Undergraduate Development of Coursework in Musicology
Abstract and Keywords
In 1960, W.W. Norton published Donald J. Grout’s first edition of A History of Western Music. It proved to be an epochal book, not only in sales but in influence over the field of musicology pedagogy as well as, since that time, it (and its subsequent revisions) has come to define what US undergraduate music students learn. In the 1990s, however, musicology pedagogy entered an evolutionary period as trends in higher education and American society buffeted its coursework. The result has been five areas of intense concentration and change that have defined musicological coursework since that time: canons and content, engagement, technology, information literacy, and contexts. This essay explores how those five areas have shifted the experience of music history for undergraduate music students as well as how pedagogues have responded to them in innovative ways.
“Talking about music always seems to me like keeping small boys outside a sweet shop explaining to them how the sweets are made.”—Gustav Holst1
In 1939, the colorful and combative American composer and critic Virgil Thomson surveyed music history teaching for the general public and at the undergraduate level and caustically labeled it a “racket.” Since the early part of the century, musical education had slowly evolved into the “Music Appreciation” course, a much-debated attempt to enculturate and educate a listening audience. Thomson wanted no part of it. Those courses, he argued, did nothing but encourage a passive approach to music, where audiences sat and “listened” to someone else deliver music instead of learning how to make music themselves. Well-known composers lent their names and credibility to the courses in “a shady business” that ultimately produced textbooks that “transmit no firm knowledge and describe no firm practice.” In short, his recommendation was that “If you are a musician, all I need say is, just take a look at the books. If you are not, avoid them as you would the appearance of evil.”2
Thomson’s now justly famous screed against Music Appreciation first appeared in his book The State of Music in a chapter titled “Why Composers Write How, or The Economic Determinism of Musical Style.” His writing in that book was powerful, provocative, and witty enough to cause New York Herald-Tribune editorial-page editor Geoffrey Parsons to seek him out and offer him the chief music critic job after Lawrence Gilman passed away in September 1939.3 For the next fifteen years, Thomson helped define musical discourse in the United States, and so when he returned to The State of Music for a revised edition in 1961, he was in a unique position to take stock of any shifts in music history education. Tellingly, he did not change a word.
Changes were afoot, however, even as Thomson’s book went to press. The 1960s saw the establishment of several institutions that came to define music history teaching at the undergraduate level in the United States for the next fifty years. In 1958, the College Music Association and the Society for Music in Liberal Arts Colleges merged into the College Music Society (CMS) to “gather, consider, and disseminate ideas on the philosophy and practice of music as part of a liberal education in colleges and universities.”4 It met for the first time in December of 1958 along with the American Musicological Society (AMS) and the three-year-old Society for Ethnomusicology. The joint meeting established musicology as a facet of the CMS’s mission. Indeed, the first meeting’s final session focused on “The Curriculum of Music” and ended with John Ohl’s talk, “Music History and the Curriculum,” which concluded by declaring: “Music is not many fields, but one thing: music … It is this unity that the teacher of music history is better able to present to college students of music, whatever their special interests, than are most of his colleagues who teach other aspects of musical practice and discipline.”5
Besides this direct call for musicologists to participate actively in pedagogical matters, the CMS also established a professional journal for the propagation of the scholarship of music teaching and learning. Donald McCorkle, a prominent expert on Moravian music and the first editor of the College Music Symposium, circumscribed the journal’s reach when he remarked, “It [the journal] should stimulate new ideas and concepts in theoretical and pedagogical studies, but it should not be a medium for publication of research articles which might better be published in research journals.”6 As a result of this call, early issues featured symposia on music training for K–12 teachers, examinations of music programs at various institutions (including the University of California Los Angeles’s pioneering Institute of Ethnomusicology), book reviews of pedagogical publications, and articles examining “The Crisis in Music Theory Teaching.”7 In spite of the initial inclusion of musicology pedagogy in CMS and the conversation about music appreciation in the broader musical community as seen through Thomson’s diatribe and even Leonard Bernstein’s contemporaneous Young People’s Concerts (which began broadcasting the same year as CMS’s founding), discussion of issues in the teaching of music history did not appear in the Symposium’s pages until the eighth volume in 1968 featured a symposium on music appreciation.8 The ten-year gap certainly does not represent a conscious decision on the part of the Symposium’s editors to exclude music history pedagogy; rather, it demonstrates that most music history faculty saw their roles as scholars whose pedagogy flowed out of their approach to their scholarship.9 Pursuing pedagogy as a scholarly discipline, or even developing classes devoted to pedagogy, would likely have never crossed their minds.
Where scholars did pedagogical work was in writing textbooks, and the final institution established in the 1960s is a result of this impulse. In 1947, Cornell musicologist Donald J. Grout authored a widely used textbook on opera history, an endeavor that brought him to the attention of Addison Burnham, editor at W.W. Norton.10 Burnham approached Grout with the argument that college professors needed a general music history for undergraduates. At the time there were several wide-reaching music history texts such as Paul Henry Lang’s 1941 The History of Music in Western Civilization, Einstein’s 1931 A Short History of Music, and Sachs’s 1948 Our Musical Heritage, but Burnham deemed them all too advanced for the average college student. Grout bought the argument and began work. He looked at previous histories and identified his own topics and historical boundaries. He interrogated the established canon of his day and chose to center his history on the styles of music cultivated by the dominant social class in each historical period. And he wrote a text aimed at general music students that introduced them to what they could not learn through performance, analysis, and listening but was still foundational for understanding music.
That Grout was successful in his task was apparent from the first edition in 1960. It was an immediate triumph with plentiful positive reviews, adoption at most major universities, and testimonials by eminent scholars, including Paul Henry Lang, who wrote Grout in 1970 that “This book ought to remain in the lead, for while there will be new ones every year and they will cut into your sales, you should be able to keep the lead. No one else would do such a good job.”11 A 1989 survey of music history faculty confirmed Lang’s prediction; 85% of them used the “Grout” textbook. Recent remarks by W.W. Norton staff indicate that as the text prepares for its ninth edition in 2014, its market share remains proportionally high.12
The result of A History of Western Music’s monolithic status and the paucity of pedagogy articles in major publications such as College Music Symposium created the sense of a pedagogy in amber. For almost thirty years following A History of Western Music’s publication, it defined the musical canon for American undergraduates, a canon dominated by Western European art music and its derivatives. Its presentation and grouping of musical styles and history organized countless music history courses. And its structure and choice of music even came to delineate the music taught in music appreciation classes as books written after Grout, such as Roger Kamien’s 1976 Music: An Appreciation, followed its path through music history.13
What is most remarkable about this state of affairs is that over the same period, a sister discipline in music scholarship developed a robust pedagogical literature. Articles about teaching aural skills and written music theory appeared early in College Music Symposium and even in music education journals such as the first issue of Journal of Research in Music Education in the 1950s. This comparatively early start in music theory pedagogy led to the establishment in 1985 of the Gail Boyd de Stwolinski Center for Music Theory Pedagogy at the University of Oklahoma, an institute that created the Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy two years later. As a result of this climate, music theory pedagogy remains a dynamic field with numerous resources for young teachers and scholars and a plethora of textbooks vying for adoption.
The climate for music history pedagogy has not been as hospitable over the half century since Grout first published A History of Western Music. There have been sporadic publications, most notably Mary Natvig’s 2002 edited volume Teaching Music History, which included eighteen essays on the music history survey, music appreciation, other introductory courses, and special topic courses, along with more general issues such as using anthologies and writing.14 Scholars curious about pedagogy as an intellectual endeavor occasionally banded together, most notably with forums on music history pedagogy at the CMS starting in 2005 and the creation in 2006 of the Pedagogy Study Group of the AMS by James Briscoe, Peter Burkholder, Alice Clark, and Jessie Fillerup—and the subsequent (and annual) Teaching Music History Day the group sponsors. But not until 2010 did music history pedagogy research seem to reach critical mass. In that year, twenty-three years after creation of the Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy, the AMS Pedagogy Study Group established the Journal of Music History Pedagogy (JMHP); James Briscoe published Vitalizing Music History Teaching, an edited volume sponsored by the CMS; and the national AMS meeting scheduled the first pedagogy panels in prime time.
