МУЗИЧНА ПЕДАГОГІКА ПІВНІЧНОЇ АМЕРИКИ ЗА ЧАСІВ КОЛОНІЗАЦІЇ

In the history of music practice and education in Kenya, the identity of the actors presents a rainbow of shifting roles and responsibilities attributed to women. In looking at the gender factor in music education and practice in Kenya, this chapter focuses on space. The context of music making informs the analysis of the potential relationships among gender, identity, and music teaching and learning. The music practice and music education spaces present activities with varying roles. The context, that is, space and time, presents dynamics in the articulation of the identity of the musician in the Kenyan cultural and creative space spilling over into teaching and learning. In a world where women have traditionally been defined as belonging to a man, and where women may not have valued themselves as independent and equally able human beings, the power of that socialization may have had negative effects on their participation in music practice and education. Cultural music practice, popular music and music education present a rich tapestry of relationships and roles that help articulate the gender factor in the practice of music as an agent of socialization in Kenya. These three are the spaces in which the discussion in this chapter takes place. Anchoring on feminist theory, this chapter interrogates the element of gender in the practice of music and music education in Kenya. The chapter analyzes how the concept of gender in the community contributes to the definition, practice, and teaching of music, articulating elements of, especially, choice, empowerment, meaningful engagement, as well as stereotyping.

Reviewed by: Unbinding Gentility: Women Making Music in the Nineteenth-Century South by Candace Bailey Julia Nitz Unbinding Gentility: Women Making Music in the Nineteenth-Century South. By Candace Bailey. Music in American Life. (Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2021. Pp. xx, 292. Paper, $30.00, ISBN 978-0-252-08574-1; cloth, $125.00, ISBN 978-0-252-04375-8.) This volume is admirable in its ambition to capture the role southern amateur women played in American musical history, or, as the author puts it, to tell the "history of women in the nineteenth-century U.S. South . . . through the medium of music" (p. 4). Candace Bailey critiques past studies that considered women's musical artifacts and practices "ephemera," a misplaced notion shared by musicologists and cultural historians alike, and she strives to overcome traditional, male-centric narratives "that prejudice composer and title over circulation and performance" (p. 2). Bailey's book "encompasses music's transmission, education, circulation, and repertory in order to understand music's meaning in women's culture of the South" (p. 3). Thus, she recharts southern musical traditions, putting special emphasis on the role of "scientific music" in women's cultural engagement across class and racial boundaries (p. 15). Key to Bailey's study is the location of "women's musical practices in the performance of gentility" (p. 5). She convincingly illustrates how musical practices during this era were intricately tied to social hierarchies and distinctions, showing how different strata of society used music as cultural capital. Tracing these developments from the antebellum period to Reconstruction, she explores the effect of the dissolution of the South's social hierarchy on music making. [End Page 761] The material consulted in this study is extensive, with a focus on music read from notation in over fifteen hundred binder's volumes. Bailey also examines "numerous nineteenth-century magazines and journals, newspapers, letters and diaries, official records, and many similar documents" (p. 2). She uses these materials to assemble ethnographic readings and microhistories that collectively reveal the kaleidoscopic, multifaceted southern music-scape of the mid-nineteenth century. Bailey proceeds chronologically in five sections: Parts 1, 2, and 3 cover the antebellum period, Part 4 explores the Civil War, and Part 5 turns to Reconstruction. Each part is divided into several chapters, and each chapter offers a distinct study. Parts 1, 2, and 3 provide an in-depth exploration of the plethora of antebellum musical performers. It illustrates the ubiquity of music in society and highlights how economic growth in the 1840s and 1850s opened new avenues to gentility for the middle and poorer classes. This broadening of the sphere of gentility is evidenced by a more widespread "literate music practice" than hitherto assumed (p. 15). Part 2 focuses on prominent genres of the period and the accompanying repertory used to signify gentility, including a chapter on operatic tunes. While Parts 1 and 2 mostly provide nuance to existing studies of antebellum women's music, Part 3 reframes repertory history. It deals with the role of a genre known as scientific music in women's musical education and practice. Bailey argues that its pervasiveness was an important marker of social status. Part 4, dealing with the Civil War years, focuses on social changes and how they triggered both retroactive and progressive musical practices. In these chapters especially, Bailey shows the importance of adding music to a reading of the parlor as a space for the construction of gender, class, and ethnicity. Part 5, on women musicians in the Reconstruction era, identifies the rise of women as professional performers and the changes in repertory toward classical music. Bailey convincingly illustrates how women musicians "redefined women's sphere and influence after the war by linking domestic competence and control with a public persona" (pp. 171–72). Bailey reconfigures traditional assumptions about the musical contributions of southern women by exploring the interrelation between music making and gentility in the U.S. South. Her approach is more inclusive than seen in previous studies, charting the musical practices of white women and women of color of all social classes. The representation of Black women in her study remains sketchy by necessity. As...

