|
ADAPTED MUSIC AS COMMUNITY MUSIC
Roger Knox Copyright © Roger Knox
To many practitioners and scholars, Community Music is -- or should be -- focused on inclusion. The premise is that music making is a mode of human activity for, about, and open to all people. However, today’s harsh and unacceptable reality (in most countries) is that traditional institutions of music education exclude persons with disabilities. This paper focuses on music making by and for people with disabilities. The author discusses his experiences and efforts to facilitate musical inclusion through “adapted” music. Considered as a multi-disciplinary field in the arts, adapted music aims to address the needs of people with disabilities and (hopefully) instigate, develop, and nurture new musical communities.
Music making is important to many people at home, at school, and in the community. The desirability of full participation in society by people with disabilities for health, social, economic and other reasons is recognized in the World Health Organization's ICF model, which includes Participation as one of four aspects of health status along with Health Condition, Body Structure or Function, and Activity (WHO, 1999). Community music (CM) has developed and been recognized in recent years concomitantly with acknowledgement and inclusion of people with disabilities, who traditionally have lacked access to music making.
Some adaptations to acoustic instruments can help, for example, people with amputations who then can be included in traditional music groups. Today, opportunities are further enhanced by adaptations that involve electronic music technology. Organizations providing programs in this area include Drake Music Projects (England), the Vancouver Adapted Music Society, Massachusetts Hospital School (Headbangers group), and Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre in Toronto (affiliated with the University of Toronto). Those who can benefit from adapted music include people with spinal cord injuries, cerebral palsy, amputations, muscular dystrophy, juvenile arthritis, acquired brain injuries, spina bifida and other disabilities. The population interested in adapted music is culturally diverse, and the non-verbal medium particularly suits people with communication difficulties.
“Adapted” music presumes that music making is a mode of human activity requiring no justification beyond its own praxis, and that doing music is the basic human right of all people – including persons with disabilities. As Immanuel Kant said, ultimately the arts have an intrinsic “natural purpose” (Kant, 1790/1988, as cited in Burnham, 2001). Utilitarian philosophy fails to encompass the whole of human experience, particularly with respect to participation in the arts, a need that has been recognized in all cultures and eras. Considered as a field in the arts, “adapted music” aims to address the needs of people with disabilities, and to thereby (perhaps) instigate, develop, and nurture new musical communities.
Concepts
Community music (CM) Given the informal, temporary, and overlapping nature of communities, it is not surprising that there are a number of models of CM (Veblen, 2002). All involve some form of identity-related commonality. Veblen notes (1) geographic expression, (2) local social system, and (3) type of relationship as bases for CM models. Some models include people with disabilities as an example of an affinity related community, e.g. in Breen’s category of “musical participation of disadvantaged groups” (Breen, 1994, as cited in Veblen, 2002). Other characteristics of CM applicable to people with disabilities would include inclusiveness, diversity, suitability for a variety of interests, involvement of users in leadership, and emphasis on universal access over commercial or professional considerations.
In addition to traditional communities, music can help develop new communities, and with telecommunications even virtual communities (Veblen and Olsson, 2002). In the United Kingdom, a CM advocacy group, Sound Sense, promotes active participation in music making through community recording studios, composers in residence, and other resources that facilitate involvement of people with disabilities (Joss, 1996). The National Music and Disability Information Service is also affiliated with Sound Sense (Sound Sense, 2003). In New York City, the Coalition for Disabled Musicians is a non-profit organization that similarly helps disabled musicians meet, record in a studio, perform with accommodation for their disabilities, and further public awareness (Coalition for Disabled Musicians, 1999).
A number of questions arise at this point (Swingler, 2003). To what extent are people with disabilities capable of music making? Does introduction of the idea bring false hope to people whom already face many frustrations and disappointments? Are we really referring only to a few exceptional talents and ignoring everyone else? The issues are complex but this paper attempts to provide at least partial answers.