Each of these events approached the growth of music history pedagogy from different angles. In the JMHP’s opening article, editor-in-chief Matthew Balensuela noted that while American musicology “has traditionally not regarded teaching and pedagogy as scholarly pursuits worthy of professional consideration … Musicologists are increasingly interested in scholarship on good teaching and the editors believe there is need in the discipline for a regularly published journal of both original research and reviews of textbooks and teaching materials related to music history pedagogy.”15 The journal’s founding certainly signaled a tidal shift in attitudes toward pedagogy that had been building for several years; still, it is worth pointing out that Balensuela titled his opening salvo “Toward a Scholarship of Music History Pedagogy,” explicitly confirming that while much scholarship had been done in the area, the field remained in its infancy.
In his preface to Vitalizing Music History, James Briscoe sounded a slightly more pessimistic call while lauding the changes he saw afoot. In a survey he conducted in 2000, Briscoe discovered that only four out of fifty schools offering the Ph.D. in historical musicology required their students to study music history pedagogy, and he feared that the number was not much improved ten years later.16 He also expressed frustration that the Journal of the American Musicological Society had never published a pedagogy article. However, Briscoe listed several facets of the notable work by the CMS, including yearly forums on pedagogy topics at CMS national meetings, two Institutes for Music History Pedagogy in 2006 and 2008, and the collected essays in his own edited volume. While not projecting future developments, an essential difference between a book and an ongoing journal, Briscoe’s preface provides a fuller picture of the state of the field in 2010 when taken with the opening article in JMHP.
The final event that pointed to music history pedagogy’s coming of age was the inclusion of two sessions at the AMS national meeting in Indianapolis in November 2010. Friday evening saw the aptly titled “The Emerging Scholarship of Pedagogy,” a panel discussion among members of the Pedagogy Study Group on the state of the field. Sunday morning featured “Rethinking Classrooms, Homework, and Learning: New Models for Teaching Music History in the Online Age,” another panel (this one featuring José Antonio Bowen, Mark Clague, Jocelyn Neal, and Matthew Baumer as moderator). While these sessions did not feature formal research-based papers, they indicated the new attention given by the AMS to pedagogy. The following year confirmed that attention, when the first AMS Teaching Award went to Alice V. Clark for an online module on Guillaume de Machaut, and a Friday evening session at the 2011 national meeting in San Francisco on “Reconsidering Narrative in the Music History Survey” featured three formal papers on the topic by recognized authors in the field.17
Even with these three events, perhaps the clearest picture of how scholars regarded the nascent field of music history pedagogy in 2010 can be gleaned by examining a bibliography Matthew Balensuela put together for JMHP’s inaugural issue and a list of pedagogical themes identified by J. Peter Burkholder in an article for College Music Symposium.18
Balensuela’s bibliography focuses on pedagogy articles in musicology and related fields written since 2000. He picked that year as his cutoff in order to prove that there was a substantial amount of current work on the topic, enough to support a journal. The resulting list of sixty articles in the field (including all articles from Teaching Music History and Vitalizing Music History Teaching), four books on higher education pedagogy, and eleven papers presented at the 2009 Teaching Music History Day certainly supports the need for a dedicated journal. It also reveals that scholars had begun to recognize and work on common themes in the development of coursework in undergraduate music history. Reading through Balensuela’s list, the following groupings begin to suggest themselves: expanding the repertoire taught to undergraduate music majors, innovations in teaching music history to nonmusic majors, strategies for engaging students in the classroom, new activities and new technology for student learning, and the philosophies behind teaching music history. These themes appear in the scattering of key publications before 2000, but by focusing on the scholarship of the previous decade, Balensuela explicated the themes that have, in many ways, defined the journal and the field.
Balensuela was not the only scholar identifying the key themes in undergraduate music history pedagogy in 2010. That same year, the College Music Symposium featured a section on “Pedagogy in the Classroom.” The collection’s thirteen articles covered music history and music theory pedagogy and included “Changing the Stories We Tell: Repertoires, Narrative, Materials, Goals, and Strategies in Teaching Music History,” J. Peter Burkholder’s personal reflection of the five areas of music history pedagogy witnessing the most change over the previous fifty years. Drawing from his experience, Burkholder defined “repertoires” as the widening and deepening of the styles and genres music history teachers examine in class; “narratives” as the stories teachers tell that attempt to pull music together in a coherent whole for students; “materials” as the variety of resources available to music history teachers, from textbooks to websites to the myriad technological options floating in cyberspace; “goals” as the switch from imparting a body of music students should know to guiding students in how to think historically, how to critique narratives, and how to do musicology; and “strategies” as the active methods teachers use in class to help students learn the material and master the goals teachers set for them.19
Burkholder’s categories were idiosyncratic and based on his expertise not only as a pedagogue but also as the most recent scholar to take up the mantle of revising Grout’s A History of Western Music for the current generation of students. Yet his list connects with the more objective one Balensuela inadvertently created with his “Select Bibliography of Music History Pedagogy Since 2000” to reveal several areas that have shaped current development of undergraduate music history education in the United States. With the preceding exploration of the overall environment in which undergraduate music history pedagogy has germinated over the past fifty years as a backdrop, I spend the rest of this article exploring the five areas of intense concentration and change revealed by my survey of the available literature. While it is necessarily as personal a list as Burkholder’s, I hope it complements his and Balensuela’s efforts in providing a rich outlook from which to chart a course for the discipline’s future. The areas are: “Canons and Content,” “Engagement,” “Technology,” “Information Literacy,” and “Contexts.”
Canons and Content
One of the oldest and most contested topics in music history pedagogy remains the music that we teach and the content of our courses. When Donald Grout was in the planning stages of his music history, he identified his first step as choosing his subject’s boundaries.20 With so much music and so much history to discuss, Grout found it imperative to set limits and circumscribed his boundaries at the edge of Western European art music, remarking in his book’s preface that just a generation earlier the word “Western” would not have even been in the title. Forty years later, little had changed as Peter Burkholder voiced a common cry among music history teachers: how do we teach music history when there is always more we want to put in, whether from history continuing its march or from the opening of new repertoires?21
In many ways, music history teachers are victims of musicology’s success as a discipline. Over the past fifty years, scholars have steadily eroded the Western European canon’s dominance. New fields continually open and introduce new repertoires that demand consideration. With the establishment of ethnomusicology in the United States, designers of undergraduate coursework finally began giving credence to the music of cultures outside the European sphere, music from India, West Africa, East Asia, and beyond. These traditions obviously impacted the development of Western European music and added deep undertones to student experiences of the repertoire. They also encouraged historical musicologists to look at European regions previously slighted, such as Spain, England, and Eastern Europe, and even regions directly impacted by European musical culture such as the United States and Latin America. Other work invited previously underexplored repertoires within the Western canon to the table, including the music of women composers, the outlook of performers, and the contributions of African Americans.22 Institutes, journals, and societies dedicated to the study of popular music and particularly jazz began to appear in the 1970s and 1980s, enlarging the canon further and bringing with the new repertoire new approaches that urged students to move beyond seeing music as autonomous in order to embrace music’s social and economic setting while studying style, genre, score, and recording in the classroom.23 Finally, the production of new critical editions and the involvement of musicologists in the recording process created a fountain of new, expert recordings of music from all genres, styles, and periods.