This comparative study combines historical and ethnographic evidence to describe the uses of music and the shifting meanings of musical traditions across almost seven centuries of Mexican history (especially in Mexico City). Despite this colossal scope, Pedelty does not attempt to write a comprehensive history of Mexico through musical practices; in fact, his study is even more ambitious. Rather than providing a plain historical narrative, Pedelty seeks to explain the role of musical rituals as performances that emerge from specific historical, cultural, and political circumstances but are also agents of social change, cultural identification, and political resistance. His comparative approach emphasizes the contemporary coexistence of many of these musical traditions and the ways in which Mexicans have resignifed them according to their current political and social circumstances.Pedelty divides Mexican history into six large periods: the Aztec Empire, New Spain, the nineteenth century, the 1910 revolution, the modern period (1921 – 68), and the contemporary period (1968 – 2002). The book’s structure, alternating chapters of history and comparative ethnography, is conducive to Pedelty’s interdisciplinary goals. His intent is to first describe a particular music tradition historically and then explore its contemporary resonances ethnographically. He explains his theoretical apparatus in a separate appendix, allowing him to maintain a clear and concise prose throughout the main body of his text and scrupulously avoid jargon.Pedelty presents his argument most effectively in the sections devoted to the Aztec period and modern Mexico. The first interprets contemporary Conchero and Mexica dancers as metaphors of indigenous people’s needs to produce a sense of inclusion or autonomy, respectively, in a racially discriminatory society. The section on modern Mexico focuses on the urban success of bolero and danzón and their role in “gaining cultural citizenship in modernizing Mexico” (p. 149). His interesting discussion of bolero is momentarily disturbed by the sloppy selection of some of his musical examples (Agustín Lara’s “Noche de ronda” and “Farolito” are not boleros but stylized triple-meter waltzes and therefore articulate a different history than boleros). But Pedelty’s argument about cabaretera movies in relation to bolero, gender construction, and legendary feminine icons in Mexican popular culture (Coyolxauhqui, La Malinche, La Vírgen de Guadalupe, La Llorona, and La Adelita) is particularly appealing and informative.Most problematic is Pedelty’s treatment of colonial musical practices, nineteenth-century musics, and twentieth-century art music. Although he constructs a complex mosaic of colonial Mexican music by addressing a large variety of secondary sources, he fails to acknowledge some of the most attractive current work on the relationship between contemporary Mexican folk music and European baroque musical practices. His reliance on classic music scholarship to the expense of more recent work prevents him from articulating some of the scholarly discussions that might have better supported his goals. If he had engaged this scholarship (Antonio Corona, Eloy Cruz), he might have been able to illustrate the current life of colonial secular music in the instrumental and vocal techniques of the huapango or son jarocho traditions instead of relying on a single government-supported concert by the Hinojosa-Villey Duo. The survey of nineteenth-century Mexican music in part 3 lacks substance and is marred by a few factual errors. Antonio Gomezanda was not “a precursor of 20th-century nationalist composers” (p. 105), as Pedelty argues, but rather a nationalist composer (only a conservative, less modernistic one) active during the first part of the twentieth century. Nor was Cenobio Paniagua’s Catalina de Guisa (1859) the first Mexican opera (p. 105): Manuel Covarrubias composed Reinaldo y Elina o La sacerdotisa peruana more than ten years earlier, and Manuel de Sumaya’s La Parténope premiered in 1711, more than two centuries before Paniagua’s first opera. The discussion of Carlos Chávez and Silvestre Revueltas in chapter 12 is also problematic, as it reproduces a series of myths (Chávez as a nationalist/indigenista composer or the dichotomy of “sophisticated urban Chávez” versus “straightforward rural Revueltas”) that have been challenged by recent scholarship (Eduardo Contreras Soto, Alejandro L. Madrid, and Leonora Saavedra). Some of these weaknesses might be attributed to the lack of engagement with more up-to-date scholarship, but others are clearly the result of a careless reading of sources.Regardless of its shortcomings, Pedelty’s interdisciplinary effort should be noted. It would be interesting to read more texts combining ethnography and history as part of larger interpretative projects. This out-of-the-ordinary contribution to the study of musical cultures in Mexico would make an interesting reading for those concerned with Mexican music, culture, and history.

