. This article outlines findings on the analysis and interpretation of reflective journals undertaken by professional composers during the composing of new string music for students enrolled in school music programs and private studios.

A Personal Journey
In the early stages of my career when I was heavily involved in teaching and administering music programs, I was often frustrated by the lack of available Canadian repertoire for school ensembles.1 During my years as a representative of the faculties of education on the Ontario Regional Council of the Canadian Music Centre (CMC),2 I became aware of the efforts of the organization to promote Canadian music in education across the country. Guidelists of Canadian music appropriate for young musicians were produced under the auspices of the John Adaskin Project (e.g., MacInnes, 1991; Shand, 1993, Stubley, 1990, Walter, 1994). Composers created new music for schools in Creating Music in the Classroom (Washburn, 1960), teaching resources were disseminated in the Composter Project (CMC, 1992), and student compositions were critiqued by professional composers in Composer in Electronic Residence (Barwin, 1998). .
In my work with the CMC, I was involved in applications for commissioning funds for new music for young musicians and in direct contact with professional composers. It was brought to my attention on several occasions that many composers were unfamiliar with the parameters of educational music. Composers are trained to compose at ever-increasing levels of complexity (Hatrik, 2002; Terauds, 2011) and seldom have the opportunity to write for young musicians. Moreover, there are few commissions available for educational music composition (Van Eyk, 2011). In studies of programs in faculties of music across Ontario with a colleague at Wilfrid University, Waterloo, Ontario, we found that composers are not trained to compose for


1 This narrative refers to the experiences of the lead author.
2 The Canadian Music is a not-for-profit association of professional composers with a national office in Toronto, Ontario and five regional offices: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, and British Columbia

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

educational purposes. Moreover, there is very limited Canadian repertoire studied and performed in post-secondary institutions (Andrews & Carruthers, 2004; Carruthers, 2000). The situation is similar in school-based music programs where American film music and Western-European transcriptions for concert band and vocal ensembles dominate the curriculum (Bartel, Dolloff, & Shand 1999; Shand & Bartel, 1998; Varahidis, 2012). These three critical issues – composers‟ lack of training in educational music, the limited Canadian repertoire in education, and the lack of commissions for new music for young musicians – prompted me to collaborate with CMC staff to seek out commissioning funds and include a research component to develop an in-depth understanding of educational music composition.
Commencing in 2000 and in the following years, several educational commissions were initiated for CMC composers. Initially, the Canada Council for the Arts in collaboration with provincial arts agencies commissioned ninety-eight new educational works in a project entitled New Music for Young Musicians (NMFYM). The research component focused on evaluating the effectiveness of the commissioning program with Ontario and Atlantic Regional composers involved in NMFYM. In the research, it was found that composers employ specific compositional techniques to reinforce different types of music learning, and prior experiences teaching young people are important for creating educational music appropriate for them (Andrews, 2004a). The adoption of a flexible form allows a composer to adapt more easily to students‟ needs, and blending atonal and tonal idioms challenges students and retains their attention (Andrews, 2007). Rehearsing new works on-site in classrooms and studios enables composers to effectively assess students‟ technical proficiency and ensure an appropriate interpretation of a new work (Andrews, 2006). Compositional techniques, such as short pulsating rhythms to refine motor responses and equality of parts to maintain interest, can impact positively on students‟ musical skill development (Andrews, 2009).
The Norman Burgess Memorial Fund3 built on the work of NMFYM and commissioned three new string works for educational purposes commencing in 2005 (CMC, 2004). In the 2007-2008 school year, the Ontario Arts Foundation with funds from the Ontario Ministry of Education and Ministry of Culture collaborated with the Norman Burgess Memorial Fund to commission eight new string works for NMFYM, and the Ottawa Catholic Board also commissioned eight new wind works (Andrews, 2012; Palmer, 2010; Van Eyk, 2010). These works were commissioned over the school years 2007-2008 through to 2010-2011 (4 per year alternating string and wind compositions). The research component, entitled New Sounds of Learning: Composing for Young Musicians, focused on examining the parameters of educational music, and it was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).4 To date, this study has found that the commissions enabled composers to create new music that was suitable for the Canadian context and broadened their compositional skills. Among the composers, there was a concern about the poor musical quality and limited pedagogical value of much educational music. They also expressed concern about limited amount of Canadian
3 Norman Burgess was a former Chair of the Ontario Regional Council. On his passing, the estate donated funds to the CMC to commission and premiere new string works for young musicians.
4 Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHCRC) Grant No. 210-2006-2529.
International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
 Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