Response to this outpouring of new repertoires and content has been generally positive but extremely varied among pedagogy scholars. Early discussions centered on how to add new repertoires without disrupting the old. Donald Boomgaarden, writing in 1991, sounded an alarm that the academy’s drive to add cultural diversity into higher education curriculum would soon reach music history and create a crisis of how to accomplish the task.24 Fortunately, Boomgaarden went on to note, musicology needed simply to return to the writings of Athanasius Kircher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Burney, and especially Guido Adler in order to find a way forward. Boomgaarden then outlined how he created a three-week unit that served as an introduction to non-Western music through various themes and issues: Week 1 covered the role of music in non-Western societies; Week 2 explored the makeup of non-Western music as an introduction to form and structure in Western music; and Week 3 completed the unit through a comparison of Western and non-Western music.25 The result of this approach is that non-Western music does not interfere with the traditional history sequence; it is seen as an enhancement while being held separate. Non-Western music is valued not for itself but for the ways in which it interfaces with Western music.
That Boomgaarden’s suggestion was common among music history surveys during the 1990s can easily be seen in the fifth edition of Grout’s venerable A History of Western Music. In his preface, Claude V. Palisca noted, “Teachers of music history … have expanded the horizons of their courses, particularly in the direction of popular music, traditional ethnic musics, and jazz.” But, he continued, “I continue to respect the limits set by the original author and editors.”26 As a result, like Boomgaarden, Palisca nodded to expanding the repertoire by mentioning the Javanese gamelan in relation to Debussy and the “ethnic contexts” of Bartók and Kodály while tacking on a forty-page chapter on American music in the twentieth century that allowed for only seven pages to cover ragtime, blues, jazz, R&B, rock, and musical comedy.27
Other writers offered competing answers to the question of content in the 1990s, and those answers pointed toward an integration that has informed the current conversation. In a joint CMS/AMS session on undergraduate teaching at the societies’ 1987 meeting, respondents addressed the question of how research influences undergraduate teaching. James Hepokoski presciently observed that in order for musicologists to discover how the specialized (their research) can inform the general (their undergraduate classes), they need to not present music history as something static but as something constantly shifting because of new discoveries, providing students a taste of the discipline.28 Following that suggestion, Christopher Wilkinson, a scholar of African American music, most notably of the jazz tradition, argued in 1996 that the diversity of American culture calls into question a largely white male canon in music history classrooms. He found that musicologists were not letting their work in the specialized inform their teaching of the general and so, following his own research, proposed that music history courses integrate cultivated and vernacular musics throughout history and in particular explore European and West African musical developments side by side. Doing so would provide students the foundational knowledge needed to understand American musical culture and therefore prepare them for success in their professional lives in the United States.29
Integration at this level necessitates the kind of choices decried at the beginning of this section that some content is left behind as new content is added, but it came to underpin discussion in the early 2000s. By that decade, it became a given that teachers wished to expand their repertoire horizons, but the methods by which they sailed to those new lands remained a subject of debate.
Some scholars, like Art Samplaski, urged teachers to look at their content and divide it in new ways, finding large patterns that would allow them to move quickly through some material while going in depth into others.30 This was a kind of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude toward ever-expanding content. Others, like Mark Clague, argued that our best solution was to collaborate and borrow ideas from other closely related disciplines.31 Some schools began erasing the boundaries between music history surveys and music theory courses to create hybrids. The resulting courses used the tools of musicology and music theory to engage students in a detailed music history that explored the contexts and cultures as well as functions and structures of music. This was a combine-and-conquer approach to questions of content in both music disciplines.
Finally, several authors suggested reducing the music history survey to key compositions in each given musical historical period in order to forego the history of musical style in favor of a history of people making music. As Burkholder outlined, teachers can either keep their current survey courses while giving up the need to cover each historical period in detail or create new courses that allow for in-depth study of a given repertoire.32 In his proposal, teachers are free from the “crisis” of ever-expanding content, and students, through study of the selected works, gain an introduction to musicological methods and the tools to approach any musical work with which they come in contact. This was a reorientation-of-the-goals methodology that sidestepped questions of content to deal with questions of outcomes.
Other innovative solutions continue to present themselves, each with its merits and detractors. In a conversation on the AMS electronic listserv in September of 2013, a thread on “Unconventional Courses” began in which several music history teachers shared their ideas and approaches, including one pedagogue who was abandoning the standard two-semester history survey in favor of focused topics courses. He carefully outlined his plan in some detail and stated his reasons for the change, prompting a reply from another teacher not even four hours later. The reply questioned if the level of detail was appropriate for an undergraduate course, wondered if overarching themes and ideas might be more useful for students, and expressed sympathy for the task of sifting through mountains of content before concluding that the content question boils down to “What do we want our students to learn?” Indeed it does, and that question best summarizes the state of thought on canons and content in music history pedagogy. Over the past fifteen years, teachers have watched as the size of the Norton Anthology of Western Music that accompanies A History of Western Music has ballooned from 1,524 pages of score and commentary in 1996’s third edition to 2,793 pages in 2010’s sixth even while contact hours have remained static. As a result, undergraduate music history pedagogy has discovered that the canon and course content should be elastic and fit to the teacher and his or her setting but should constantly strive to expand students’ minds with variety and surprise them with fresh insights through new and startling juxtapositions.
For generations, and even centuries, higher education has been set up along the lines of what Ken Bain calls the “transmission model” of teaching: the instructor prepares course content and delivers it to students in a lecture. In essence, teaching is something done to the student who passively sits and receives it. In contrast, Bain discovered through intensive research that “the best educators thought of teaching as anything they might do to help and encourage students to learn. Teaching is engaging students, engineering an environment in which they learn.”33 This new emphasis on student learning and engagement is a paradigm shift in conceptions of the roles faculty and students play in the classroom and is one that has been developing for several decades. Scholar of instructional development L. Dee Fink commented on this shift by first surveying the concerns that students, educators, and the public share about the effectiveness of a college education when students, after four years of college, cannot read an essay and identify its implications and assumptions, much less relate its themes to their own lives. Those same students were also weak when it came to any task requiring them to establish a chronology of historical events or find causal relationships among events, two skills close to the heart of music history pedagogy.34 With such a stark gap between expectations and outcomes, Fink then summarized that “teaching should result in something others can look at and say: ‘That learning experience resulted in something that is truly significant in terms of the students’ lives.’”35
All teachers want their students to have significant learning experiences, whether they are prompted by lecture, discussion, projects, or any other classroom activity, and, as a result, music history pedagogy over the past two decades has ridden the tide of research into the interaction between teaching and learning. At the forefront of this discussion has been the notion of active learning, a formulation that students learn best when they actively engage with the course’s content. Although the term first appeared in the 1980s, Charles Bonwell and James Eison codified it with their 1991 report Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom, which concluded that active learning places less emphasis on transmitting information and more on developing skills, increasing motivation, providing quick feedback to students, and involving them in higher level thinking.36 Musicologists quickly saw the connection between engaging students and the kinds of experiences offered in a music history classroom and so began outlining proposals for creating an active classroom through writing, listening, and practicing the discipline.
The first area scholars explored in engaging students was writing in the music history classroom. In 1991, Beth Christensen and Gerald Hoekstra, librarian and musicologist, respectively, at St. Olaf College, described a new series of writing projects where students examined a piece of music and researched the historical and cultural context in which it was written. They then wrote a fictional account of an early performance of the work based on their research and presented it to the class in the form of a letter, a journal, or any other type of writing relevant to the period. Christensen and Hoekstra reported that students were “stimulated by the variety of approaches they are expected to take, and many enjoy the opportunity to combine creative writing with historical research.”37 While the article never mentions “active learning,” language used in article points to student engagement as an underlying factor in the project’s design.