The latter half of the 19th century was a time of immense change in Presbyterianism worldwide in respect of the role of music in worship. Within this period the long tradition of unaccompanied congregational psalmody gave way to the introduction of hymnody, instrumental music (initially provided by harmoniums and later by pipe organs) and choral music in the form of anthems. The Presbyterian Church of Victoria, formed in 1859 as a union of the Church of Scotland and the majority of the Free Presbyterian and the United Presbyterian churches and numerically the strongest branch of Presbyterianism in Australia, was to the forefront in embracing this tide of change. Beginning in 1861 with the proposal for the compilation of a colonial hymnbook, issues associated with musical repertoire and practice occupied a prominent place in discussions and decision making over the next 30 years. Between 1861 and 1901 hymnody was successfully introduced into church worship with the adoption of three hymnals in 1867, 1883 and 1898. Programs of music education were devised for the teaching of the new repertoire and for improving the standard of congregational singing. A hallmark tradition of Presbyterianism was overturned with the introduction of instruments into worship, initially as a support for congregational singing but in time as providers of purely instrumental music also. The profile of the choir changed dramatically. Making extensive use of primary sources, this study aims to document the process of change in Victoria between 1861 and 1901, exploring the rationales underlying decisions taken and historical factors facilitating change. Musical developments in Victoria are viewed in the context of those elsewhere, especially Scotland and of general changes in aesthetic taste.;The study concludes that the process of musical change shows the Presbyterian Church of Victoria to have been a forward-looking and well-endowed institution with the confidence to take initiatives independent of Scottish control. It is also concluded that changes in musical practice within the worship of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria reflect developments taking place in other denominations and the changing aesthetic tastes of the Victorian era.