Community music therapy Another issue that has had considerable discussion concerns the relationship between CM and music therapy. One British music therapist and researcher (Ansdell, 2002), argues for the acknowledgement of a broad area of music therapy that lies between individual treatment in clinical settings, and CM per se. For this area, namely Community Music Therapy, Ansdell proposes a context-based and music-centered model that highlights social and cultural factors. The model is a response to what the author sees as the limitations of an individualized, isolated model of one-on-one improvisational music therapy, with the client-therapist relationship as the key factor. The Community Music Therapy model may be more applicable, for instance, to non-Western contexts and musics, and to unconventional settings. It could also include performance events that link disconnected people and places together. One sees an echo of the community versus society contrast promulgated by Tönnies (1887/1988, as cited in Veblen, 2002) in this model’s contrast of community and individual music therapy.
Adapted music The field of adapted music (sometimes known as “adaptive music”; in this article, the two terms are interchangeable) could be defined as the field concerned with development and implementation of all forms of adaptation that facilitate full participation in music making by people with disabilities. At present it is a multi-disciplinary field, not an academic discipline or applied profession, although courses and certificates are available for individuals with training in a related area (Drake Music Projects, 2002). Adapted music begins from a participant-centered rather than profession-centered premise: that is to say, music making is important to many people with disabilities and enhancing access to music making is a primary concern. As seen below, there are, at present, sufficient examples of persons with disabilities pursuing adapted music in various situations.
The field includes instrument selection, modifications and access devices, physical and cognitive strategies, musical content and related materials; electronic technologies have greatly expanded its scope. Relevant forms of expertise include music technology, music therapy, music education, music composition, rehabilitation engineering, computer science, therapeutic recreation, occupational therapy, and others. Adapted music focuses on human musical development in the most inclusive sense, emphasizing the creative process and recognizing all genres and styles. It involves self-expression, exploration, creativity, questioning, imagining, putting together, discussing, participating, presenting, and all other aspects of artistic processes and involvement.
The relation between adapted music and music therapy is sometimes raised. Music therapists use musical adaptations including technology and have contributed significant adapted music literature (e.g. Spitzer, 1989; Krout, 1993). Adaptive music instruction, however, whether in school or private settings, has been said to fall outside the domain of music therapy (Bruscia, 1998). It would be best to understand adapted music and music therapy as distinct but overlapping areas.
Context and Background
Music and people with disabilities While CM suggests local involvement and control, it also has a world context today: “Think globally, act locally.” We can describe globalization as the movement towards a world market dominated by corporations, governments, and military forces. Considering music, globalization could be a boon to people both with and without disabilities. Music is a mode of human expression that inherently has wide appeal. If globalization provides access to the entire world’s musics, and increases life-enhancing opportunities for musicians and audiences, who could oppose it? If people with disabilities can now interact with fewer restrictions caused by national boundaries, and can receive economic benefits due to freer trade and new technologies, globalization would seem to be a positive development.
But there may be elements of globalization that have negative effects. We call our planet “the earth,” “the world,” and “the globe.” We use these terms interchangeably. But they have different connotations. “Earth” emphasizes our planet’s natural state, whether considered up close (Mother Earth) or from afar (planet Earth). “World” suggests the populated earth, with its human communities and “worldly” projects. Unlike the terms earth and world, which refer to our planet as it actually is, “globe” denotes (first and foremost) a representation of the world as drawn on a sphere (Collins, 2000). Only secondarily does “globe” mean the same thing as earth or world. We think of a globe as an object in the classroom, which lends itself to the depiction of trade patterns, transportation routes, military campaigns, and so on. Today, we can represent it as a computer image that presents an illusion of reality. In fact, that image lacks even the tactile presence that the spinning globe of former years had.
An objectifying intent inheres in the term “globalization”; we draw back from our world to contemplate it as a globe. Having conceived the world as an object (the globe), we determine its use-value. We set aside our true situation of being and selfishly view the globe and its people as a source of material benefit. In other words, we need to consider that “globalization” is the expression of a particularly utilitarian way of looking at things, in which people can become economic units. The economic perspective outweighs competing considerations: social, cultural, environmental, philosophical, aesthetic, and many others. The globe is seen as a market; everything else lies in the domain of effects. We do need to consider economics in understanding our present situation, but as one factor among many others.
Today in music, artistic creation is viewed as “product.” Even on the Internet, the trend is to commercialize music maximally. With commodification can come trivialization, one brand versus another in the cultural market place. Sometimes it seems as though commodification acts like a giant vacuum cleaner on culture, sucking the meaning out of everything and replacing it with the trite, the homogenizing, and the momentarily titillating. But our cultural future depends on a basis of more worthy values reflected in such domains as music.