More recently, scholars have explicitly defined active learning as a goal of writing in the classroom and have explored ways to accomplish the task beyond familiar exercises such as journaling, five- or one-minute papers, and summary writings at the end of class. Many have pointed to the online environment as an ideal setting for generating student interactivity and achieving engagement through writing. Nancy Rachel November described a writing project in which students worked in groups to compile and annotate bibliographies on seminal recordings of works in the Western canon. They then participated in small-group online discussions about their recordings before posting reflections on those discussions to a larger online group. Only after writing these low-stakes assignments did students write individual papers. Although the assignment can change every year (the next year November had the students write about E.T.A. Hoffmann’s review of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony), the process remains the same as students reported greater engagement because of their autonomy in constructing their own knowledge and the ease and efficiency of working online.38 Jennifer Hund likewise demonstrated that using technology like the Calibrated Peer Review can motivate students by giving them power in the classroom through reviewing a colleague’s work. 39 Many pedagogues have pointed to peer review, where guidelines are crafted by faculty to allow students to review and comment on each other’s work, as a formidable tool in an active classroom.40 By facilitating peer review in an online environment, larger classes can participate in the process as well.
Listening is one of the most characteristic activities in the music history classroom and, as many have pointed out, is a natural fit for active learning. By factoring in that many teachers state that developing listening skills in their students is a primary goal of their class, it becomes apparent why much of the literature addresses this topic. While it is easy to simply turn on a recording and expect students to become engaged, scholars are increasingly discovering strategies from other disciplines that aid in developing active, rather than passive, listening. Martha Snead Holloway drew from education, music education, and psychology literature to describe the benefits and tactics of cooperative listening. In groups, students worked through directed listening forms that provided subjective and objective questions on a given piece, asked for identification of musical elements, and included time for reflection on student learning. As the semester progressed, questions asked for deeper levels of listening and ultimately resulted in what she termed “cooperative action learning groups” where students composed music based on the application of material learned through listening.41
Other scholars have examined individual listening activities in the classroom. Melanie Lowe argued that having students perform tasks while listening is the most effective means to create active engagement. She broke listening activities into subcategories to facilitate these tasks: structural listening, where students attend to music’s structure by mapping it visually or answering written questions; historical listening, where students write expectations of a piece of music and compare the reality to their assumptions; and thinking about listening, where students reflect on the listening experience both verbally and in writing.42 Kevin Burke also approaches guided listening in class but advocates for moving students up Bloom’s taxonomy through the semester by starting with knowledge (where students identify pieces they have heard before), progressing through application (where they apply criteria from class to new pieces), and at least introducing them to analysis (where they create new listening guides and provide reasons for their choices).43
The final area of active learning in the music history classroom extensively covered in the literature is that of doing musicology. The research paper has long been a standard assignment, but students practice the skills it teaches primarily outside the classroom, and the feedback it generates comes at the course’s end, too late to make adjustments in course delivery. So scholars have begun to consider how to invite students into the discipline of musicology every day in class, to teach them not only to think critically but also how to solve problems and look for answers using musicological methods. This problem-based approach to teaching is common in many other disciplines and recognizes that the assumptions and approaches unique to musicology are not innate. Only through systematic practice identifying the genre of a piece of music and its time period through listening, or decoding a score and its sketches, or catching the underlying assumptions in an article do students gain the skills we purport to impart in our classes.
Part of having students do musicology is an attempt to pivot music history classes from content factories to skill-based workshops. As Per Broman eloquently formulated this approach, since undergraduates are in school for music making, “music history must encourage musicology making” in order to engage them.44
Many solutions offered by scholars to the crisis in content and the desire to actively engage students rest on a foundation of technology. Indeed, perhaps nothing has altered the development of undergraduate coursework in music history more radically than the digital revolution. Content-wise, it has opened up vast territories of music, as literally millions of recordings from all eras of history are available in the classroom at the click of a mouse.45 Similarly, vendors have rushed to make digital scans of copyrighted scores available through subscription services like Alexander Street Press’s Classical Scores Library while musicians share public domain copies through wikis such as the International Music Score Library Project’s Petrucci Music Library. Even primary source material previously hidden behind archival doors is now freely available in high-resolution images on the web. The internet has also profoundly transformed the way students communicate and find information. From email to blog posts to texting to Facebook and Twitter and Tumblr, students now communicate in short bursts anytime, anywhere. They find information by typing strings of words into search boxes and letting Google’s algorithms use over 200 unique signals to guess what they are looking for and present it to them in ranked order. They share and like and hyperlink information constantly, treating it all the same in a never-ending flow.
While so much more information is readily available to teachers and students, the content delivery mechanisms are becoming gatekeepers to that wealth. Services like Pandora and Spotify have effectively narrowed student exposure to music as recommendations for new music are built off of existing tastes and preferences. Mistaken information can become dogma when enshrined in Wikipedia or endlessly recycled on Gawker. Opinion is weighed next to fact as every website contains open comments, whether an entertainment site, one devoted to the news, or one featuring scholarship.
With these changes, it is no wonder that scholars have latched onto technology as a means to alleviate pressing concerns in the classroom and better relate to students populating their courses. The most pervasive suggestion is to move course content out of the face-to-face meeting time in a process commonly called flipping the classroom. This approach, which grew out of Alison King’s research on constructivist learning in the 1990s, became popular in 2000 following two articles: J. Wesley Baker’s “The Classroom Flip: Using Web Course Management Tools to Become the Guide on the Side,” and Maureen Lage, Glenn Platt, and Michael Treglia’s “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment” 46 Among music pedagogues, its most ardent supporter and propagator has been José Antonio Bowen, whose crescendo of articles and presentations on the technique culminated in a widely acclaimed book called Teaching Naked.47 Bowen advocated for teachers to be savvy in their use of technology so that they can relate to students who are increasingly living in a digital world, but he also urged them to leave technology at the classroom door. Technology should be used, in Bowen’s formulation, to deliver content before students walk into class. Students can watch lectures online, play games that provide incremental rewards while delivering content, and listen to podcasts in their cars to prepare for class. Then, time in class can focus on passionate discussion, hands-on experiences, and problem-based work that creates active learning. Teachers end the cycle by following up with their students through email, tweets, text messages, or any other form of digital communication. In other words, work usually assigned as homework is done in class while lectures from class become homework. This flipped, or inverted, approach has the advantage of allowing teachers to incorporate expansions made to teaching repertoires while including elements of active learning, but detractors argue that the teacher/student bond is harder to achieve as is modulating content delivery.
Beyond flipping the classroom, some authors describe how to create an entirely online course for music history. Music history has been seen by some as resistant to online delivery because the guided listening and discussion at the heart of its pedagogy are difficult to replicate in that environment. However, Jocelyn Neal offers reflections on how to succeed with the transition and several positives to moving a class to the cloud. She has found that she is able to reach a more diverse population, more easily encourage students to have a voice in the class, renew focus on learning outcomes, and have students read and write online much more than in a traditional class. However, she cautions instructors about the need to trim supplemental learning and the ability of students to undercut the hard work of learning with simple tools like the search box on any browser window.48 In the end, she aptly demonstrates that being online is neither better nor worse than on ground, just a new modality with its own pedagogical issues.
Using technology to enhance, or in some cases make possible, activities and assignments is the final large issue to which scholars write. Many, like Jennifer Hund, have harnessed the language-rich online world to expand their teaching of writing. Alexander Ludwig is one such scholar who finds that Twitter can provide an excellent vehicle for the listening journal many use to promote informal writing. Students feel less threatened by the short, 140-character nature of the posts, and the daily nature of the writing cultivates the process of listening as students tweet together to create and codify meaning.49 Beyond writing, technology can add new layers to projects. Travis Stimeling and Mark Katz share how they use recording studios in the school or Audacity or GarageBand software to allow students to write and then record their own songs in rock and country music history classes. This kind of project is made easier by the ubiquity of recording devices and software among students and fulfills the goal of having them integrate artistic expression and historical inquiry through composition.50
A final note on technology—modern teachers sometimes treat digital technology as a panacea for all that besets our classrooms, but it has been seducing instructors for generations with varying amounts of success. It is instructive to find articles such as Charles Spohn’s “A Challenge for Improved Learning in College Music Courses,” which in 1963 detailed the Music Audio-Visual Training Laboratory at the Ohio State University where students could listen and learn musical skills on their own by using specially created magnetic tapes.51 Since the technology Spohn espouses has been crushed by the onslaught of technological innovation, his article and others like it remind us that technology is just another tool in our pedagogical arsenal; that the true heart of teaching is student learning, not the shiniest and brightest toys; and that we should be willing to embrace the new while honoring traditions.