Reviewed by: What's so Important about Music Education? Leonard Tan J. Scott Goble , What's so Important about Music Education? (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010) In What's so Important about Music Education, J. Scott Goble proposes a new philosophical foundation for music education in the United States based on the theory of semiotics by American pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce. Following a brief summary, I will note several merits in Goble's book before sketching four recommendations for future editions. In Chapter One, Goble notes how the inclusion of non-Western musics in the public schools as espoused in the 1967 Tanglewood Declaration has raised two crucial questions: "Whose music should be included in the curriculum?" and "What is the role or social importance of public school music education in the United States as a postmodern society?" Noting that music education was established in the United States during the modern era, and that the Tanglewood Declaration did not account for vast differences in beliefs about music, Goble argues that there is a need to establish a new philosophical foundation that can accommodate the varied beliefs and practices of diverse cultural groups in postmodern United States. In Chapter Two, Goble sketches and critiques five cultural anthropologists. Of the five, he singles out Clifford Geertz's conception of culture as "semiotic [End Page 201] webs" (p. 20) as the conceptual foundation that is appropriate for this study. He then links Geertz's notion of culture to the semiotic theory of C. S. Peirce which is to become the theoretical underpinning of the book. Subsequently, he unpacks many key Peircian themes: human conceptions are maintained not individually but collectively in cultural groups, provisional truth (as opposed to absolute Truth) is relative and dependent on conceptions of communities, and the scientific method is the sole mode of inquiry by which people in communities may use to satisfy their doubts to formulate beliefs. Most importantly, Goble expounds the "pragmatic maxim" that since humans live in communities united by common beliefs, "the 'clear' meaning of an idea held by a member of the community will almost inevitably stem from the beliefs—or ways of understanding—held by members of that community" (p. 30). Goble concludes the chapter by presenting the Peircian semiotic system of cognition which posits that a "sign" is conceptualized in a triadic relationship: the Sign or "Firstness," the Object or "Secondness," and the Interpretant or "Thirdness" (p. 33). In Chapter Three, Goble considers how music is a sign based on the theoretical framework laid in Chapter Two. Drawing on the work of ethnomusicologists, anthropologists, psychiatrists, and a neuroscientist, he formulates a Peircian pragmatic approach to musical practices which posits that "the musical practices of different cultural communities represent a diverse cluster of community-specific ritualized behaviors involving sound" (p. 252). Furthermore, each of the musical practices "serves those persons who meaningfully participate in it as a means of psychophysiological, psychosocial, and/or sociopolitical equilibration relative to the worldview—or ordered conception of Reality—they tacitly share" (p. 252). For Goble, this pragmatist conception of musical practices is neither ethnocentric, universalist, nor relativist, and can serve as a conceptual framework for all diverse musical practices in postmodern United States. With the Peircian pragmatic conception in mind, Goble examines historical factors that contributed to current conceptions of music in the United States in Chapter Four. He laments that as a result of European Enlightenment and three socio-political phenomena in the United States (the separation of church and state, promotion of no other worldview than democracy, and adoption of democratic capitalism), music is no longer pragmatically oriented but trivialized and pursued by self-serving musicians. In Chapter Five, Goble traces the philosophical justifications for music education throughout the history of the United States. While the sign "musical practice" was conceptualized as "worship" in colonial America, the sign "music" was conceived as "art" during the age of Enlightenment, and as "product" during the age of science and technology. Noting that Bennett Reimer's music education as aesthetic education is limited in its Western focus on music as works [End Page 202] of artistic objects, Goble aligns his Peircian conception along praxial lines—in particular, with...

This article reveals the results of a comparative study of Estonian and Finnish general music education. The aim was to find out what music teaching practices and approaches/methods were mostly used, what music education perspectives supported those practices. The data were collected using questionnaires and the results of 107 Estonian and 50 Finnish music teachers' answers were examined using quantitative analysis. The results showed that singing has an exceptional role in Estonian music education as well as the minor importance of teaching elementary music theory in Finland. There are also significant connections between music teachers' music educational knowledge and music activities used in both countries.

Music education holds an ambiguous relationship to social justice and social change; it is both complicit in perpetuating relations of inequality and a potential force for positive change. There is a need to turn the ambiguity of music’s social function—the simultaneous production of transformative and reproductive social processes—into the foundational premise of social analysis of music educational practice. Based on a discussion of ideas derived from social theory, feminist philosophy, and critical musicology concerning the performative constitution of agency and sociality, the notion of ambiguous musical practice is put forward as an analytical lens suited for exploring music’s social significance. The notion points to three interlocking dimensions of musical practice: bidirectionality (how music making may at once lead to destabilization and consolidation of social norms); multiplicity of social meanings (how music making produces multiple social meanings and therefore also may produce [contradictory] social effects on different levels of sociality); and in-betweenness (how music making may place participants in a state ‘in-between,’ understood as a social space where multiple identities, relations, and meanings can be both performed and imposed in ways that render them indeterminate). Inthis way, the notion of ambiguous musical practice may inform critical social analyses of music educational practice.