Let us consider the musical needs of people with disabilities in the current situation. Usually seen as having atypical lives, people with disabilities actually have problems that throw into sharp relief what we all face. Under globalization, people can become economic units, as noted above. Many people think first about economic roles in terms of “wage earners.” However, there is more than one way of being an economic unit. In the case of people with disabilities, there are four situations:
My point is that viewing “people with disabilities” as “economic units” is a choice. If we so choose, other issues follow. Discussion of public versus private funding, institutional versus community-based services, therapy versus education, and so on – all these fall within an economic model.
But we do not have to remain within this model. There are other domains (social, cultural, and so on) that many people consider to be at least as important as the economic. At the same time, we cannot ignore economics, as do some aestheticians. To do so opens us to charges of ignorance, naiveté, or disingenuousness. Thus, we need to look more closely at the four situations identified.
Concerning revenue earners: blind musicians traditionally have been considered employable. In the past, some blind people were encouraged to go into music because there were few other employment options. Today, this is fortunately no longer the case. At the same time, music technology has opened up new possibilities for blind people (Williams and Brabyn, 1992). With modern advances in treatment and technology, some musicians who have suffered strokes, spinal cord injuries, or other disabling conditions have been able to continue working in the field.
A major problem in the past has been the exploitation of musicians with disabilities: they have been presented to the public as curiosities, or worse (because they lack sufficient control over their lives). Another problem is overcompensation: that is, some people with disabilities feel a need to strive excessively hard in order to make the “level playing field” a reality. The fact is, however, that the music profession is extraordinarily demanding for anyone. Thus, we need much better understandings and more flexible social arrangements to accommodate musicians with disabilities. The Coalition of Disabled Musicians (1999) has begun to address some of these issues.
People receiving disability benefits or pensions may have their potential for active, fulfilling lives frustrated by (i) inadequate support combined with (ii) regulations on what they can earn and (iii) what their living situations are. In reality, inordinate attention is given to the question of which category of economic unit they belong to: earner or benefit receiver. If these people choose to devote their time and energy to music, then the priority given to this issue can cause them endless misery. On the other hand, if they receive music therapy, or a recreational music program, then such a program will often be sporadic and/or helpful, depending on each person’s insurance status.
People in long-term or palliative care may benefit from music therapy or recreational music. Again, whether they receive it will depend on the caprices of government or private insurance support, or on personal resources, rather than on needs or wishes.
In school, teachers frequently lack expertise, resources are inadequate, and classes are too large for people with disabilities to benefit from music education. Equipment may depend on private or corporate donations. Thus, important learning opportunities will be missed during these crucial years, unless a family can access private lessons.
If we consider the music professions associated with the above four situations, we see that they match the limitations of the economic model. For example, music professionals operate within a social Darwinist jungle where the ruling principle is “survival of the fittest.” People with disabilities who strive to be musical revenue earners (as professional or semi-professional musicians) are “winners” if they succeed, but exemplary failures who “have not come to terms with their disability” if they do not. If they are pension or benefit receivers, others will label them “amateurs,” no matter what they do.
Sometimes music therapists or recreation therapists work with these individuals, as they do with people in long-term care. They operate in a situation that resembles a bird’s nest with too many hungry mouths to feed. Part-time, temporary, self-employed, soft-funded, disempowering arrangements bedevil these professions. Alternatively, volunteer musicians may be used, perhaps as entertainers, to cut costs even further.
In many schools, music educators are fired or reassigned to teach so-called basic subjects when “education” is reduced to job training. In the private music sector, music teachers operate on a precarious income base.
The large point I want to make is that music professionals who serve people with disabilities often end up in conflict with each other because of under-funding, and these conflicts may use up additional resources. In situations like this, charitable giving becomes crucial. In turn, donors can achieve personal fulfillment through helping image recognition, networking opportunities, and tax deductions. Many excellent programs receive most of their support from charitable donors and benefactors. Nevertheless, unless charitable funding reaches the level of an endowment, insecurity will remain.