repertoire and the importance of on-site contact with students when composing for them. None of the composers had any compositional training in composing for young musicians. For those composing string works, the key factors were the students‟ abilities, the pedagogical dimension, and musical quality: they pursed an educational commission to raise students‟ awareness of contemporary musical techniques and to create new music in areas where they is limited repertoire (Andrews, 2013). The key factors for those composing for winds were technical proficiency, musical challenge, and enjoyment: they emphasized the importance of avoiding undue complexity and creating music appropriate to the students‟ needs (Andrews & Giesbrecht, 2013). The research team also discovered that there is limited agreement by publishers on the levels of difficulty of instrumental ensemble pieces that are commercially available. Consequently, a Music Complexity Chart (MC²) was developed to identify the characteristics of each level and of the grades within them (Appendix I) (Andrews, 2011). This article focuses on the findings of reflective journals which were undertaken by composers commissioned to compose new string works for young musicians during New Sounds of Learning: Composing for Young Musicians (a.k.a. New Sounds of Learning Project).
Wallas (1926) speculated that creativity occurs in four stages - productive mood, incubation, illumination, and verification. Graf (1947) applied these stages to music composition and designated them as productive mood (preparation), musical conception (incubation), sketching (illumination), and composition (verification). Bennett (1976) elaborated on Graf's categories but shifted the focus from feelings (productive mood) and thoughts (musical conception) to the writing process itself (i.e., sketches and drafts). He suggested that composing involves a six-stage process of i) discovering a germinal idea, ii) a brief sketch, iii) creation of a first draft, iv) elaboration and refinement of a first draft, v) a final draft, and vi) its revisions. Research also suggests that composers make both conscious and unconscious decisions in their work (Sloboda, 1988), and they may not follow the stages in sequence but oscillate between them (Hung, 1998). Composers may also employ various strategies in conjunction with the stages (Fulmer, 1995). Sloboda (1985) proposed a broad two-stage approach: (1) the inspirational stage and (2) the execution stage. Roozendaal (1993) proposed that the process of music composition involved: (1) planning; (2) the development of large-scale concepts; (3) noting coherence between parts; and (4) working on musical units. For Roozendaal, problem-solving was seen as recursive as opposed to sequential. Recent models of music composition have exhibited similarities among the proposed compositional stages. For example, Christiansen (1993) stated that the stages of composition consisted of exploration, organization, and polishing; and Freed-Grarrod (1999) proposed that the compositional stages included exploring, selecting, performance/sharing, and evaluation/assessment. Studies by Collins (2005, 2007), Collins and Dunn (2011), and McAdams (2004) examined the compositional process by developing longitudinal multi-year studies that were conducted in the composer‟s naturalistic settings and that used multiple sources of data collection including, but not limited to, interviews and communications between participants and researchers, video recording, and composer‟s reflective commentaries (e.g., journal entries). Katz and Gardner (2012) proposed “within domain” and “beyond domain” approaches to music composition. The former focuses on the

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

details of a composition such as note values, phrasing and dynamics. In contrast, the latter is concerned with the overall conceptual framework for the piece and filling in the form with the details of the composition. In the study outlined in this article, a broad-based model was adopted consisting of three stages: conceptualizing, writing, and refining (Andrews, 2012). Within each stage, there was a particular focus: the musical abilities of the students, the current knowledge and skills of the performers, and the organization of the piece (conceptualization); the development of musical ideas, the compositional strategies implemented to promote music learning, and the instructional obstacles that the composers encountered (writing); and problems that arose, how they were resolved, and any further adjustments to their compositions (refining).