This chapter considers the question of how music educators determine the musical ends towards which their teaching is directed. Musical traditions, both “great” and “little,” as Estelle Jorgensen describes them, are inseparable from the philosophical traditions through which music educators determine consider their pedagogical ends. This chapter presents a three-part framework to describe how music educators might approach understanding their work as a socially embodied enactment of contrasting traditions. The term tradition is first defined as a means of categorizing philosophical schools of thought from which various musical practices can be understood. The liberal philosophical tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment has emphasized rational aesthetic contemplation as a means towards personal growth. In contrast, the critical tradition, grounded in post-Nietzschean genealogy, has prioritized politicized musical action as a means towards personal liberation. The classical tradition is presented as an alternative to both liberal and critical approaches, emphasizing the cultivation of virtue and an openness to transcendence as a means towards human flourishing. This approach, while currently underdeveloped in the philosophy of music education, would prioritize the experience of beauty as a transcendent property of being through induction into pre-existing musical traditions.

This article examines the multifaceted role of music education as a medium for transmitting intangible cultural heritage and cultivating students’ cultural identities. Drawing on interdisciplinary scholarship from ethnomusicology, sociocultural learning theory, culturally responsive pedagogy, and heritage studies, it explores how traditional music, regional repertoires, and heritage-oriented educational practices can be meaningfully integrated into formal schooling. Particular emphasis is placed on the Greek educational context, including the institutional role of Music Schools, school-based cultural programs, and commemorative musical practices, while also considering the broader relevance of these approaches for culturally diverse educational settings. Adopting a conceptual and literature-based analytical approach, the article examines how creative, experiential, and community-engaged music practices may foster cultural participation, identity formation, and critical musical awareness. The discussion argues that music education, when grounded in reflective and culturally responsive pedagogy, can contribute not only to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage but also to the development of learners as active interpreters and co-constructors of cultural meaning. At the same time, the article highlights important practical and conceptual challenges, including teacher preparation, curriculum design, resource inequality, and the risk of presenting heritage through static or exclusionary cultural narratives. It concludes that heritage-based music education is most educationally meaningful when it supports inclusive, dialogic, and critically engaged forms of participation in culturally plural and changing societies.