The inadequacies of the purely economic model of globalization with respect to music and people with disabilities are clear. While technologies (e.g., the Internet) may allow better access to music, we have not yet reached the point where technologies can enhance control or participation in music by large numbers of people with disabilities. We can only hope that a world economy improved by freer trade might lead to benefits for people with disabilities. Certainly, we will need to value domains other than the purely economic more highly.
Adapted Music and Music Technology
A significant example of the use of music technology for persons with disabilities was the development of the electric piano by Harold Rhodes (Adlers, 1996). During World War II, he built pianos out of spare airplane parts that could sit on hospital bed trays. Recuperating fliers used these parts to make music. Rhodes was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his work. Eventually, in the 1960s, the Fender-Rhodes electric piano became very popular, a successful example of technology transfer.
There are many other examples of music technology developed for persons with disabilities. For the most part, however, until the 1980s these were mechanical adaptations of conventional acoustic instruments. The adoption of the Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) standard in 1982 was a major gift to people with disabilities. With MIDI, and the general availability of microcomputers, there has been an explosion of music hardware and software developments that coincided with major developments in rehabilitation engineering. Thus, there was much interest in developing alternative controllers, including applications of music technology employing the standard ability switch used by people with disabilities. Additional access methods applicable to standard music software evolved, too, including head pointers, touch screens, joysticks, and adapted keyboards.
Examples of switch-operated hardware include MIDI Mate (Assistivex, 2003), Quintet (About Quintet, 2002), and MIDI Creator, which also includes an ultrasonic sensor (Kirk, Abbotson, Abbotson, Hunter, and Cleaton, 1994). The Soundbeam 2 also incorporates one or more ultrasonic sensor controllers (Soundbeam Project, 2002; Ellis, 1995). Software designed for people with disabilities includes SuperSwitch Ensemble for Macintosh computers and E-scape PC-based music composition software using switches and scanning (Switch in Time, n.d.; Kirk et al., 1994). The Virtual Music Instrument uses specially developed video-capture music software, as does SoftSynth (Lamont et al., 2002; Rokeby, 2003). For blind people, the Dancing Dots Company offers a superb package that integrates sound synthesis, music notation and sequencing software, screen-reading output, and printing in standard or Braille music formats (Dancing Dots, 2002).
As a composer and classically trained pianist, I am familiar with arguments for and against music technology. After incurring an arm injury many years ago, my experience has been that music technology offers a rewarding range of musical experiences that should become available to people with disabilities. Surprisingly, many people have opposed the use of a music technology by people with disabilities.
I offer ten reasons. First, some critics argue that the sound quality of electronic music technology is inferior to acoustic instruments. The music may be too loud, even causing hearing loss. Also, automation makes the music mechanical, negating the fundamental value of flexible rhythm. However, sound quality has improved with sampling and many sounds are now available in addition to General MIDI tones. Also, it’s a simple matter to prevent the volume control from exceeding a safe level. Automation allows every music maker a wide range of functions to enjoy, such as sophisticated auto-accompaniments that play music in various styles. People with disabilities can also access other resources: standard MIDI files; specially programmed algorithms for music making incorporated into software; and MP3 (and other formats) available for use on the Internet.
Second, critics posit that, because of their limitations, it would be better to guide people with disabilities in the direction of music appreciation and listening. People with disabilities could learn to understand the aesthetic qualities of music. To critics, simple-minded recreation and education approaches end up trivializing music. My response is that music appreciation and listening are fine for some people with disabilities. However, more active involvement in music making can increase the knowledge base and enhance music appreciation, in addition to other benefits.
Third, critics suggest that participation in music making may not be realistic, raising false hopes among people with disabilities, leading to their frustration and wasted effort. Perhaps people with disabilities could spend their time and money on more important things. Also, nowadays, music teachers or therapists may not be available in schools or hospitals, thus equipment will sit unused.
While full participation may not be possible, some level of participation is. People with physical disabilities can work around some problems with making music, often using technology. Also, there are positive aspects to being able to triumph over barriers. Making music is considered important for many people, so why not for people with disabilities? And, while music programs in hospitals and schools may diminish, private and community opportunities have increased.
Fourth, music technology keeps changing. Critics ask: Who can keep up, given the learning curve and constant changes in the latest gear? Also, participants may cause damage to the equipment, thus quickly ending the whole endeavor.