For generations, students in music history classes have been introduced to the variety of resources available to them in college through the library tour. One day, early in the semester, students in their first music history class dutifully congregate in the lobby of their institution’s library before being guided en masse through the stacks while the librarian points out books, journals, scores, critical editions, thematic catalogs, and other treasure troves of knowledge. They then either crowd around a few computer terminals or watch a screen displaying the librarian’s online moves to discover how to access the wonders contained all around them. After this breathless introduction, students return to their class for the rest of the semester, left to fend for themselves as they struggle to complete assignments requiring deep use of library resources.
While tour particulars vary according to institution, the broad strokes remain the same, and it is little wonder that music librarians have become increasingly frustrated with the situation. As their profession has begun to define them as information guides (note the change in the required degree from Master of Library Science to Master of Library and Information Science), music librarians have chafed against the restrictions one day a year places on their ability to develop information literacy in music students. Accordingly, literature on music history pedagogy by librarians has commented on ways to integrate information literacy into current course configurations instead of offering novel solutions to content and engagement issues.
One of the earliest publications in this vein appeared in 1993, when Linda Fidler and Richard James, librarians at Bowling Green State University, presented a method to integrate library skills into the music history sequence.52 They did so because of a predicament exposed through a mid-1980s Music Library Association report that out of 565 survey respondent schools, only 50 consciously taught research skills to their undergraduates and even fewer had good communication between teaching faculty and librarians. As a result, Fidler and James recommended that librarians step into the breach by putting together graduated plans for teaching in history and theory classrooms—often only one hour of instruction, spread over ten- to fifteen-minute introductions to sources accompanied by a worksheet directing that source’s use.
Ten years later, Beth Christensen followed up on Fidler and James by going to the next level of instruction based on standards adopted by the Music Library Association and other professional societies.53 Instead of simply educating students about what material exists in the library and how to access it, Christensen argued, we need to teach them how to evaluate it. She detailed a system at St. Olaf College in which, through stacked assignments that build on each other from course to course, music students learn how information flows before moving to a level of contextual knowledge where they not only realize that all information has to be evaluated within its context but how to accomplish that task.54 Just as pedagogues pushing for active learning trained their eyes to the upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains, so too did librarians wish for students to synthesize and evaluate as they entered the library.
Each of these methods, as well as others introduced in the past two decades, intruded as little as possible on a music history course’s class time. Sara Beutter Manus’s notion of an embedded librarian was therefore extremely radical in some regards.55 Manus, a Vanderbilt music librarian, helped craft a four-semester program of information literacy instruction that, on its surface, philosophically resembled those outlined before it. However, in developing the system, Manus took a page from news reporters who go into war zones living amid army squadrons when she decided to attend every class meeting of the music history sequence’s first semester. Being in class allowed her to teach short information literacy sessions, evaluate student assignments, and, most important, provide just-in-time teaching by answering daily questions about research and writing.
The trend that emerges from all these articles is that music librarians and music history teachers are working closer than ever before in teaching information literacy. Music librarians have become proactive about their role in the educational process, and some music history teachers have embraced having librarians in their classroom. Despite having more content to cover than ever before, those teachers are willing to give up precious classroom face time in order to nurture skills that students will need throughout their career. It is not only a heartening but also an extremely positive development in undergraduate music history coursework.
Context and Conclusions
At the end of a survey of the transformations of attitudes and approaches to undergraduate music history over the past several decades, it seems fitting that the final category encompasses aesthetic and philosophical changes. While these changes range across many areas, they are concentrated on the manner in which faculty see themselves as teachers and the ways in which they see their students. At its most basic level, faculty no longer see their role as having ultimate classroom power and authority. Certainly they still wield enormous influence by setting the course’s rationale, content, assignments, and schedule, but increasingly they are inviting students to participate in class construction by presenting in class, leading discussions, creating and using rubrics for assessment, and even picking topics covered in class. In Alison King’s memorable formulation, they no longer view themselves as a “sage on the stage” but instead as a “guide by the side.” The canons and content covered, the engagement of students, the amount and use of technology, and the presentation of information literacy have all played a part in the renewal of music history pedagogy. Most fundamentally, those changes have been wrought by a reconsideration of the music history classroom’s context.
This final category necessarily overlaps previous ones, for changing the canons explored in class alters the course’s context just as seeking active learning often results in a practice of coming alongside a student. But faculty have also reconsidered the context of their teaching persona. Pedagogy once equated teaching with performance, holding that instructors were different people in front of the class than in their day-to-day environment.56 Recent articles have encouraged faculty to not only share their passion for the subject but reveal their personal, affective response to the music they teach as well. This removal of barriers between teacher and student has the potential to create more significant learning experiences, as faculty attempt to effect a change in the learner, not just in his or her amount of knowledge or skills.57 It also recognizes that all of us learn best when we combine knowledge with feelings, so sharing and broadcasting our positive and negative reactions to pieces of music has the potential to develop not just critical listening skills in our students but empathic listening skills as well. 58 Learning has expanded from transmitting content to include application, caring, the human dimension, integration, and learning how to learn.
When teaching faculty began to see their own role differently, they likewise saw their students in a new light. Students were no longer empty vessels waiting to be filled but individuals with life experiences and knowledge that could be drawn upon in the classroom and applied to course content. Melanie Lowe has gone a step beyond this formulation by persuasively arguing for making music history relevant to students’ musical lives, not just their academic ones.59 By acknowledging the information students bring to the table and allowing them to find relatable issues in music history (as opposed to what faculty believe they should know), faculty create a context in which students will internalize historical lessons and ultimately apply them to making music.
Return for a moment to the epigraph that opens this article. From the mid-twentieth century through the turn of the new millennium, teachers were overwhelmingly concerned with content. They worried over what repertoires to require in classes and how they were going to present to their students the canons they constructed. In Gustav Holst’s words, they expended all their efforts on showing their students how the cake was made and extolling its scrumptious attributes. Over the past few years, as teaching faculty have turned their attention toward the context of their teaching, to how they are framing content in class and bringing students into contact with it, the paradigm has shifted. Content is still of pivotal but no longer of primary importance. Slowly music history teachers are deciphering how students learn and reaching them on their level in order to walk alongside them to new educational heights instead of handing a rope down from the summit and telling them to climb. To stretch a metaphor, they are helping students make the cake and then sharing in its goodness. As the field moves forward, expect more imports of techniques from sister disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and the beginning of truly interdisciplinary approaches to music history. Expect upheavals in the structure of our classes equal to the revolution following the expansion of the canon. And watch as students stop passively listening, as Virgil Thomson feared they would following our classes, and start actively engaging in constructing knowledge about music, enjoying it on several levels, and even making it themselves.
My thanks to Matthew Balensuela and Bill Everett for their guidance and willingness to engage in deep discussions about the issues facing pedagogy today, and to Ray Granade and Nee Chucherdwatanasak for their help in preparing and revising this document.