<p><strong>In the last 30 years, digital technology has changed music making. These changes have been studied in the context of music education. The majority of the research predates the major technological shifts that have occurred in the last five years (e.g. browser-based Digital Audio Workstations) and the impact of online teaching through the Covid-19 pandemic. Studies have focused on the relationships between teacher beliefs at the introductory or integration phase of digital technology. It has not been determined how secondary school classroom music teachers in New Zealand conceptualize music education in light of the country's unique curriculum and assessment framework. Neither is there any recent empirical research internationally that provides insights into the relationship and influence of teacher beliefs with their experience and practice of digital technologies in the classroom. Additionally, previous empirical studies with digital technology have been limited by being narrow in their sample size, only sampling advanced users of digital technology or with pre-service teachers.</strong></p><p>This thesis explores the landscape of music education in the digital age, focusing on the examining of the experience, practices, and beliefs of secondary school music teachers in New Zealand with the goal of attaining the essence of their experience as a combined cohort. The methodological approach uses a transcendental phenomenology lens, drawing on Husserlian phenomenology. The two-part mixed methods study includes the administering of a new Music Education Digital Technology (MEDT) survey tool nationwide to an estimated 40% of the secondary school music teaching cohort followed by six case studies. The research outcomes reveal three key findings that contribute to the understanding of the experience of secondary school music teachers with digital technology into music education.</p><p>The first research outcome highlights that the participating teachers are praxicalists, the most recent iteration of the education theory of praxialism, as developed by Regelski. Contrary to expectations of curriculum incoherence, the findings illustrate a coherent approach through the interconnected pillars of praxicalism, namely techné, poiesis, phronēsis, and theoria. The study identifies the flexibility of the national curriculum (NZC) and assessment framework (NCEA) in New Zealand in providing autonomy for teachers in their curriculum decisions. The second research outcome emphasizes how the classroom reflects current music praxis. In making their curriculum decisions, the music teachers strive to incorporate a pluralistic approach to what music genres are included, challenging the dichotomy between Western Art Music (WAM) and popular/contemporary or electronic music that is present in previous studies. Within the context of how genres are included, the study reveals that teachers are informed by how musicians create music, and seek to primarily draw from students' experiences, minimizing the boundary between in-school and out-of-school music. This approach addresses the longstanding problem of a mismatch between school music and external music praxis. Additionally, the study highlights the significance of recognizing students as already knowledgeable contributors to music praxes outside the classroom.</p><p>The third research outcome identifies teachers as teaching experts rather than knowledge or digital technology experts. The participating teachers, despite lacking expertise in specific musical genres or digital technology, confidently integrate diverse music praxes into their curricula. The interaction between techné and phronesis underpins their decision-making, enabling a student-centred curriculum design.</p><p>Overarching across these three outcomes, is how digital technology is infused in music, and this requires a different way of thinking about music education. The identification of infusion of digital technology in music making is a major finding not currently present in the empirical research internationally.</p><p>The study proposes six areas for future research, including future use of the MEDT survey tool in New Zealand and overseas, exploration of the impact of ongoing curriculum and assessment changes, investigation into teachers' perceptions of negative effects of digital technology, examination of the relationship between self-efficacy and mindset, consideration of students' perspectives, and a global perspective on the study findings.</p><p>While acknowledging limitations such as a small sample size and geographical context, this study has implications for both music teachers and policymakers. It advocates for a student-centred approach, emphasizing the importance of strong curriculum-making skills and maintaining trust and autonomy for teachers in the digital age. The study's implications extend beyond New Zealand, offering insights for policymakers in other nations undergoing curriculum and assessment revisions.</p>