In the New Sounds of Learning Project, Integrated Inquiry was employed throughout the study. This approach to research solicits multiple perspectives on the object of study through data collected from the same protocol from different time periods or different groups of participants, or alternately the use of different research protocols, qualitative and/or quantitative (Andrews, 2008). The four dimensions of creativity - place, process, product, and person – were employed as the theoretical framework for the study overall (Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989; Amabile & Tighe, 1993), and different protocols implemented for each dimension; that is, questionnaire, reflective journal, compositional analysis, and interview, respectively. More specifically for music composition, these dimensions refer to the pre-requisites for composing (training and experience of the composer, context of the composition), compositional process (techniques and strategies implemented by the composers, sequencing of musical material), the musical piece (features, style, and impact of a composition on musical development), and person (characteristics, pre-dispositions and motivation of the composer) (Andrews, 2004b).
Although compositional training and experience are important aspects of a composer‟s career (refer to Andrews, 2013; Andrews & Giesbrecht, 2013), how composers compose an educational work has not been determined. For this reason, this phase of the New Sounds of Learning Project focused on the compositional process of music composition for strings. The key question of this phase of the study was:
What compositional strategies are employed when composing educational music for strings?

Eight composers affiliated with the Canadian Music Centre were asked to reflect and comment on the process of composing string music for young musicians, and seven of them agreed to participate in this component of the New Sounds of Learning Project.5 The composers were

5 Eight composers composing music for winds also completed reflective journals and the research is reported elsewhere (Andrews & Giesbrecht, 2014).

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

asked to comment on conceptualization, writing, and refinement of their compositions for educational ensembles. The guiding questions within the reflective journals were selected from those emerging from prior studies on composing educational music (Andrews, 2004c, 2007, 2009), and they were refined in collaboration with composers, music educators, and music industry representatives who were members of the Ontario Region of the CMC (refer to Appendix II).
Figure 1: Compositional Process
The composers collaborated with their associate teachers, attended rehearsals and reviewed existing musical repertoire to better grasp the level of the students‟ abilities. As one composer commented: “I consulted [the] string conductor … attend[ed] a couple of rehearsals … [and] got acquainted with the general playing level [of the students].”
The commissioned string compositions were written for a range of musical abilities, grade, and difficulty levels using the Music Complexity Chart (MC²) (refer to Appendix I). The Chart identifies the characteristics of levels of difficulty in educational music, and it assists composers compose for young musicians, teachers select appropriate music for their students, and publishers accurately label the scores that they bring to market (Andrews, 2011). Students demonstrated basic but varying proficiency on their instruments. The composers accommodated to this situation by composing pieces with a degree of flexibility. For example, one composer created a four-part modular piece6 in which a particular set of parts can be played in a

6 Modular parts refers to the practice of writing the same piece at different levels of difficulty. For example, Christopher Mayo composed a set of string parts were written at levels A – D with A being the most difficult and D the least difficult. Students would learn the D set and gradually progress to the A set of parts (refer to Appendix III).

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

performance (refer to Appendix III). He explained: “By working with a full range of musical abilities, I felt that I was not in any way limited musically, as any ideas which I had which were inappropriate for a certain skill level could simply be moved up to a more advanced part.”
The composers created music that developed students‟ musical skills and maintained interest. They often went beyond developing technical ability and further encouraged students to “use their creative side and challenge them to start thinking of music and musical practices in a novel and unusual way.” They introduced improvisation into their compositions and enabled students to create their own interpretation of various passages. They sequenced a modular piece with increasing levels of difficulty so that students could improve their skills by learning a higher level part. Further, they introduced singing and playing simultaneously to develop the students‟ listening skills.
The composers commented on both the internal structure and overall form of their pieces. Most of the internal structural decisions involved notational and stylistic choices to ensure that the work was challenging yet accessible to the students. For example, a composer commented: “I focus […] on the particular area which is the main focus of a particular movement and allow some other aspects of the music to be simpler.” The piece mentioned previously employed varying levels of difficulty which could be played together or separately. When organizing their compositions overall, composers selected predominantly variation and three-movement forms “that could be practiced/performed either independently or (preferably) as a set.”

Composers found it challenging to articulate the origins of their musical ideas. Their comments indicate that they were obtained from two major sources: improvisation or skill development. Several composers improvised and played music on their own instruments to generate ideas. Other composers generated their musical ideas by focusing on the development of the students‟ musical skills. As a composer commented: “Technical considerations come, and then specifically musical ideas are created to exploit these technical considerations.” Only one composer expressed an alternate view and explained that it is not the musical idea per se but its development that is most significant aspect of composition: “To me […] what is important is how I build around ANY idea that ended up on the page.”
The composers highlighted the pedagogical and technical aspects of their pieces “that the technique had to be tempered for young musicians.” The composers identified certain specific compositional strategies such as:
-          featuring the inner parts to develop the players‟ performance skills
-          repeating soft passages to develop dynamic control
-          using imitation to develop listening skills
-          repeating figures with variety to maintain interest
-          integrating novel patterns into the texture to develop rhythmic skill
-          adopting instrument-specific techniques to create effects (e.g., using high string notes to create an ethereal sound)