The MIDI standard has been in place since 1982. Instruments of the past 20 years are still usable and are in demand, in some cases (e.g. certain analog synthesizers). They stay compatible far longer than computers. Software and operating systems do change. But with upgrades and adherence to interface principles, the “technology learning curve” is not huge for non-professionals. The musical knowledge is really what takes the time. But even here, there are shortcuts for technology users. Hardware is very durable, built for musicians who travel constantly.
Fifth, implementing the idea of music technology for people with disabilities is too expensive. Using music technology can be excessively complicated. It can lead to allocating resources that help only a few people. The expense of music technology has come down significantly. A reasonably good keyboard can cost as little as $300, and much software is free on the Internet. Yes, there’s a learning curve, but it’s probably less than the time required to attain even middle-level competency on an acoustic instrument. Most people with physical disabilities can play some form of music by means of technology.
Sixth, working at a computer screen is isolating. Only a few people can use music technology hardware simultaneously so it is not suitable for groups or classrooms. In reply, working at a computer with the Internet connects you to communities of people with similar interests, including family and friends, and “virtual communities.” In-group situations, there are electronic music devices that can accommodate eight people meaningfully, and others can sing along or play percussion.
Seventh, if someone with a disability gets involved with music technology, they may be pressured into performing for an audience. This can create performance anxiety, or a sense of being put on view and exploited. No one needs to perform. Performances (if they do happen) may be tailored to an appropriate audience, such as friends or families. Performing music can build confidence for other on-stage situations.
Eighth, people with disabilities need to focus on psychosocial issues, building therapeutic relationships, and letting trained therapists steer their musical development. All of the above may be true, but there are also real benefits to self-esteem and independence when people with disabilities are given the challenge of being in control of their own music.
Ninth, the styles of music that use technology are associated with drugs, alcohol, and sex. Songs and videos contain inappropriate words and images. Software, karaoke setups, and material on the Internet may be offensive. Music technology, however, can be used for many styles of popular and world music. Desirable limitations on music listening, video viewing, and Internet use are the same for people with disabilities as for anyone.
Tenth, full participation is an idea that does not stand up to examination. The success of this endeavor is exaggerated. It happens only in small degrees and special situations. Indeed, the achievement of full participation has been exaggerated sometimes. Often the problem is a lack of specific information about the disability and situation. People with disabilities have real potential that still has not been fully realized.
Examples of Adapted Music as Community Music
Let me turn now to selected examples of adapted music in CM contexts. First, consider the highly gifted and motivated musicians who are blind or have spinal cord injuries, amputations, acquired brain injury, or cerebral palsy. These musicians have achieved access to computer music and other music equipment to the point of working completely independently and, sometimes, vocationally. In addition, people with disabilities use computer music software, electronic keyboards, or other equipment recreationally; this area has been little explored.
Among more formally organized CM groups, Drake Music Projects is the most advanced. Begun in the late 1980s by engineer Adele Drake, this organization offers music technology programs for people with disabilities in various community locations, trains teachers in courses and workshops, and offers certification for levels of training. This organization has six regional centers in England and one in Ireland. It has benefited from engineering research and development at the University of York. Notable products include E-scape PC-based music composition software using switches and scanning, and the MidiCreator switch and ultrasonic beam MIDI controller (Drake Music Projects, 2002a).
The Vancouver Adapted Music Society was started in 1988 by Sam Sullivan and David Symington, two musicians with quadriplegia from skiing accidents (Vancouver Adapted Music Society, 2002). Initially housed in George Pearson Hospital, it has developed into an independent operation with its own studio. It has sponsored the bands called Supercussion and Spinal Cord, released compact disks, and developed linkages to school programs in Vancouver. Its research and development projects have included ProMidiMapper (which re-maps an electronic keyboard to provide control by playing note clusters) and an early MidiModem directed towards simultaneous performance from two different locations.
The relationship between community organizations, health care institutions, and schools is not always clear-cut and can lead to confusion. When young people are involved, the role of schools associated with hospitals must also be taken into account. Hospitals providing services for people with disabilities refer to “the community” in the sense of locations outside their main site, and to “community clients” as people who participate in programs in areas that do not involve treatment such as recreation.