Editorial Estelle R. Jorgensen This special issue celebrates the contributions of Bennett Reimer (1932–2013) to the philosophy of music education throughout the world. Probably no other philosopher is so identified with music education thought in the latter part of the twentieth century, as a protagonist for the view of music education as a form of aesthetic education and a precursor to an alternative, David Elliott’s praxial theory of music education. Here, our writers examine the historical and editorial context in which he wrote, his impact on music education practice, the nature of ideas that may constitute his legacy for music education, and his effect on music education internationally. Reimer is best remembered for his notion of music education as a form of aesthetic education articulated in his A Philosophy of Music Education (1970) with successive editions in 1989 and 2003. In formulating his philosophy, he dipped into the current of aesthetic ideas about music education that were circulating at the time. One thinks, for example, of Charles Leonard and Robert House’s case for the need for a robust aesthetic philosophy in music education, articulated in their text, Foundations and Principles of Music Education (1959) and Abraham Schwadron’s argument for the place of aesthetics in a philosophy of music education in his Aesthetics: Dimensions for Music Education (1967) published by the Music Educators National Conference. The role of aesthetics and feeling in music education was subsequently addressed by other writers in the 1970s. For example, Thomas Regelski credited Susanne Langer’s notion of feeling in his Principles and Problems of Music Education (1975) and drawing on Schwadron’s work, discussed aesthetics and feeling in his subsequent essay published in the Music Educators Journal, “Aim for the Inner Life: Teaching Early Teens” (1979). [End Page 113] Reimer’s achievement was to catch the imagination of the time and formulate an influential and evolving philosophy that impacted music education research and practice well beyond the United States. By the time I discovered the first edition of Reimer’s Philosophy, I was in the midst of a critique of music education that came to comprise my dissertation and eventually developed into my book, In Search of Music Education, published much later in 1997. Although I agreed with Reimer’s premise that music education constituted a means and form of aesthetic education, I sought a broader, different, and dialectical aesthetic view. For me, music education logically concerned not only aesthetic considerations but important ontological, axiological, and epistemological matters. Although music education might properly be construed as a form of aesthetic education, it could not be only that. My writing reflected a growing sense in the profession of the importance of socially, culturally, and practically grounded views of music and education that complicated and challenged Reimer’s philosophy. The dramatic cultural and societal changes of the times seemed to call for different approaches to the philosophy of music education than the theory Reimer had constructed. There was also a growing desire for a forum in which different philosophical ideas could be articulated and discussed. Reimer began to amend his views but changes in the second edition of his Philosophy were insufficient to satisfy his critics and matters came to a head at the end of the 1980s. In 1989, Elliott published a book review critical of the second edition of Reimer’s A Philosophy of Music Education in the Philosophy of Music Education Newsletter. In 1990, in a paper entitled, “What Should One Expect from a Philosophy of Music Education?” presented at the Philosopher/Teacher in Music: The Indiana Symposium on Research and Teaching in the Philosophy of Music Education, held July 8–12, in Bloomington, Indiana, Philip Alperson introduced the notion of a praxial approach to aesthetics as one of several philosophical moves that could benefit music education. Alperson’s aesthetic emphasis on the social and cultural constructs of music and the role of practices in the phenomenal world took advantage of new intellectual developments. Rather than suggest the praxial option as the only justifiable philosophical position or regard it as an anti-aesthetic posture, Alperson presented three aesthetic options, of which the praxial view was one, each having advantages and...

This article is the result of a survey completed which identified as the toy is presented in the teaching and learning in children's music education practices. Participant observation was carried out in two groups of music education with children aged 2 and 3 years, with the use of field diary. The results showed that the process was enriched significantly through the use the toys. Rattles, scarves, wooden horses, stuffed animals, puppets, rag dolls, children's story books were objects that contributed to increasing the participation of children in songs and dances, expand relations between children and adults. They served to play at the reception of the children, living together and musical practices, the expansion of interactions and emotional ties, especially in promoting more pleasant moments in music education practices with children.

In this paper I argue that there are established vernacular music traditions in rural communities that can be productively integrated into a hybrid music education curriculum. I draw on my own informal education in folk music, which bore an ambivalent relationship to the kind of formal music education on offer in my youth. I argue that music education can and should draw on vernacular, hybrid, and improvisational rural musical traditions and practices. Such integration creates generative space for the entanglement of experience and schooling. Basil Bernstein called horizontal discourses reflecting everyday knowledge forms (little m music), and the vertical discourses that have dominated much secondary music education (big M music). This way of thinking about curriculum holds potential for building productive bridges and translations that respects living musical knowledge and invites authentic rural community engagement as well as complex understandings of music and rural social space.