Archetto, Maria. “Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Introduction to Music Course.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 69–76. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Bain, Ken. What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.Find this resource:
Balensuela, C. Matthew. “A Select Bibliography of Music History Pedagogy Since 2000 with a List of Papers Read at the 2009 Teaching Music History Day.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 61–6.Find this resource:
Ballora, Mark. “Expanding Frames of Reference: Teaching the History of Electro-Acoustic Music.” College Music Symposium 46 (2006): 1–16.Find this resource:
Beckerman, Michael. “How Can You Teach What You Don’t Know? … And Other Tales from Music History Pedagogy.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 3–18. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Bisson, Noël. “First Nights: Awakening Students’ Critical Skills in a Large Lecture Course.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 95–107. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Bonds, Mark Evan. “Selecting Dots, Connecting Dots: The Score Anthology as History.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 2 (2011): 77–91.Find this resource:
Boomgaarden, Donald R. “Undergraduate Music History in Transition: Achieving Cultural Diversity in the Core Music Curriculum.” The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning 2, no. 4 (1991): 5–9.Find this resource:
Bowen, José Antonio. “Rethinking Technology Outside the Classroom.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2012): 43–59.Find this resource:
Bowen, José Antonio. Teaching Naked: How Moving Technology Out of Your Classroom Will improve Student Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012.Find this resource:
Broman, Per F. “The Good, the True, and the Professional: Teaching Music History in an Age of Excess.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 19–26. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Burke, Kevin. “Hacking the Listening Guides: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Aural Learning.” In Engaging Students: Essays in Music Pedagogy. Mountain View, CA: Creative Commons. http://www.flipcamp.org/engagingstudents/burke.html (accessed September 19, 2013).Find this resource:
Burkholder, J. Peter. “Peer Learning in Music History Courses.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 205–23. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Burkholder, J. Peter.”Reconsidering the Goals for the Undergraduate Music History Curriculum.” Proceedings: The 77th Annual Meeting, 2001 (January 2002): 74–9.Find this resource:
Burkholder, J. Peter. “Changing the Stories We Tell: Repertoires, Narratives, Materials, Goals, and Strategies in Teaching Music History.” College Music Symposium 49/50, (2009/2010): 116–28.Find this resource:
Burkholder, J. Peter. “Decoding the Discipline of Music History for Our Students.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 2 (2011): 93–111.Find this resource:
Cary, Paul, and Laurie Sampsel. “Information Literacy Instructional Objective for Undergraduate Music Students: A Project of the Music Library Association, Bibliographic Instruction Subcommittee.” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 62, no. 3 (2006): 663–79.Find this resource:
Chenoweth, Jonathan. “An Outsider’s Guide to Classical Music: Teaching the Western Canon as ‘Other.’” College Music Symposium 49/50, (2009/2010): 129–39.Find this resource:
Christensen, Beth. “Warp, Weft, and Waffle: Weaving Information Literacy into an Undergraduate Music Curriculum.” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 60, no. 3 (2004): 616–31.Find this resource:
Christensen, Beth, and Gerald Hoekstra. “Being Here, Being There: Understanding Early Music Through Historical Research and Analysis.” Research Strategies 9, vol. 2 (1991): 106–10.Find this resource:
Clague, Mark, Julie Evans, Karen Fournier, Maud Hickey, and Betty Anne Younker. “Building Bridges: Same and Different Issues Across Music Theory, Music History, and Music Education.” College Music Symposium 49/50 (2009/2010): 140–53.Find this resource:
Coeyman, Barbara. “Applications of Feminist Pedagogy to the College Music Major Curriculum: An Introduction to the Issues.” College Music Symposium 36 (1996): 73–90.Find this resource:
Conway, Colleen M., and Thomas M. Hodgman. Teaching Music in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Find this resource:
Copeland, Robert M. “Teaching Music History in the Art Museum.” In Museums, Humanities, and Educated Eyes, edited by Marilyn Stokstad, 95–105. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1982.Find this resource:
Corrigan, Vincent. “The Myths of Music History.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 181–91. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Davis, James. “Questions and Questions of Aesthetics in the Music History Classroom.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 35, no. 3 (2001): 87–94.Find this resource:
Davis, James. “Classroom Discussion and the Community of Music Majors.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 5–17.Find this resource:
Davis, James., ed. The Music History Classroom. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012.Find this resource:
Dirkse, Scott. “Encouraging Empirical Research: Findings from the Music Appreciation Classroom.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2011): 25–35.Find this resource:
Everett, William A. “‘They Say It’s Wonderful:’ Musical Theater in Music History Survey Courses.” The Bulletin of the Society for American Music 27, no. 1 (2001): 1–4.Find this resource:
Fidler, Linda M., and Richard S. James. “Integrating Library User Education with the Undergraduate Music History Sequence.” Music Reference Services Quarterly 2, no. 1–2 (1993): 183–94.Find this resource:
Fink, L. Dee. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.Find this resource:
Fink, Robert. “Teaching Music History (After the End of History): ‘History Games’ for the Twentieth-Century Survey.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 43–65. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Folio, Cynthia, and Steven Kreinberg. “Blackboard and Wikis and Blogs, Oh My: Collaborative Learning Tools for Enriching Music History and Music Theory Courses.” College Music Symposium 49/50, (2009/2010): 164–75.Find this resource:
Ford, Phil. “Appreciation without Apologies.” College Music Symposium 46, (2006): 31–44.Find this resource:
Francis, Kimberly, and Travis Stimeling. “E-Publishing in the Undergraduate Music History Classroom: The University of Guelph Book Review Project.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 1–22.Find this resource:
Haefeli, Sara. “Using Blogs for Better Student Writing Outcomes.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 39–70.Find this resource:
Hafer, Edward. “A Pedagogy of the Pedagogy of Music Appreciation.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 3, no. 1 (2012): 57–75.Find this resource:
Hanning, Barbara Russano. “Teaching Music History through Art.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 139–60. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Henry, Michele L., Laurel E. Zeiss, Melanie Nelson, Erin Humphrey, Trevor Lee, and Tricia Filippini. “Musicians as Authors: Teaching the Art of Writing Program Notes.” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 121–32.Find this resource:
Hess, Carol A. “Score and Word: Writing about Music.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 193–204. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Holloway, Martha Snead. “The Use of Cooperative Action Learning to Increase Music Appreciation Students’ Listening Skills.” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 83–93.Find this resource:
Hund, Jennifer L. “Writing about Music in Large Music Appreciation Classrooms Using Active Learning, Discipline-Specific Skills, and Peer Review.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 2 (2012): 117–32.Find this resource:
Hunter, Mary. “Teaching at a Liberal Arts College.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 157–68. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Kelley, Bruce C. “Design for Change: Creating Significant Learning Experiences in the Music Classroom.” College Music Symposium 46 (2006): 64–76.Find this resource:
Knyt, Erinn E. “Rethinking the Music History Research Paper Assignment.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 23–37.Find this resource:
Lagueux, Robert C. “Inverting Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Role of Affective Responses in Teaching and Learning.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 3, no. 2 (2013): 119–50.Find this resource:
Laing, Dave. “The Origins and Development of the Institute of Popular Music: An Interview.” Popular Music History 3, no. 1 (2008): 9–38.Find this resource:
Locke, Ralph P. “What Chopin (and Mozart and Others) Heard: Folk, Popular, ‘Functional,’ and Non-Western Music in the Classic/Romantic Survey Course.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 25–42. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Lowe, Melanie. “Teaching Music History Today: Making Tangible Connections to Here and Now.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 45–59.Find this resource:
Ludwig, Alexander R. “Using Twitter in the Music History Classroom.” In Engaging Students: Essays in Music Pedagogy. Mountain View, CA: Creative Commons. http://www.flipcamp.org/engagingstudents/burke.html (accessed September 12, 2013).Find this resource:
Macey, Patrick. “Providing Context: Teaching Medieval and Renaissance Music.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 3–11. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Maiello, James Vincent. “Towards a Praxial Philosophy of Music History Pedagogy.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 71–108.Find this resource:
Mann, Brian. “A Response to Kivy: Music and ‘Music Appreciation’ in the Undergraduate Liberal Arts Curriculum.” College Music Symposium 39 (1999): 87–106.Find this resource:
Manus, Sara J. Beutter. “Librarian in the Classroom: An Embedded Approach to Music Information Literacy for First-Year Undergraduates.” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 66, no. 2 (2009): 249–61.Find this resource:
Maple, Amanda, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen A. Abromeit. “Information Literacy for Undergraduate Music Students: A Conceptual Framework.” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 52, no. 3 (1996): 744–53.Find this resource:
Members of the Bibliographic Instruction Committee. “Bibliographic Competencies for Music Students at an Undergraduate Level.” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 40, no. 3 (1984): 529–32.Find this resource:
Murray, Russell E., Jr. “Creating Anthologies for the Middle Ages and Renaissance.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 225–37. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Natvig, Mary, ed. Teaching Music History. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Neal, Jocelyn R. “The Online Challenge: Why Not Teach Music History Unconventionally?” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2011): 81–98.Find this resource:
Nott, Kenneth. “Teaching Baroque Music to the Bright and Interested and Ignorant.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 13–23. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
November, Nancy Rachel. “Literacy Loops and Online Groups: Promoting Writing Skills in Large Undergraduate Music Classes.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2011): 5–23.Find this resource:
Oates, Jennifer. “Practical Ways to Bring Information Literacy into the Undergraduate Music Curriculum.” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 74–82.Find this resource:
O’Hagin, Isabel Barbara, and David Harnish. “From ‘What Does It Matter’ to the ‘Heart of the Matter:’ Recommendations for Multicultural Education Experiences in Undergraduate Music Programs.” College Music Symposium 43 (2003): 42–54.Find this resource:
Parakilas, James. “Texts, Contexts, and Non-Texts in Music History Pedagogy.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 45–58. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Pohly, Linda. “Teaching Teachers of Music Appreciation—What We Can Learn from MGS Pedagogy.” College Music Symposium 47 (2007): 127–38.Find this resource:
Poirel, Annalisa Swig. “The Impossible Course: Music in the Core Curriculum.” Current Musicology no. 65 (1998): 70–81.Find this resource:
Regelski, Thomas A. “Music and the Teaching of Music History as Praxis: A Reply to James Maiello.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 4, no. 1 (2013): 109–36.Find this resource:
Roth, Marjorie. “The ‘Why’ of Music: Variations on a Cosmic Theme.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 77–94. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Samplaski, Art. “Music History at Ten Years a Minute.” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 94–106.Find this resource:
Seaton, Douglass. “Teaching Music History: Principles, Problems, and Proposals.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 59–72. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Shapiro, Anne Dhu, James A. Hepokoski, Kenneth Levy, Margaret Murata, and Katherine Rohrer. “‘Musicology’ for Undergraduate Music Majors.” College Music Symposium 28 (1988): 10–23.Find this resource:
Spohn, Charles L. “A Challenge for Improved Learning in College Music Courses.” College Music Symposium 3 (1963): 32–40.Find this resource:
Starr, Pamela. “Teaching in the Centrifugal Classroom.” In Teaching Music History, edited by Mary Natvig, 169–80. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.Find this resource:
Stauffer, Sandra L. “Process, Passion, People: Pedagogical Notes for Musician-Scholar-Educators.” In Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, edited by James R. Briscoe, 73–84. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010.Find this resource:
Stimeling, Travis D., and Mark Katz. “Songwriting as Musicological Inquiry: Examples from the Popular Music Classroom.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 2 (2012): 133–52.Find this resource:
Swift, Kristy Johns. “Grappling with Donald Jay Grout’s Essays on Music Historiography.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 2 (2011): 135–66.Find this resource:
Wilkinson, Christopher. “Deforming/Reforming the Canon: Challenges of a Multicultural Music History Course.” Black Music Research Journal 16, no. 2 (1996): 259–77.Find this resource:
Wilkinson, Christopher. “A New Master Narrative of Western Musical History: An American Perspective.” In De-canonizing Music History, edited by Vesa Kuekela and Lauri Väkevä, 37–48. Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars, 2009.Find this resource:
Wyatt, Lucius R. “The Inclusion of Concert Music of African-American Composers in Music History Courses.” Black Music Research Journal 16, no. 2 (1996): 239–57.Find this resource:
Yang, Sandra Sedman. “Singing Gesualdo: Rules of Engagement in the Music History Classroom.” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 3, no. 1 (2012): 39–55.Find this resource:
(1) Holst quoted in Percy A. Scholes, Music Appreciation: Its History and Technics (New York: M. Whitmark and Sons, 1935), 42.
(2) Virgil Thomson, The State of Music (New York: Vintage Books, 1961), 111–13.
(3) Anthony Tommasini, Virgil Thomson: Composer on the Aisle (New York City: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999), 318.
(4) Henry Woodward, “Annals of the College Music Society, II: ‘I Am Not Quite Sure What a Coordinator Is, but I Will be One … ‘—Luther Noss,” College Music Symposium 17, no. 2 (1977): 154.
(5) Ohl quoted in Henry Woodward, “Annals of the College Music Society, III: ‘… Not Many Fields, But One Thing: Music,’” College Music Symposium 18, no. 1 (1978): 177.
(7) The articles appeared in the 1965 edition of the Symposium and included articles by Howard Boatwright (the aforementioned “The Crisis in Music Theory Teaching”), Milton Babbitt (“The Structure and Function of Musical Theory: I”), and A. Tillman Merritt (“Undergraduate Training in Music Theory”).
(8) The articles in the symposium were Jeanne Bamberger’s “The Appreciation of Music,” Robert K. Beckwith’s “Music Appreciation,” Henry Leland Clarke’s “Studies in Listening,” and Philip Friedheim’s “Special Problems in Teaching Music Appreciation.”
(9) This attitude is demonstrated in the articles in Symposium by leading musicologists of the day. Their articles elucidate the journal’s themes by bringing in examples from the historical period and genres in which they worked. Following along our discussion of music appreciation teaching, in the Symposium’s tenth volume in 1970, Arthur R. Tollefson contributed “Enhancing Music Appreciation with Scholarship.”
(10) Donald J. Grout, A Short History of Opera (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947). Information on the creation of A History of Western Music came from Kristy Johns Swift’s illuminating article “Grappling with Donald Jay Grout’s Essays on Music Historiography,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 2 (2011): 135–66.
(11) Lang quoted in Kristy Johns Swift, “Grappling with Donald Jay Grout’s Essays on Music Historiography,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 2 (2011): 164.
(12) Mary DuPree “Beyond Music in Western Civilization: Issues in Undergraduate Music History Literacy,” College Music Symposium 30, no. 2 (1990): 100–5. Comments on A History of Western Music’s continued popularity can be found in Christopher Wilkinson’s “A New Master Narrative of Western Musical History: An American Perspective,” in De-Canonizing Music History, ed. Vesa Kuekela and Lauri Väkevä (Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars, 2009), 39.
(13) Roger Kamien, Music: An Appreciation (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976). After an introductory chapter on the elements of music, Kamien began in the Medieval period and followed the topics and historical era set out in A History of Western Music but included more recent music from the twentieth century and chapters on jazz, rock, and non-Western music by other authors.
(14) Mary Natvig, ed., Teaching Music History (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002).
(15) Matthew Balensuela, “Toward a Scholarship of Music History Pedagogy: Historical Context, Current Trends, and Future Issues,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 1, 3.
(16) James R. Briscoe, “Preface,” in Vitalizing Music History Teaching, ed. James R. Briscoe (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010), ix.
(17) That session included Michael Puri’s “Memory as Master Trope? Strategies for Integrating Memory Studies into the Pedagogy of Music History,” Ilana Schroeder’s “Virtuosity as an Alternative Narrative of the Twentieth Century,” and Christopher Wilkinson’s “Reinventing the Survey Course.” The trend continued in 2012 in New Orleans with a session on “The Lied in Performance: Text and Context” and in 2013 in Pittsburgh with “From Objectives to Methodology: Models for Teaching Music History to Undergraduates.