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

The obstacles experienced by the composers included notational issues, maintaining interest in each of the parts, and avoiding complexity as was there inclination. They found it very difficult not to exceed the technical abilities of the students; for example: “I occasionally compose something that seems too difficult and then I have to revise my spontaneous idea into a simpler version.” In order to overcome undue complexity, the composers worked with their associate teachers to focus on „playability.‟

Composers found that most of the problematic issues with their pieces were technical; for example, one composer noted that dynamics were a problem as “students don‟t like to play softly.” Others noted that the students experienced problems with unfamiliar rhythms. In all cases, the associate teachers played a critical role in assisting the composers to address the problems that emerged during the rehearsals. For example, one composer found that some of the notes in his piece were too high for the some of the students to play so he added alternate easier ones. Another composer added a piano part to her string work because a student pianist very much wanted to perform with the string orchestra. Still another composer explained how he altered a piece to avoid monotony: “I decided to add parallel minor sevenths to full moon lullaby on the D string today: it makes it harder to play, but it rids the piece of monotone open strings, and focuses on left hand development.”
Before the final versions of the scores were completed, the composers made final refinements. This was undertaken in collaboration with the associate teachers: the ultimate goal was to achieve balance; that is, to create music that is “pedagogically sound and aesthetically sound.” Overall, the composers had a positive experience writing their respective compositions. One of them summarized the process by stating: “The journey is not easy but it is very rewarding.”


The art of composition is a complex activity involving musical invention, improvisation, generation, composition, arranging, and performance (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2004). Composers must be responsive to the performers’ abilities, especially when they are young musicians. The purpose of the reflective journals was to develop an in-depth understanding of the compositional strategies that composers utilized as they composed new music for young people. Tracking the thought of “composers at work is one way to glean more understanding of the compositional process and a fuller understanding” (Kennedy, 1999, p. 157). In their journals the composers provided evidence of their attempts to modify their compositions to accommodate the students‟ technical abilities, such as the use of repetition to reinforce learning and rhythmic variety to maintain interest, which is essential to composing effective educational music (Andrews, 2009; Colgrass, 2004). The composers did not indicate that inspiration played a significant part in their works which has been identified as a factor in music composition (Bahle,

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38
1936; Graf, 1947; Bennett, 1976; Sloboda, 1985). They learned to play repertoire themselves on the students‟ instruments to familiarize themselves with their unique characteristics, and they organized their compositions in basic forms, such as binary, ternary, and variation, to facilitate learning. At the same time, composers were equally concerned about challenging and maintaining student interest, a key concern expressed in the literature (Campouse 2002, 2004, 2007; Colgrass, 2004; Darling, 2007; Hatrik, 2002). This was accomplished by reframing the relationship of pedagogy and music composition by integrating into their compositions improvisation, variable interpretation, modular parts, and singing and playing simultaneously. Although such techniques can be risky as students are unfamiliar with them (Colgrass, 2004), such reframing of educational music is essential if new compositions for young musicians are to enhance their musical development, challenge and maintain interest, and invigorate the repertoire of schools, conservatories, and post-secondary institutions.

Concluding Comments

In 2010, the Ontario Trillium Foundation commissioned another fifteen compositions for young musicians over a three-year period for NMFYM, and the research component, entitled Sound Connections: Composing Educational Music, focused on the relationship of compositional techniques to musical skill development. Commencing in 2012, the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board began commissioning another eighteen wind works over three-years supported by SSHRC. The research component, entitled Making Music: Composing with Young Musicians, focuses on the co-creation of new music by composers in collaboration with students and their teachers. This brings the total number for all commissions to date since 2000 to a total of one hundred and fifty new Canadian works for young musicians. 7It is anticipated that significant findings will result that will assist composers to compose educational music more effectively and increase Canadian repertoire for school ensembles and private studio instruction.