But these meanings/usages differ from the usual CM model, which is more “of the community,” (i.e. generated and controlled by community members). Still, I believe that some institutions can be said to house both adapted music and CM. The CM concept is modified for young people in the sense that programs are not user-led based on age. Nevertheless, they always keep the eventual transition to adulthood and independence in view. At Massachusetts Hospital School, adapted music has been developed extensively by programmer Jon Adams (SuperSwitchEnsemble, Switch in Time, n.d.) and The Headbangers. This group plays music in a variety of styles using computer alternate access methods such as head switches to generate music with the software and a synthesizer.
Bloorview MacMillan Children’s Centre in Toronto, Canada (where I am based) is an internationally known institution that serves young people with special needs in the areas of treatment, research, community programs, and education. It currently offers three programs in the area of adapted music: (1) Plugged In, a music technology club for teens in which a group learns to use electronic keyboards, music arrangers, drum pads, and other equipment; (2) Movement to Music, a program offering music lessons or music therapy with the Virtual Musical Instrument developed at the Centre, which converts human movements into music using video-capture software (Lamont et al., 2002); (3) the Adapted Music Service for clients who can benefit from adapted music and technology information. This service offers demonstrations, initial instruction, and information on instrument purchase. It also provides “outreach” services to other organizations in the Province of Ontario, Canada.
I suggest that all these programs manifest key characteristics of “Community Music” because they are directed toward participation and independence, with significant input from participants and families. In addition, Bloorview MacMillan Children’s Centre is well known for its Rehabilitation Engineering Department, which has produced and researched software and hardware for both music participation and for therapy (Chau et al., 2002; Knox, Yokota-Adachi, Kershner, & Jutai, 2003; Nantais, Lee, Davies, & Knox, 1993). Among these devices is MidiMate, a small portable switch access device for electronic keyboards, which has been used by over 150 young people with disabilities. It is now available in five other Ontario centers and schools. It works well in a classroom and can be used for sound effects, nursery and folk songs, accompanying chords, and tones in a melody (Greenidge, 2000).
Discussion
Adapted music as Community Music is a valid concept that can be applied in many situations. To the extent that professionals are involved, it is essential that multi-disciplinary collaborations be established, for the purposes of improving practice, advancing research, and development. Socio-cultural research is also needed to determine needs and routes to success in a rapidly changing society. The ultimate goals of adapted music are to enhance musical opportunities and emphasize the need for change in the ways people with disabilities access music. Indeed, outsider status and marginalization are still the norm for persons with disabilities in all spheres of society, including artistic endeavors.
We can assume that adapted music has reached a stage where the “show me” question is now behind us. Over the years, there have been enough demonstrations of accomplishments and possibilities. Nevertheless, our society does not yet embrace the concept and reality of universal access to music making. To implement musical adaptations, there is still a need to reach into a variety of organizations and settings with interactions that place people with disabilities and their families on a fully equal basis. Casual and temporary activities (including demonstrations, workshops, and conferences) are just some ways of initiating this process.
Notable at this time is the lack of university or college music training courses and research on adapted music. Engineering and computer science programs cannot be expected to carry the load forever. Adapted music is a distinct field, but (I hope) not another rival profession. Musical institutions need to provide more resources and work harder to acquire (at least) soft funding to support ongoing service, education, research, and development. Arts venues must accept people with disabilities as people with interests and concerns about enhancing social and cultural spheres in a time of globalization.
How can adapted music find a home? Are the existing examples a result of local conditions and personalities, or can they be generalized? In my view, adapted music as CM is feasible when linked to varying degrees of support, depending on the age of participants, type of disability, and institutional linkages (including those with treatment centers or schools). Some existing programs in community music therapy already offer innovative ways of assisting people with disabilities, including use of adaptations and technology.
Distance education and telecommunications will become increasingly important. Networking is crucial, especially with its large distances in countries such as Canada. With high-speed connections, everyone will take more advantage of the Internet for shareware, sounds, and music. Let us hope that positive changes in social and cultural perspectives will help adapted music take its place in the rich and diverse world of Community Music.