ABSTRACT: Historical research contributes a perspective on the evolution of the music therapy profession and creates an opportunity for reflection. The development of music therapy practice and formal education in Iowa have a rich and interesting history dating before the formation of the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT) in 1950. As part of the Iowa Lecture Series at the 2006 AMTA Mid-western Regional Conference, this paper reflects on the origins and development of music therapy practice and education in the state of Iowa. Historical research contributes a perspective on the evolution of the profession and creates reflection. Reflection provides an understanding of past decisions, directions, trends, and theories. Reflection also informs the future (K. Gfeller, personal communication, May 9, 2006). Historical research puts together the stories of individuals, places, cultures, and time. These stories on their own may only be interesting to those involved, but by placing the smaller stories into the context of the profession, a foundation of understanding is built. With a strong foundation, current and future generations of music therapists have a connection with their past that engages them in meaning for the future. Presented as part of the Iowa Lecture Series at the 2006 AMTA Midwestern Regional Conference, this paper reflects on the origins and development of music therapy practice and education in the state of Iowa and thereby contributes to the past, present, and future narrative of the music therapy profession. The development of music therapy practice and formal education in Iowa have a rich and interesting history dating before the formation of the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT) in 1950. The first substantial accounts of music therapy clinical work occurred in 1949 at the Cherokee State Hospital, a state facility that provided treatment for individuals with mental illness (Gingrich, 1949). Later, the growth of clinical music therapy programs at the Knoxville Iowa Veterans Hospital and at the University of Iowa hospital provided substantial evidence that music therapy practice existed in some of the most prominent health care facilities in the state. The first attempt to educate musicians to work as therapists began in 1949 at the Cherokee State Hospital. This short-lived program offered musically gifted employees of the Iowa state hospital system a chance to learn music therapy techniques to use with clients who had mental illness (Gingrich, 1949). In 1976, The University of Iowa created a music therapy training program whose evolution provides a historical reflection of music therapy education in the United States. The Early Years In the late 1940s a typical psychiatric facility would have been overcrowded, housing in excess of 1000 clients, and would have provided limited treatment to their patients. The four largest mental hospitals in Iowa at this time were no exception; they were overcrowded and only offered treatment to select clients. Located in Cherokee, Mount Pleasant, Clarinda, and Independence, these facilities were constructed using the Kirkbride model, a style of construction intended specifically for psychiatric facilities (http://www.kirkbridebuildings.com/about/index.html). Named after Thomas Storey Kirkbride, a 19th century mental health reformer, these structures were massive multiple story buildings designed to house hundreds (and later thousands) of patients in an efficient manner, by segregating patients according to gender, race, diagnosis, and severity of disorder. Originally, treatment was the goal for all clients, but as the 20th century drew near and funding became scarce, these enormous hospitals largely provided custodial care. Even by the mid-twentieth-century, therapy was in most instances limited to patients with the best prognosis for recovery. Music Therapy Training at Mount Pleasant State Hospital The September 1949 issue of the Hospital Music Newsletter contained a brief description of a unique music therapy aide training program offered at Mount Pleasant State Hospital (Gingrich, 1949). …

While musical practice is more often than not considered through musical repertoires, genres, and traditions, in higher music education, musical practices are further narrowed down to music profession-specific, craft-based competences and learning outcomes. This narrow understanding encompasses the intertwined social and material dimensions that—according to practice theories—constitute and determine all practices. This study seeks a new understanding for practice-based, relational, professional education in context. By “practice in context,” we refer to Theodore Schatzki’s practice theory, in which practices are understood as organized, materially mediated, spatiotemporal nexuses of activities, and in which human coexistence is inherently tied to a context and “sites” of events and entities— site-ness . The empirical material consists of interviews of 10 bigenerational, experienced contemporary composers in Finland, including both males and females. By thinking composing practice with Schatzkian practice theory, three intertwined site-nesses are unveiled, comprising emerging locations (such as small-scale venues and local festivals); wider scenes or nonspatial sites (such as digital platforms and the festival scene); and extended realms (political, economical, educational, and policy). In this theory, various elements of practice-arrangement bundles constitute the site-ness and the complex practice plenum for composing. The site-ness thus becomes part of contemporary composers’ professional practice and higher music education which challenges the musical autonomy discourse which disentangles music from people and society. By posing a critique toward higher music education as a merely transmissive mediator of musical craft, this study seeks for a new understanding for practice-based, relational, “music professionalism in context.” It advances theoretical underpinnings of Schatzkian studies in the arts, by arguing that practice theory can bridge the individualistic past- and competence-oriented higher music education with the present- and future-oriented social understanding of musicians’ changing “practice in context.”