7 98 commissions funded by the Millennium Fund of the Canada Council for the Arts and provincial arts agencies, 3 by the Norman Burgess Memorial Fund, 8 by the Ontario Arts Foundation, 8 by the Ottawa Catholic School Board, 15 by the Trillium Foundation, and 18 by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board = 150 new Canadian educational works.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

Amabile, T. M., & Tighe, E. (1993). Questions of creativity. In J. Brockman (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 7-27). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Andrews, B. W. (2004a). Conceptualizing new music for young musicians. In L. Bartel (Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 146-160). Research to Practice series, Vol. 2. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Music Educators Association.
Andrews, B. W. (2004b). Composing music in the classroom: The missing link in music instruction. The Recorder, 46 (3), 12-19. 4.
Andrews, B. W. (2004c). How composers compose: In search of the questions. Research and Issues in Music Education, 2 (1), www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline.
Andrews, B. W. (2006). How composers compose new music for young musicians: Refining the process. In M. Mans & B. H. Leung (Eds.), Music in schools for all children: From research to effective practice (pp. 185-193). Proceedings of the 14th Music in Schools and Teacher Education Commission (MISTEC), International Society for Music Education. Granada, Spain: University of Granada Press.
Andrews, B. W. (2007). Composing new music for young musicians: Emerging questions. The Recorder, 50 (1), 16-21.
Andrews, B. W. (2008). Integrated inquiry: Transforming multiple research perspectives. In S. Kouritzin, N. Piquemal, & R. Norman (Eds.), Qualitative research: Challenging the orthodoxies (pp. 169-181). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Andrews, B. W. (2009). Secrets of the Pied Piper: Composing music for young musicians. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 13, 6-14.
Andrews, B. W. (2011). The Music Complexity Chart (MC²): Identifying the characteristics of levels of difficulty in educational music. In B. Bolden & M. Kennedy, Widening the boundaries of music education (pp. 109-135). Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.
Andrews, B. W. (2012). New Sounds of Learning: Investigating the parameters of educational music. International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1 (6), 118-224.
Andrews, B. W. (2013). Composing educational music for strings in a Canadian context: Composer perspectives. Canadian Music Educator, 55 (5), 10-17.
Andrews, B. W., & Carruthers. (2004). Needle in a haystack: Canadian music in post-secondary curricula. In P. M. Shand (Ed.), Music education entering the 21st century (pp. 75-83). Proceedings of the 13th Music in Schools and Teacher Education (MISTEC) Seminar, Malmo, Sweden. Nedlands, Western Australia: International Society for Music Education.
Andrews, B. W., & Giesbrecht, M. (2013). Composer perspectives on composing educational music for winds. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 6 (2), 455-468.
Andrews, B. W., & Giesbrecht, M. (2014). Composing educational music for strings in real time. Manuscript in-progress.
Bahle, J. (1936). The process of composition: The psychology of its creative forms and urges. Leipzig, Germany: Hirzel.
Bartel, L., Dolloff, L., & Shand, P. (1999). Canadian content in school music curricula: A research update. Canadian Journal of Research in Music Education, 40 (4), 13-20.
Barwin, G. (1998). Composers in electronic residence. Canadian Music Educator, 40 (1), 23-25.
Bennett, S. (1976). The process of creation: Interviews with eight composers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 24 (1), 3-13.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