(18) Matthew Balensuela, “A Select Bibliography of Music History Pedagogy Since 2000 with a List of Papers Read at the 2009 Teaching Music History Day,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 61–6.
(19) J. Peter Burkholder, “Changing the Stories We Tell: Repertoires, Narratives, Materials, Goals, and Strategies in Teaching Music History,” College Music Symposium 49/50 (2009/2010): 116–28.
(20) Donald J. Grout, Principles and Practice in the Writing of Music History (Brussels: Palais der Academiën, 1972), 7.
(21) J. Peter Burkholder, “Reconsidering the Goals for the Undergraduate Music History Curriculum,” Proceedings: The 77th Annual Meeting, 2001 (January 2002): 74.
(22) See Marcia Citron, Gender and the Musical Canon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) and Christopher Wilkinson, “Deforming/Reforming the Canon: Challenges of a Multicultural Music History Course,” Black Music Research Journal 16, no. 2 (1996): 259–77, for cogent arguments for remaking the canon with the voices of women and African Americans.
(23) See, for instance, Dave Laing’s account of the development of popular music studies in “The Origins and Development of the Institute of Popular Music: An Interview,” Popular Music History 3, no. 1 (2008): 9–38.
(24) Donald R. Boomgaarden, “Undergraduate Music History in Transition: Achieving Cultural Diversity in the Core Music Curriculum,” The Quarterly Journal Of Music Teaching And Learning 2, no. 4 (1991): 5–9.
(26) Claude V. Palisca and Donald Jay Grout, A History of Western Music, 5th edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), xi.
(27) This approach was also common in music appreciation classes at the time, as seen in all editions of Kamien’s Music: An Appreciation, which feature an historical survey of Western art music followed by chapters on jazz, rock, and non-Western music.
(28) Anne Dhu Shapiro, James A. Hepokoski, Kenneth Levy, Margaret Murata, and Katherine Rohrer, “‘Musicology’ for Undergraduate Music Majors,” College Music Symposium 28, (1988): 13.
(29) Christopher Wilkinson, “Deforming/Reforming the Canon: Challenges of a Multicultural Music History Course,” Black Music Research Journal 16, no. 2 (1996): 259–77.
(30) Art Samplaski, “Music History at Ten Years a Minute,” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 94–106.
(31) Mark Clague, Julie Evans, Karen Fournier, Maud Hickey, and Betty Anne Younker, “Building Bridges: Same and Different Issues Across Music Theory, Music History, and Music Education,” College Music Symposium 49/50 (2009/2010): 149.
(32) J. Peter Burkholder, “Reconsidering the Goals for the Undergraduate Music History Curriculum,” Proceedings: The 77th Annual Meeting, 2001 (January 2002): 75–6.
(33) Ken Bain, What the Best College Teachers Do (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 49.
(34) L. Dee Fink, Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 2–3.
(36) Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. (Washington, DC: George Washington University, 1991).
(37) Beth Christensen and Gerald Hoekstra, “Being Here, Being There: Understanding Early Music Through Historical Research and Analysis,” Research Strategies 9, vol. 2 (1991): 108.
(38) Nancy Rachel November, “Literacy Loops and Online Groups: Promoting Writing Skills in Large Undergraduate Music Classes,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2011): 5–23.
(39) Jennifer L. Hund, “Writing about Music in Large Music Appreciation Classrooms Using Active Learning, Discipline-Specific Skills, and Peer Review,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 2 (2012): 117–32.
(40) See for instance J. Peter Burkholder, “Peer Learning in Music History Courses,” in Teaching Music History, ed. Mary Natvig (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002), 205–23.
(41) Martha Snead Holloway, “The Use of Cooperative Action Learning to Increase Music Appreciation Students’ Listening Skills,” College Music Symposium 44 (2004): 83–93.
(42) Melanie Lowe, “Listening in the Classroom,” in The Music History Classroom, ed. James A. Davis (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 45–60.
(43) Kevin Burke, “Hacking the Listening Guides: Bloom’s Taxonomy and Aural Learning,” in Engaging Students: Essays in Music Pedagogy, http://www.flipcamp.org/engagingstudents/burke.html (accessed September 19, 2013).
(44) Per F. Broman, “The Good, the True, and the Professional: Teaching Music History in an Age of Excess,” in Collected Work: Vitalizing Music History Teaching, ed. James R. Briscoe (Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press, 2010), 22.
(45) Naxos Music Library, one of the largest providers of digital sound to colleges and universities, has over 1.2 million tracks in its library as of the fall of 2013 and adds over 800 CD-length recordings every month. http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/ (accessed September 5, 2013).
(46) Although these articles were the first to name and describe the flipped or inverted classroom: Alison King, “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side,” College Teaching 41, no. 1 (1993): 30–5; J. Wesley Baker, “The Classroom Flip: Using Web Course Management Tools to Become the Guide on the Side” (Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonvile, FL, April 12–15, 2000); Maureen Lage, Glenn Platt, and Michael Treglia, “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment,” Journal of Economic Education 31, no. 1 (2000): 30–43, since 2000 it has become widespread across many disciplines and common in secondary and higher education.
(47) José Antonio Bowen, Teaching Naked: How Moving Technology Out of Your Classroom Will Improve Student Learning (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012).
(48) Jocelyn R. Neal, “The Online Challenge: Why Not Teach Music History Unconventionally?” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 1 (2011): 83–5.
(49) Alexander R. Ludwig, “Using Twitter in the Music History Classroom,” in Engaging Students: Essays in Music Pedagogy, http://www.flipcamp.org/engagingstudents/burke.html (accessed September 12, 2013).
(50) Travis D. Stimeling and Mark Katz, “Songwriting as Musicological Inquiry: Examples from the Popular Music Classroom,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 2, no. 2 (2012): 133–52.
(51) Charles L. Spohn, “A Challenge for Improved Learning in College Music Courses,” College Music Symposium 3 (1963): 32–40.
(52) Linda M. Fidler and Richard S. James, “Integrating Library User Education with the Undergraduate Music History Sequence,” Music Reference Services Quarterly 2, no. 1–2 (1993): 183–94.
(53) For the evolution of these standards, see Members of the Bibliographic Instruction Committee “Bibliographic Competencies for Music Students at an Undergraduate Level,” Notes 40, no. 3 (1984): 529–32; Amanda Maple, Beth Christensen, and Kathleen A. Abromeit, “Information Literacy for Undergraduate Music Students: A Conceptual Framework,” Notes 52, no. 3 (1996): 744–53; and Paul Cary and Laurie Sampsel, “Information Literacy Instructional Objective for Undergraduate Music Students: A Project of the Music Library Association, Bibliographic Instruction Subcommittee,” Notes 62, no. 3 (2006): 663–79. The current standards can be found at http://www.ams-net.org/ojs/index.php/jmhp/article/view/114/138.
(54) Beth Christensen, “Warp, Weft, and Waffle: Weaving Information Literacy into an Undergraduate Music Curriculum,” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 60, no. 3 (2004): 616–31.
(55) Sara J. Beutter Manus, “Librarian in the Classroom: An Embedded Approach to Music Information Literacy for First-Year Undergraduates,” Notes: Quarterly Journal of the Music Library Association 66, no. 2 (2009): 249–61.
(56) See for example Anne Curzan and Lisa Damour, First Day to Final Grade, 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), 5.
(57) Bruce C. Kelley, “Design for Change: Creating Significant Learning Experiences in the Music Classroom,” College Music Symposium 46 (2006): 64–76.
(58) Robert C. Lagueux, “Inverting Bloom’s Taxonomy: The Role of Affective Responses in Teaching and Learning,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 3, no. 2 (2013) 119–50.
(59) Melanie Lowe, “Teaching Music History Today: Making Tangible Connections to Here and Now,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy 1, no. 1 (2010): 45–59.