References
Adlers, F. (1996). The Rhodes electric piano: Against all odds. Rhodes Super Site - History. Web link: www.fenderrhodes.com/rhodes/supersite/sections/history.html Ansdell, Gary (2002). Community music therapy and the winds of change. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy [online serial], 2(2). Web link: www.voices.no/mainissues/Voices2(2)ansdell.html Assistivex (2003). Web link: www.assistivex.com/Public/category Breen, M. (1994). Constructing the popular from public funding of community music. Popular Music, 13(3), 313-326. Bruschia, K. (1998). Defining music therapy (2nd ed.). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona. Burnham, D. (2001). Kant, I. - b. Aesthetics. In The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Web link: www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantaest Chau T., Schwellnus H., Hamdani Y., Lamont A., Eaton C., Tam C., Knox R., & Johnson P. (2002). Usability of movement-to-music technology for children with physical disabilities. Proceedings of the 27th Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Conference. Coalition for Disabled Musicians (1999). Web link: www.disabled-musicians.org Collins (2000). Collins English dictionary and thesaurus. Toronto: HarperCollins. Dancing Dots (2002). Web link: www.dancingdots.com/ Drake Music Projects, 2002. Drake Music Project training. Web link: www.drakemusicproject.com Drake Music Projects, 2002a. Drake Music Project technical development.Web link: www.drakemusicproject.com Ellis, P. (1995). Incidental music: A case study in the development of sound therapy. British Journal of Music Education, 12, 59-70. Greenidge, E. (2000). Connecting to music: Helping a disabled teen join the band. Rehab and Community Care Management, Fall Issue: 49-50. Kant, I. (1790/1988). Critique of judgment (J. C. Meredith. Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. Kirk, R., Abbotson, M., Abbotson, R., Hunt, A., & Cleaton, A. (1994). Computer music in the service of music therapy: The MIDIGRID and MIDICREATOR systems. Medical Engineering and Physics, 16, 253-258. Knox, R., Yokota-Adachi, H., Kershner, J., & Jutai, J. (2003). Musical Attention Training Program and alternating attention in brain injury: An initial report. Music Therapy Perspectives, 21(2): 99-104. Krout, R., Burnham, A., & Moorman, S. (1993). Computer and electronic music applications with students in special education: from program proposal to progress evaluation. Music Therapy Perspectives, 11, 28-31. Lamont, A., Knox, R., Chau, T., Hamdani, Y., Schwellnus, H., Tam, C., & Johnson, P. (2002). Converting movements to music: New musical exploration opportunities for children in rehabilitation. In N. Oddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Music Therapy (pp. 26-31). Waterloo, ON: Canadian Association for Music Therapy. Nantais, T., Lee, B., Davies, J., & Knox, R. (1993). A system for creating computer music as an occupational therapy activity. In M. Binion (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of RESNA (pp. 420-422). Washington, DC: RESNA Press. Quintet (2002). About Quintet. Web link: www.click2go.ie/quintet/index.htm Rokeby. D. (2003). softVNS. Web link: www.homepage.mac.com/davidrokeby/softVNS.html Sound Sense, 2003. Welcome to Sound Sense. Web link: www.soundsense.org Soundbeam Project, 2003. Soundbeam 2Æ. Web link: www.soundbeam.co.uk/ Switch in Time, n.d. SuperSwitch Ensemble. Web link: www.switchintime.com Spitzer, Shmuel (1989). Computers and music therapy: An integrated approach. Music Therapy Perspectives, 7, 51-54. Swingler, T. (2003). Electronic music interfaces for people with disabilities: Do they lead anywhere? In G. Craddock et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the AAATE Conference: Assistive Technology - Shaping the Future (pp. 247-252). Dublin: IOS Press. Tönnies, F. (1887/1988). Community and society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft), (C. P. Lewis, Trans.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Vancouver Adapted Music Society (2002). Web link: vams@reachdisability.org Veblen, K. K. (2002). Apples and oranges, solar systems and galaxies: Comparing systems of community music. Web link: www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/veblen WHO (1999). ICIDH-2 International Classification of Functioning and Disability. Beta-2 Draft, World Health Organization. Williams, J. & Brabyn, J. (1992). A study of accessibility to electronic music synthesizers and sequencers by blind musicians. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of RESNA, 12, 147-149.
Roger Knox is a composer researching applications of music technology for people with disabilities at Bloorview MacMillan Children's Centre, Toronto, Canada. e-mail: rknox@bloorviewmacmillan.on.ca |