Camphouse, M. (Ed.). (2002). Composers on composing for band, Volume. 1. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
Camphouse, M. (Ed.). (2004). Composers on composing for band, Volume 2. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
Camphouse, M. (Ed.). (2007). Composers on composing for band, Vol. 3. Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
Canadian Music Centre. (1992). ComPoster kit: Music education package. Toronto, ON: CMC.
Canadian Music Centre (2004). CMC Ontario announces Norman Burgess Memorial Fund. Notations, 11 (1), 17.
Carruthers, G. A. (2000). A status report on music education in Canada. In S. T. Maloney (Ed.), Musicanada 2000: A celebration of Canadian composers (pp. 86-95). Toronto, ON: Canadian Music Centre.
Christiansen, C. B. (1993). Music composition, invented notation, and reflection in a fourth grade music classroom. In Symposium on Research in General Music. Tucson, AZ.
Colgrass, M. (2004). Composers and children: A new creative force? Music Educators Journal, 9, 19–23.
Collins, D. (2005). A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition. Psychology of Music, 33(2), 193–216.
Collins, D. (2007). Real-time tracking of the creative music composition process. Digital Creativity, 18 (4), 239–256.
Collins, D., & Dunn, M. (2011). Problem-solving strategies and processes in musical composition: Observations. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 4 (1), 47–76.
Darling, J. (2007). Think small … It might be the smartest thing you do. MBM Times, 1 (2), 40-43.
Freed-Garrod, J. (1999). Assessment in the arts: Elementary-aged students as qualitative assessors of their own and peers‟ musical compositions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 139, 50–63.
Fulmer, D. (1995). Composition as a generative process. Unpublished paper, University of Miami, Florida.
Graf, M. (1947). From Beethoven to Shostakovich: The psychology of the composing process. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Hargreaves, D. J., Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (Eds.). (2004). Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance, and perception. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hatrik, J. (2002). Priestor medzi komposiciou a hudobnou vychovou. [The space between composition and music education.] Slovenská hudba: Revue pre hudobnứ kultứ, 28 (2), 189-199.
Hung, Y. C. (1998). An exploration of the musical composition background/experience, processes, and pedagogy of selected composers in Taiwan. Ph.D. thesis, Teacher‟s College, Columbia University.
Katz, S. L., & Gardner, H. (2012). Musical materials or metaphorical models? A psychological investigation of what inspires composers. In D. J. Hargreaves, D. Miell, & R. MacDonald (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance, and perception (pp. 107–123). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kennedy, M. A. (1999). Where does the music come from? A comparison case-study of the compositional processes of a high school and a collegiate composer. British Journal of Music Education, 16 (2), 157177.
McAdams, S. (2004). Problem-solving strategies in music composition: A case study. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21 (3), 391–429.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

MacInnis, P. (1991). Guidelist of Canadian solo free bass accordion music suitable for student performers. Toronto, ON: Canadian Music Centre.
Palmer, J. (2010). Ping! A success for Norman Burgess Fund. Notations, 15 (1), p. 6.
Roozendaal, R. (1993). Psychological analysis of musical composition. Contemporary Music Review, 9 (1/2), 311–324.
Shand, P.M. (1993). A guide to published Canadian violin music suitable for student performers. Toronto, ON: Canadian Music Centre.
Shand, P., M., & Bartel, L.R. (1998). Canadian content in music curriculum: Policy and practice. In B.A. Roberts (Ed.), Connect, combine, communicate (pp. 89-107). Sydney, NS: University College of Cape Breton.
Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.). (1988). Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Stubley, E. (1990). A guide to solo French horn music by Canadian composers. Toronto, ON: Canadian Music Centre.
Terauds, J. (2011). No composer left behind? In J. Van Eyck (Ed.), The current state of music commissioning. Notations, 17 (1), 1, 16-17.
Van Eyk, J. (2010). Big year for Norman Burgess Fund. Notations, 16 (1), p. 5.
Van Eyk, J. (2011). The current state of music commissioning. Notations, 17 (1), 1, 16-17.
Varahidis, L. (2012). Examining the prevalence of American repertoire in Ontario band programs. The Recorder, 50 (1), 14-15.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Walter, C. (1994). A guide to unpublished Canadian jazz ensemble music suitable for student performers. Toronto, ON: Canadian Music Centre.
Washburn, R. (1960). The Young Composer Project in Elkhart. Music Educators Journal, 47 (1), 108-109.
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J.A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77-91). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

Easy Level
(Grade 1 < 2)
Medium Level
(Grade 3 < 4)
Advanced Level
(Grade 5 < 6)
Overall Organization



1 part per instrument (e.g., alto sax, French horn) or 2 parts (e.g., 1st and 2nd trumpets, 1st and 2nd violins); basic percussion; condensed score; opt. tympani

Initially within octave; gradually up to the 12th

Doubling of parts (e.g., tenor sax/trombone, oboe/flute, cello/bass)

2 and 3 parts (e.g., 1st and 2nd Fr. horns, 1st, 2nd and 3rd clarinets); more instruments (e.g., piccolo, bassoon, alto/bass clarinet, bari sax, aux. percussion)

Upwards of 2 octaves

Brass, woodwind, strings, percussion instrument groupings
4 French horn parts; division of parts (e.g., divisi 1st flute); specialized instruments (e.g., contra bass clarinet, flugelhorn, English horn, cornet)

Complete range of the instruments

Sectional divisions (e.g., clarinet section, French horn section)
*Note values

*Rhythmic patterns


Whole, half, quarter, eighth and dotted notes; some sixteenths

Combinations and syncopations of note values above in melody and harmony

2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8, C

Sixteenth and thirty-second notes; triplets; dotted sixteenths

Combinations and syncopation of notes in melody, counter-melody and harmony

5/8, 7/8, 5/4, 2/2, 3/2

Full range of notes and dotted notes

Polyrhythmic patterns

Use of polymeters
*Melodic structure

Brief Motives and short phrases; limited variation/development

Longer motives and phrases; variation and development

Extended development and variation of motives and phrases

This chart assists composers assign grades, teachers evaluate repertoire, and publishers promote educational music effectively. Each grade subsumes all the characteristics of the previous one.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38 ______________________________________________________________________________

*Melodic direction

Tonal/modal melody

Step-wise movement, leaps to P 5th up/down

Wider intervals (P 6th-to P 12th)
Atonal/serial melody

Augmented and diminished intervals
*Key signatures


*Harmonic organization

Winds: 1 sharp; up to 3 flats
Strings: 1 flat; up to 3 sharps.

C+, G+, D+, A+; F+,Bb+, Eb+; A-, E-, B-, F#-; D-, G-, C-

Tonal (major/minor) and modal harmonies; transposition to related keys (e.g., F+ to C+ or D- to B-)

Upwards of 5 sharps and 5 flats

E+, B+; Ab+, Db+; C#-, G#-, F-, Bb-

Transposition to unrelated key; chromatic harmonies; unrelated progressions

Upwards of 6 sharps and 6 flats; use of accidentals in place of key signatures
Enharmonic keys:

F#+/Gb+; C#+/Db+; D#-/Eb-; A#-/Bb-

Atonal, twelve-tone, polytonal progressions; aleatoric and polystylistic writing



Binary, ternary, rondo, tone poem, variation, overture

Theme or variation of theme in separate sections

1 – 2 movements; upwards of 4 minutes
Sonata, polyphonic forms (e.g., fugue)

Multiple themes or development of multiple themes within sections

1 – 3 movements, upwards of 8 minutes
Combination forms (e.g., sonata-rondo, rondo-variation)

Multiple themes and/or development of themes and/or variation of themes within sections

1 – 4 movements; upwards of 12 minutes


pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff
crescendo, diminuendo

Detached, staccato,

sfp, sfz; changes in dynamics

Sostenuto, variety of

Full range of gradations (e.g., ppp to fff); rapid dynamic changes; sustained crescendo/diminuendo

Full range of

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

legato, and accents

Phrasing within bars and upwards of 2 bars
accents/articulations, contrasting passages

Moderate phrasing (up to 4 bars in length)
articulations, variety within sections

Extended phrasing (up to 4 bars and more)

N. B. A higher grade is assigned when most of the characteristics of the musical elements are more complex within a level. When a few characteristics are more complex, then a .5 indicator may be warranted (e.g., 1.5). Outliers may be ignored if they are minor.
© B. W. Andrews 2010.

International Association for Academic Research

International Journal of Contemporary Composition (IJCC)
ISSN 2304-4098
Vol., 10, 2014, pp. 24-38

Appendix II: New Sounds of Learning Reflective Journal

Name:                                                              Ensemble:

Composition Title:                                          School Grade Level(s):

Level of Difficulty of Composition:

The reflective journal focuses on the process of composing new music for young musicians on solving instructional problems. You are asked to notate your thoughts and feelings throughout three stages of this process; that is, conceptualizing, writing and refining a new musical work. The journal may be undertaken during each stage or at the end of a particular stage.

Please provide a date for each entry, and include any comments and suggestions provided by the assigned teacher. The guiding questions are intended to assist you but should not limit the range of your responses.


Guiding Questions:

What is the overall level of musical ability? What are the strengths and limitations? (Refer to MC² provided.)
What musical skills and knowledge are currently being developed? How do I reinforce this learning?
How do I organize my composition to build on current musical abilities and extend them?


Where do I obtain the musical ideas? How do I develop them?
What compositional strategies do I employ to reinforce learning?
What compositional obstacles am I encountering? How do I overcome them?


What performance problems occur during the rehearsals?
What adjustments do I make to resolve these problems?
What other refinements do I undertake to improve the composition?
Thank you for your contribution to the New Sounds of Learning Project.


International Association for Academic Research

sumber : www.e-journals.org/

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar