THE MANY WAYS OF COMMUNITY MUSIC

K. K. Veblen

This article examines the concept of Community Music from a variety of perspectives and in relation to a wide array of “living examples” of CM around the world. The author does not seek a definition of CM; she is not aiming for closure. The point of her essay is to emphasize the inherent diversity of CM programs, their situated natures, and the fluidity of this global phenomenon

What is Community Music (or CM, for short)? There are many answers. At one end of the spectrum, skeptics claim there is no such thing. For doubters, CM is just another word for a wide range of “music education” programs that take place “outside” the boundaries and schedules of ordinary school music programs. At the other end of the spectrum, many scholars and practitioners offer rich definitions that differ widely. A variety of alternative conceptions occupy the middle of the continuum. Clearly, music has been part of human “communitas” for centuries. However, positing Community Music as a field of research, an identifiable professional practice, or a unifying ideal is still unfamiliar to many. In short, since concepts of CM vary widely from society to society, I believe it is critical to consider this phenomenon from a variety of perspectives.

In this paper, I reflect on meanings and models of “Community Music” by drawing from global research efforts and practices. For example, some countries – most notably Scandinavia, the UK, and former British territories (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) – have long histories of supporting CM initiatives. Other countries (e.g., the United States, Canada, and much of Europe) accommodate many types of CM organizations and networks. In other places, such as Portugal, Japan, and South Africa, CM is new: as programs emerge to meet the needs of different populations, CM is evolving in many different directions. In some regions (e.g., the Middle East, parts of Africa, and parts of Asia), CM efforts have not been chronicled.

Approaching Concepts

Perhaps the most influential force in Community Music over the past twenty years has been the Community Music Activity Commission (CMAC), a group under the umbrella of the International Society for Music Education (ISME). The CMAC serves to link and nurture a growing network of practitioners and theorists.¹ At a one-week meeting of the CMAC in Liverpool (1994), the CMA Commission asked David Elliott and I to formulate a working definition of Community Music based on many discussions among the participants (including practitioners, theorists, and administrators).²The CMAC group continues to evolve and test this formulation. Their most current statement of purpose and mission may be seen at: http://www.isme.org/

Over the past decade, David Elliott and I have had many opportunities to investigate and participate in a variety of CM programs in several countries. In some cases, we assisted colleagues in establishing and evaluating CM programs designed to prepare CM “workers” (e.g., the MA degree program in Community Music at the Irish World Music Center, University of Limerick). My reflections in the following sections of this paper are based on these experiences, on my on-going research, on my continuing involvement with the CMAC of ISME, and on dialogues with many colleagues in the field.

From my vantage point, Community Music encompasses both informal and formal contexts of music activity. In North America, these spheres of music making may exist alongside each other, or interact in diverse ways. As I said above, Community music is always shaped and defined by particular social settings. So, to begin, I suggest we consider CM in relation to five issues: (a) the kinds of music and music making involved in a CM program; (b) the intentions of the leaders or participants in a program; (c) the characteristics of the participants; (d) the interactions among teaching-learning aims, knowledge, and strategies; and (e) interplays between informal and formal social-educational-cultural contexts.

(a) Kinds of music and music making

A central theme in Community Music is active music making, including performing, creating, and improvising. All genres and diversities of music may be involved and they may be part of cultural and arts events, linked with celebrations, ceremonies, rituals, play, education, social uplift, or life passages.

(b) Intentions

CM programs characteristically emphasize lifelong learning and access for all. There is a strong understanding in many programs that the social and personal well being of all participants is as important as their musical learning (if not more important). CM leaders frequently emphasize the power of music to bring people together, and to nurture both individual and collective identity.

Some CM programs connect with schools and universities to provide opportunities for gifted individuals. Other programs emphasize music/arts therapy or “social uplift” via outreach efforts in hospitals, early childcare centers, prisons, or institutions working with “at-risk” and disenfranchised youth. Some efforts focus on personal exploration and creativity through community music education.

(c) Participants

Viewed as an overarching concept, Community Music is distinguished by the extremely wide range of participants “it” serves (via thousands of local CM programs) around the world. Different programs accommodate people of different ages, cultures, ability levels, socio-economic circumstances, and/or political, and religious beliefs. Some programs exist to bring music to “disadvantaged” or “marginalized” people; others aim to comfort immigrants as they enter a new, “host” culture; some programs aim to provide “purely aesthetic” experiences for their clients, learners, students (choir, band, orchestra members), and so forth. Not surprisingly, then, CM (viewed holistically) involves thousands of musical styles.

Of course, we also see significant differences in the names assigned to Community Music specialists around the world. Community Music “worker” is a common term in the UK and Europe. Other localities use the terms CM facilitator, community musician, CM educator, CM trainer, or tradition bearer. As some of these names suggest, the CM worker’s role is typically adaptable or “elastic.” In addition to his or her duties as an “instructor,” the CM worker usually takes on many other roles – prompter, mentor, facilitator, catalyst, coach, director – one or more of which may require the Community Musician to draw upon his or her expertise as a music educator, entrepreneur, fund raiser, therapist, social worker, performer, composer, arranger, music technology expert, ethnomusicologist, dancer, poet, visual artist, story teller, and more. Given these realities, it is easy to understand why Lee Higgins (2002), head of CM studies at LIPA (the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts, or the “Paul McCartney School”) refers to the practice of CM as a continuous series of “border crossings.”

(d) Teaching, learning and interactions

Community Music projects usually focus on active music making and applied musical knowing. Very few CM programs center on the teaching of music appreciation, music history, or music theory. However, it is common to find CM programs that offer these “verbal forms” of musical knowledge in relation to practical lessons in Western classical music performance. Toronto’s Royal Conservatory of Music is a good example of this combination. (In recent years, however, the RCM has broadened its curriculum well beyond its historical focus on classical music; its current curriculum offers instruction in a variety of musics).

Another important factor in conceptualizing CM is that students elect to take part in, often to the point of assuming complete responsibility, their own learning and direction. Thus, multiple learner/teacher relationships and processes are possible. Accordingly, a reoccurring theme in musical communities concerns the fluidity of knowledge, expertise, and roles, with individuals participating in various ways from observer, to participant, to creator, to leader. One’s individual responsibility to the group is reciprocated by group responsibility to the individual.

Given the above factors, we see why teaching-learning modes in CM situations often include a rich mixture of oral, notational, experimental, conservative, experiential, spiritual, and/or analytical elements. Moreover, is usually the case (usually, but not always) that CM leaders and students are not bound by written curriculum “plans” organized in terms of verbal statements of objectives, rubrics, concepts, evaluation criteria, “standards,” and so forth. The latter are familiar features of “schooling” and “school music” in many countries today (most notably, perhaps, in the USA).

Indeed, CM programs often blossom as alternatives to school music programs that make it impossible for teachers and students to achieve satisfying musical experiences because teachers are forced to adhere to restrictive, top-down “control” devices (tests, measures, “standards”) which often change in their details and priorities every decade or so as national, regional, or local governments change. Indeed, the politics of “school music” in many localities prevents excellent music teachers from teaching music musically. Accordingly, a significant number of music educators establish their own programs, or teach in CM programs, to escape unsatisfying careers as school music teachers. Likewise, accountability in CM programs usually takes the form of continuous, constructive, personal assessment by self-reflective learners guided by reflective CM workers. Constructive feedback is the norm in CM programs. Formal (summative) evaluation (with grades, etc.) is not. In most cases, the emphasis is on one or some combination of the following: music making for personal satisfaction, enjoyment, self-expression, individual creativity, artistic excellence, self-esteem, joy, and/or the enhancement of individual and/or group identity.

(e) Interplays between informal and formal contexts

The concept of “community” is both an ideal and a reality. Over the past one hundred years, theories of community have attracted the attention of scholars in many social sciences. For example, sociologists and anthropologists (e.g., Tonnies 1887/1988; Durkheim, 1933, 1960; Weber 1947; Redfield, 1956), have plumbed both the meaning and significance of social relationships. Hillery’s (1954) compilation of ninety-four definitions of “community” is frequently cited as evidence that the concept is complex and, perhaps, meaningless. In any event, theories of community have proliferated.

More recent discussions viewpoint “community” as an “idea of belonging” (Anderson, 1991; Appadurai, 1990; Amit, 2002). This view arises from the “virtual” avalanche of cyberspace connections (and scholarship concerning these), as well as postmodern sensibilities. Amit (2002) summarizes the point this way:

As anthropologists entered the last decade of the twentieth century and took up the popular and scholarly preoccupation with globalization, diasporas, de-territorialization and transnational fields, face-to-face relations seemed to dissolve even further into less tangible ‘structures of feeling’, of belonging, of imagined communities. (p. 9)

In summary, most people in the field of CM will inevitably grapple with many challenging details surrounding the meaning of “community,” whether these details concern community-as-: geographically situated, culturally based, artistically concerned, re-created, virtual, imagined, or otherwise. Indeed, many contemporary music scholars are heavily involved in documenting how musical cultures embody (mirror, reflect, and shape) social cultures, and vice-versa, (for one enjoyable and insightful investigation of these relationships, see: Nettl, 1995).

Contexts and Perspectives on Community Music

I will now offer selected perspectives on CM from several parts of the globe. These perspectives provide more insights into the nature of CM programs and demonstrate some of the interactions that take place between programs and local circumstances (i.e., political values; geographic issues; economic circumstances; cultural diversity)

The United Kingdom pioneered “social work,” beginning with reform issues in Dickens’s time. Cole (1999) describes the links between the term Community Music and the theme of “access to arts for all” that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to “politically informed work,” new and more accessible music-composition strategies (and other educational innovations) were important features of education and community work in the early 1970s. Vicki White, a CM researcher in the UK, offers these reflections:

Through the 80’s and into the 90’s it [CM] became a marginalized activity. In the 21st century, it has grown into a huge area of work and interest in the U.K., and it attracts a large amount of funding from bodies such as the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. It [CM] is now in danger of being used and abused by these bodies and the government as a ‘quick fix’ solution to society’s problems. (See: Community Music Research website: www.communitymusic.50megs.com/about.html)

CM efforts in the UK emphasize social intervention, open access, and individual needs, among other goals. Colleagues in the UK report major increases in government funding for CM efforts and an increasing demand for CM workers. Thus universities are in process of initiating new CM training programs, or expanding existing programs: examples include the University of London’s Goldsmiths College, York University (UK), the Liverpool Institute of the Arts, the Guildhall School of Music, and the Irish World Music Center (University of Limerick). In addition to these “formal” institutions of training and learning, many local organizations and groups make commitments to foster CM for particular areas or participants.³

Soundsense, a UK agency devoted to CM workers, embraces the belief that music making can benefit everyone. Therefore, this organization promotes equal access to music making for all. The Soundsense website defines Community Music as follows:

The simplest definition is ‘making music with people.’ Everyone has been moved by music at some point in their lives. Music has the ability to communicate, inspire, excite, motivate and to express a wide range of feelings and experiences. Community music involves musicians working with people to enable them to actively enjoy and participate in music. This can happen anywhere and with anyone, because a ‘community’ doesn't have to be a geographical one. It can be a group of people who share common interests, experiences or backgrounds. (http://www.soundsense.org/scripts/WebObjects.exe/soundSense/)

Community Music Wales stresses creative possibilities:

Music provides the soundtrack to people's lives. It can be educational, informative and empowering, but it should always be enjoyed. Creative music making is central to Community Music Wales and its objectives. (http://www.communitymusicwales.org.uk/new_site_design/cmw_new_home.html)

Focusing on the individual musician, CM Wales provides “trained and experienced community tutors, equipment, advice and support to give people the opportunity to write, play, record or perform their own music.”

A new all-Ireland network called the Irish Federation of Music Collectives has formed to support new group efforts, facilitate those in existence, and act as a voice for this grass-roots sector of music in Ireland (http://www.fmc-ireland.com/).⁴

The Irish FMC also emphasizes open access:

[Members of this collective] believe that financial status, geographical location, religion, or race should have nothing to do with how and where you learn, play, or enjoy your music. (http://www.fmc-ireland.com/)

There are two training programs for CM workers in the Republic of Ireland. The Irish World Music Center (University of Limerick) is the site of one of these programs; the other is offered at the Cork School of Music, which is part of the Cork Institute of Technology.

Cultural Diversity in Music Education (CDIME),⁵ a platform for the international exchange of ideas on music education, offers this description of CM:

Music in community centres, prisons and retirement homes; extra-curricular projects for school children and youth; public music schools; community bands, orchestras and choirs; musical projects with asylum seekers; marching bands for street children. All this – and more – comes under the heading of community music. One of the central features of all these activities is that the starting point is always the competencies and ambitions of the participants, rather than the teacher or leader. But a single definition of community music is yet to be found. (http://www.cdime-network.com/)

In Scandinavian/Nordic countries,6 music is considered an important means of self-expression, exploration, and a healthy outlet for the emotions. Thus, these societies have a long history of supporting extensive CM systems of music training for all levels. The first Scandinavian CM schools were established in the 1930s in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. After the Second World War, these schools flourished again; they continue to be an important part of CM activities. Funding for Scandinavian CM programs has been an accepted part of government mandates in these countries since the 1960s (see the following website for a sample of current projects by an organization called NOMUS: http://www.nomus.org/).

Swedish therapist Brynjulf Stige (2002) describes CM as:

music therapy practices that are linked to the local communities in which clients live and therapists work, and/or to communities of interest. Basically two main notions of community music therapy exist: a) music therapy in a community context, and b) music therapy for change in a community. Both notions require that the therapist be sensitive to social and cultural contexts, but the latter notion to a more radical degree departs from conventional modern notions of therapy in that goals and interventions relate directly to the community in question. Music therapy, then, may be considered cultural and social engagement and may function as community action; the community is not only a context for work but also a context to be worked with . . . ‘Community Music therapy is necessarily ecological, since individuals, groups, and communities function in and as systems’ (p. 328).

Funding for Australian Community Music programs began in 1978 under the federal government’s arts funding authority (Harrison, 1996, pp. 41-45). It continues to grow in strength “unconstrained by any educational bureaucracy” in order to find solutions that “fit the needs of particular communities” (Letts, 2000, pg.1). Programs in Australia and New Zealand, though influenced by UK models, are unique. The Music Council of Australia supports a network to promote CM in Australia (see: http://www.mca.org.au/cmdev.htm). Australian Anne Cahill (2001) makes an important distinction between commercial and non-commercial Community Music organizations:

I have used the definition that . . .community music comprises music activities in a community where members of that community control those activities. This means that there must be a strong and practical sense of ownership of the activities and that the management committee or board is elected from within that community. This seeks to distinguish community music activities from any commercial music business and from the state controlled education systems. This is a separate issue although, inevitably, the strength or weakness of music education in the state education system of any particular community has a strong bearing on the direction and capacity of that community’s music activities.

Cahill (2001) also distinguishes between individual music-making groups and those that reach out into the wider community:

In summary, community music incorporates many wide-ranging elements which contribute significantly to the development of the arts, education, cultural life, the economy, social integration and community cohesion in Australia. Community music is not just a group of amateurs having a good time. The term I use to describe the significance of community music development as a whole is ‘cultural synergy.’

In North America, “Community Music” has been used in various ways for much of the 20th century. Peter Dykema, an early leader of school music in the United States, defined CM as “all types of music which may exist in a community” (McCarthy, 1995). From the 1920s through the 1950s in the USA, the slogan “Music for Everybody” was often attached to the CM movement. In the past decade, several scholars have been categorizing and documenting relationships among American CM groups and religious institutions, the outreach initiatives of universities, ethnic/preservation groups, and informal affinity gatherings (e.g., Leglar & Smith, 1994; Veblen & Olsson, 2002).⁷

Whether they operate as individual academies, or as members of the National Guild of Community Schools of the Arts, CM schools are an important part of the fabric of North American musical activity. Altogether, they provide a wide range of music instruction and access to thousands of people. They draw their funding from public, philanthropic, and member-based sources. Other CM organizations (e.g., independent choral, wind band, and folk groups) appear to be expanding at an accelerating pace. Some smaller CM organizations and affiliations are difficult to track because they form, dissolve, disappear, or mutate within much time periods and “spaces.” However, as more and more of these groups make use of the internet, potential participants and/or researchers will be more likely to join or investigate.

Examples of Community Music Programs

One of the best ways to explain the nature of CM is to offer concrete examples. Hence, the following details.

In Rättvik, Sweden, the Folkmusikens Hus provides instruction in traditional Swedish music. This school is located in the center part of the Dalarna region, which is recognized for the richness of its folkways, particularly its fiddle traditions. The school’s website (http://www.folkmusikenshus.w.se/) shows fiddlers of all ages in colorful ethnic attire enjoying playing together. Trained as a classical violin teacher and a traditional fiddle teacher, Director Jonas Holmén sees the aim of his work as building community networks in Swedish traditional music: “My main point is that there are many qualities in noon-academic ways of trading music that are strong enough to be formalized and used in music teaching generally.”⁸

Many CM schools exist to promote indigenous musics, including the following: the Centre for Musical Tradition in Sendim, Portugal9; the O’Carolan Summer School in Traditional Irish Music, Singing, Set Dancing; and Sean Nós Dancing in Keadue, County Roscommon, Ireland (Veblen & Johnson, 2000); and Culture schools in Japan (Murao, 2000). In fact, a new organization is forming to support and document Community Music activities in Japan (examine the following web-site with special attention to the biography of David Hebert which is highlighted on this site http://www.kunitachi-gakki.co.jp/).

Often, CM schools create affiliations with public schools. In the case of the Christchurch School of Music in Christchurch, New Zealand, teachers travel to public schools during the week to offer classes. Director Graeme Wallis (in press) explains:

The majority of the classes are held in the sixty rooms [of our building] on a Saturday morning . . . In Christchurch, however, many children play sports on Saturday morning. This has historically necessitated a choice between sports and music. To cater to those children wishing to do both, the School now provides classes during the week. One such recent move has seen the establishment of classes during the week . . . rather than the students coming to the School, the teacher travels to the students in the local school offering the class.

Others kinds of “after-school,” “co-curricular,” or “out-of-school” CM programs also supplement school offerings in their locales. For example, a number of Mariachi Band programs operate in the southwestern United States, such as the Kern County Youth Mariachi in Bakersfield, California (http://www.kernmariachi.com/). These Youth Mariachi Bands are organized as after school programs, but they also draw members from, and perform in, a variety of local settings. Another example is the MUSE program in Buffalo, New York (http://www.musekids.org/index.html).¹⁰ MUSE offers opportunities for young people to engage in the active learning of the musics and dances of African, Afro-Latin, and African-American cultures in school residencies and out-of-school.

Traditional Western cultural organizations (e.g., symphony orchestras; Western classical music conservatories) frequently form partnerships with their local communities. One such partnership, The National Conservatory of Music in Palestine, is an affiliate of Birzeit University. The NCM has branch sites in Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem that provide instruction in both Arabic and Western musics for youth and adults. The instruments taught and learned include Western orchestral woodwinds, piano, and strings. In addition, however, students can learn traditional Arabic instruments: oud, qanoun, buzuk, and so forth. The NCM sponsors additional outreach projects, competitions, and special events (Habash, 2003). Many aspects of the NCM are funded by a volunteer philanthropic organization in the USA called the American Near East Refugee Aid or ANERA (see: http://www.anera.org/projects/National_Conservatory_of_Music.html).

“Musical outreach” is often “another mission” for a community-based group. For example, the MST Culture Collective in Brazil was originally organized as an auxiliary of the MST: the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra). The MST is a grass-roots movement to regain land for disenfranchised farmers.11 The Brazilian MST Culture Collective advances the cause of agrarian reform to redress social and economic inequalities through street theatre, music, media, recordings, and events. Organizer Mineirinho summarizes the mission of the MST: “exploring and amplifying the culture and arts of Bazil’s landless communities can open a different sort of dialogue with Brazilian society, helping it to better understand who we are and where we come from” (McNee, 2002) (see: http://www.mstbrazil.org/).

Another approach to CM is through the use of artistic-social projects designed to assist specific people, needs, and goals of a local community. For instance, Peter Moser originated “More Music in Morecambe” in 1993. (See http://www.mormusic.net/info/index.html). Moser is a multi-talented community musician who has created many unique projects and events of varying duration over the last decade (Moser, 1995). In doing so, he has developed many forms of funding (see the MMM website, above). Accordingly and because of his tireless work, Morecambe (an old English seaside resort) has benefited economically and culturally; for Moser, these two aims go hand-in-hand. It is now the site of many events: one-man band celebrations; many kinds of music festivals; music composition initiatives; music programs for the very young; sing-song sessions for adults; workshops for song writing, improvisation and technology; and a project combining South Asian and Western dance music. One of the most popular MMM projects is “Baybeat,” a percussion dance band. Open to anyone, Baybeat mixes “Brazilian samba rhythms with North African beats, adding seaside melodies alongside salsa classics,” topping them off with “dances that blend the latest pop moves with Caribbean and African styles.” The band performs in vibrant costume as part of processions and at outdoor festivals.

Moser describes his work in these words:

Almost all of the music work I do has a double purpose. Community music for me has always been a mixture of being a social worker and a composer and finding ways of bridging that. If you go into a youth club in Burnley or in Accrington, the majority of young people don't have a cultural form they can look up to. I passionately believe that music has the ability to make communities pull together. (Clothier, 2002).

University music schools often serve as sites for “community outreach.” Letts (2002) estimates that there are 5,000 such efforts in Europe alone that serve approximately 3,235,000 students of all ages. In North America, the National Guild of Community Schools of the Art’s consists of 305 institutions. Overall, the Guild’s members supply music and arts instruction to nearly 500,000 students (http://www.nationalguild.org/). The rationale, organization, and funding reflect each geographic setting, as can be seen in Heimonen’s research on Nordic music and arts schools (2004). Schools serve wide-ranging clientele and offer a variety of services.

CM projects may take the form of annual festivals, one-off events, a series of workshops, an evolving collaboration between a CM worker and a particular clientele, or groups of people on the internet. Often, individual CM musicians are challenged to create projects with whatever comes to hand, using whatever resources are available. To take only one example: Victoria Moon Joyce generates programs of singing and empowerment for multiple audiences in Canada (see this website: http://tortoise.oise.utoronto.ca/~mjoyce/).

Current Developments in CM

As well as local developments, exciting collaboration efforts are occurring among Community Music organizations and individuals throughout the UK, Scandinavia, and several parts of Europe. Over the past two years, there has been a growing awareness of common ground among CM workers in EU countries, which has been greatly aided by the Internet. Accordingly, several cross-border collaborations and networks have begun. For example, in March 2003, a conference took place among selected representatives of arts councils, community groups, researchers, and activists from the UK, Scandinavia, Greece, the Netherlands, and Portugal. This meeting was held at the Irish World Music Centre, University of Limerick, Ireland. Two points became clear at this meeting: although each country views and funds CM programs differently, participants at this first “European Community Music Gathering” share a common desire to build overarching structures and networks.¹²

In the USA, growing interest in CM has prompted the formation of the Adult and Community Music Education Special Research Interest Group of the Music Educators National Association (MENC). This group will provide an important forum for discussions at biennial MENC conferences. ¹³ At present, there is growing interest in creating a continuing series of conferences that will bring theorists and practitioners together.¹⁴

In the wake of several biennial meetings of the ISME’s CMAC group (which I mentioned at the outset of this article), several members of this Commission organized different kinds of cross-cultural CM initiatives. For example, Don Coffman and Monte Mumford organized a professional exchange for themselves that allowed them to trade places. Their shared goal was to teach each other’s adult community bands and to conduct parallel studies in the United States and Tasmania (Coffman & Mumford, 2002). In another example, Steve Garrett made it possible for community choirs from Wales (his home) and South Africa to visit, perform, and live briefly with each other in local homes (Veblen, 2003). Similarly, Phil Mullen has collaborated with musicians and groups in the Middle East (Mullen, 2002). Jonas Holmén of Sweden (mentioned above) brings together young folk musician from Nordic and Baltic countries and arranges traveling tours for his fiddlers (Veblen, 2003).

Among timely events, and in addition to the launching of this new e-journal, another new CM journal is being established in Australia (Letts, 2003). The obvious advantage of these media is their accessibility, the possibilities they provide for professional networking, idea exchanges, and the “cross-border” exchange of theoretical and practical perspectives on CM around the world. As future forms of communication evolve, we will experience further dramatic expansions in our knowledge and experience of CM. Already, several international case studies15 illustrate the expansion of CM via cyberspace. For example, David Akombo works with Kenyan refugee children and others through his Music Therapy International. He raises money by selling his recordings of Kenyan music. He uses his website to publicize and advocate: http://mtikenya.tripod.com/index.htm

Nongnoos Kaewreuang (also known as “Donut”) works on developmental projects with the Mirror Art Group in the Mae Yao sub-district of Chiang Rai province, northern Thailand. She concentrates on promoting indigenous song, saying: “I feel good whenever I hear a child singing an Akha song instead of a Thai pop song.” When I asked who funded her work, she said: “Nobody.” I met Donut through the Mirror Art website: http://www.mirrorartgroup.org/web/

In the United States, Ron Boerger ¹⁶maintains several websites for musicians, including one site for horn players, and one for CM bands and orchestras worldwide. He does this as a service to his colleagues (see: http://boerger.org/c-m/).

Jim Nollman’s non-profit organization, Interspecies Communications, administers a research program to promote communication between humans and animals. Founded in 1978, IC is best known for conducting musical projects with whales and dolphins. Nollman writes and records extensively to fund his research, which he posts on his website: http://www.interspecies.com/

Making Sense of What’s Happening

Some scholars view recent CM developments as part of large-scale social changes. For example, anthropologist Appadurai (1990) takes a global view of everyday life and mass-mediated public culture. He proposes that we live in concurrent ethnoscapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes, and ideoscapes. In his formulation, the global movement of technology, resources, images, words, peoples, and ideas allows individuals to inhabit many different spheres simultaneously. In his terminology, “ethnoscapes” describes the shifting and non-localized quality of group identities at this point in our postmodern era.

During the last several decades, the concept of “scapes” or “spaces” of different kinds has energized many thinkers. In the late 1960s, Canadian composer R. Murray Schafer reconceived our everyday sonic environments as “soundscapes.” Strohm (1985) also used this term to talk about the broader musical environment of medieval Bruges. Ethnomusicologist Kay Shelemay (2001) uses “soundscapes” for this purpose: to “bring together . . . musics that exist side by side in the lives and imaginations of so many people. A soundscape is flexible, accommodating local detail while allowing for translocal connections” (p. xiii). I suggest that we can also apply this descriptor to many of today’s cyberspace music groups and to the cross-over genres that are continuously emerging due to the innovative techniques and technologies employed by community musicians and participants in CM programs.

Although there have been many studies of “local” musical life during many decades (e.g., Strohm, 1985; Knight, 1980; Gerson, 1940; Baily, 1988; Livingston et al, 1993), a musical ethnography by Ruth Finnegan stands out as a landmark investigation. In her book, The hidden musicians: Music-making in an English town, Finnegan (1989) studied the activities of professional and amateur musicians in Milton Keynes, England. In the process, Finnegan revealed the remarkable amount of un-noticed, “commonplace” music making that was taking place in this community. One example Finnegan mentions is the musicing of the Sweet Adelines,¹⁷ a barbershop-singing society for women that operates somewhat invisibly, with great vitality, “under the radar” of other community activities. That is, unless one is connected with members of the Sweet Adelines through family or neighborly ties, or unless one notices newspaper ads or posters about their concerts, one might never know the Sweet Adelines exist. In sum, Finnegan’s detailing of parallel musical “worlds” in this community alerts us to many different values and organizational structures across places, spaces, and genres. In the process, she discards the terms “community” and “network” in favor of “musical pathways” to describe the fluid, complex, and dynamic relationships she finds in this medium-sized city.

Further examples of research related to CM abound. For instance, Livingston (1993) organized a seminar at the University of Illinois in the wake of Finnegan’s inspiring book. Hannan (2002) explored musical practices, contexts, and “spatial politics of musical production” in Nimbin, a village in Australia, with reference to the lasting influence of the 1973 alternative life-styles “Aquarius Festival.” Similarly, CM workers in the UK are now beginning to conduct local ethnographies with the assistance of their students who are pursuing MA degrees in CM, or other certification programs (Mullen, 2003).

Scholars in popular music (e.g., Cohen, 1999; Lipsitz, 1994; Moore, 1999; Shank, 1994; Straw, 1991) have studied musical communities-in-flux (sometimes termed “scenes”) as sites for the development of individual and collective identities. In addition to many ethnographic studies of music in specific places, ethnomusicologists (e.g., Slobin 1993; Crafts, Cavicchi, & Keil, 1993) have probed the diversity of personal musical worlds and interacting systems.

The last point I wish to make is that a number of CM typologies have been conceived during the last decade in an effort to “summarize” the genres of music, the clientele, and the organizational structures found in different settings (Veblen, 2003). One typology by Joss (1996) describes CM groupings in the UK; Breen’s (1994) typology applies to Australia; Horfilla’s (2000) typology examines arts groups in the Philippines; and a North American typology (Veblen & Olsson, 2002) expands on an initial model by Leglar and Smith (1996). These analyses are not equivalent, nor were they formulated for comparison. Indeed, and because these typologies are grounded in particular contexts, differentiations may be impossible. Nevertheless, their existence indicates many peoples’ interest in “getting a handle” on this exciting field of global activity. For sample typologies, see: http://www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/veblen.PDF

Conclusion

Earlier in this paper I referred to my experiences at the first “European Community Music Gathering,” which was held at the University of Limerick, Ireland. At that conference, I closed my official presentation with a few reflections that seem appropriate again, now. First, however, allow me to say what a joy and privilege it has been for me to offer this first article in the inaugural issue of the IJME – “our” community’s newest initiative. For me, this is a dream-come-true.

We’ve gathered here to celebrate, inform, probe, and advance this wonderfully various and exciting ‘space’ of people and activities called Community Music. No doubt our future efforts will encounter difficulties, but they will also spur us onward to many other gatherings of ‘our own community’ of CM workers where we will learn more, share exhilarating experiences, make deep personal connections, and enjoy professional satisfactions. Of course, all of this traces back to the powerful force of music in our personal and professional lives and in the daily lives of the many ‘peoples’ who make up our communities. Also, each of our orientations – as musicians, teachers, trainers, facilitators, therapists, learners, mover-and-shakers, and, often, all of these – prompt us to recognize and reflect on the many ways we enable and empower people to develop their cultures, artistry, creativity, identity, health, and ‘community.’ In and through music, these threads interweave in our daily work. For all these reasons, I wish to suggest that it is vitally important for ourselves, and for those we serve, that we continuously reflect on the ‘who-why-what-how-where-and-when’ of CM programs around the world. This is the pathway to professionalism and personal growth.

I see the IJCM as an important new travel companion that I can look to for guidance and support as I travel my path. I hope it will serve you in this way, too.

Notes

1. The CMAC of ISME was founded by Einar Solbu (Norway) in 1988. Many people have played continuing leadership roles in this commission. Among them are: Ingrid Olseng (Norway), Ben Higham (UK), John Drummond (New Zealand), Tim Joss (UK), Dave Price (UK), Elizabeth Oehrle (South Africa), Sallyanne Goodall (South Africa), Kari Veblen (Canada), David Elliott (Canada), Huib Schippers (Netherlands), Patricia Campbell (USA), Steve Garrett (Wales), Phil Mullen (Ireland/UK), Lee Higgins (UK), and Tatsuko Takizawa (Japan).

2. Dave Price hosted this CMAC meeting at LIPA: the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts. Elliott and I have offered variations on this definition since that meeting (Veblen & Olsson, 2002).

3. Making Music, for example, represents and supports amateur and semi-professional music groups of all genres throughout the United Kingdom. The website for this organization explains that it “represents and supports over 2,000 amateur music groups throughout the UK, including choirs, orchestras, and music promoters.” http://www.makingmusic.org.uk/MM/home.aspx

4. Here are some key quotes, and my paraphrases of key ideas, from the Federation’s website: “A music collective is any group of people who get together to facilitate a particular genre of music in a particular area.” A collective can work in any of a number of ways: providing recording or rehearsal facilities; supporting live performances, releases, teaching, or community outreach. Around Ireland there is a huge variety in the types of collectives that exist. Some are recording and rehearsal facilities with . . . a focus on the musician. Some are training courses teaching different kinds of music using either traditional instruments and voices, or new music technologies, or some combination. Some collectives are groups of bands that get together to arrange gigs and share expenses so they can rehearse and play more often. Other collectives are “all-Ireland-based” that exist to support school music teaching and outreach programs, which, in turn, utilize music to achieve some goals of social service agencies. Examples include Irish traditional music schools in Belfast, and a Samba Collective in Dublin. Musical styles and teaching approaches are as unique as the people involved. However, what under girds the efforts of the Irish Federation of Music Collectives is a commitment to equal access to all music for everyone.

5. Cultural Diversity in Music Education (CDIME) is an informal network with no central administrative office. One of its underlying principles is that it will exist for as long as it is necessary. This network came into existence about ten years ago when the first conference (called “Teaching World Music”) was organized in Amsterdam. After that, a conference was held approximately every two years. Conferences were held in Basel, Rotterdam, Dartington, Malmö, and London. See: http://www.cdime-network.com/cdime

6. Scandinavian countries include Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. “Nordic” usually designates the addition of Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands: Nordic implies cooperation among these countries toward common goals and enterprises.

7. Leglar and Smith (1996) suggest that we group CM activities in the United States into: CM schools; performance groups; and ethnic/preservation groups. Veblen and Olsson (2002) suggest expanding these groupings to include North American CM programs related to: CM religious groups; CM programs that associate with schools; the musical outreach initiatives of universities and colleges; and informal, musical affinity groups.

8. More information may be garnered from Veblen, 2003.

9. I wish to thank my collaborators, Mario Antonio Pires Correia, (founder and director of the Centre for Traditional Music in Portugal), and ethnomusicologist Judith Cohen, who translated our interviews. See Veblen (2003) for more details.

10. MUSE was initiated in 1990 by ethnomusicologist Charlie Keil “to address the need for multi-cultural arts instruction in schools, and to increase access to the arts for all children” (http://www.musekids.org/index.html,)

11. From the MST website: (http://www.mstbrazil.org/): The Brazilian Landless Workers Movement is the largest social movement in Latin America and one of the most successful grassroots movements in the world. Hundreds of thousands of landless peasants have taken up the task of carrying out long-overdue land reform in a country burdened by a skewed land distribution pattern. By this I mean that less than 3% of the population owns two-thirds of Brazil's arable land. At the same time, 60% of Brazil's farmland lies idle, and 25 million peasants struggle to survive by working in temporary agricultural jobs. The Landless Workers' Movement (MST) is a response to these inequalities. In 1985, with the support of the Catholic Church, hundreds of landless rural Brazilians took over an unused plantation in the south of the country and successfully established a cooperative. They gained title to the land in 1987. Today, more than 250,000 families have won land titles to over 15 million acres after MST land takeovers.

12. Phil Mullen organized this meeting with assistance from members of the Irish World Music Centre and his colleagues at Goldsmith College, University of London.

13. David Myers and Chelcy Bowles were co-founders of this SRIG. They were assisted by Jeff Bush, Don Coffman, Roy Ernst, and others.

14. In 2002, the University of Western Ontario sponsored a conference called “Music and Lifelong Learning, which was initiated by Professor Paul Woodford. Selected papers from this gathering will be featured in the second issue of this journal (forthcoming). A similar conference was held in 2003; it was devoted to partnerships between communities and schools: see, http://www.nationalguild.org/precon2002.htm

In 2004, the ACME SRIG (Adult and Community Music Education Special Research Interest Group of MENC) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison will join to sponsor a conference on “Life-long Learning.” Dr. Chelcy Bowles is the organizer.

15. These case studies are drawn from a continuing series of dialogues with CM workers internationally.

16. Ron Boerger maintains his list with the help of two co-administrators: Jonell Lindholm and Dan Mas.

17. Sweet Adelines International is an organization of approximately 30,000 women from around the world who enjoy singing in the style called “barbershop harmony.” Members sing in quartets, larger groups, and for local competitions. The Sweet Adelines operate in North America, Mexico, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Nordic countries, Australia, and New Zealand. See: http://www.sweetadelineintl.org/programs.cfm

References

Amit, V. (2002). Reconceptualizing community. In V. Amit (Ed.), Realizing community: Concepts, social relationships and sentiments (pp. 1-20). London: Routledge.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture 2(2), 1-24.

Baily, J. (1988). Music of Afghanistan: Professional musicians in the city of Herat. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breen, M. (1994). Constructing the popular from public funding of community music. Popular Music, 13(3), 313-326.

Cahill, A. (2001) The community music handbook: A practical guide to developing music projects and organisations. Retrieved 3/24/03 from Federation of Music Collectives (fmc): http://www.fmc-ireland.com/

Clothier, J. (2002). Interview with Peter Moser. Sounding Board. Retrieved from: http://www.mormusic.net/info/about/articles/12_02_Sounding_Board.html

Coffman, D., & Mumford, M. (2002). Community and school music wind bands, making and maintaining effective, complementary, rewarding relationships.” In H. Schippers & N. Kors (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. Rotterdam, NK. Retrieved from: http://www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/coffman.PDF

Cohen, S. (1999). Scenes. In Horner, B., and Swiss, T. (Eds.), Key terms in popular music and culture (pp. 239-250). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Cole, B. (1999). Community music and higher education: A marriage of convenience. In Making music work: Fostering professional skills among those studying music in higher education (pp. 139-150). London: Royal College of Music.

Crafts, S. D., Cavicchi, D.; & Keil, C., et al. (1993). My music. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.

Durkheim, E. (1933, 1960). The division of labor in society. Trans. By G. Simpson. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press of Glencoe

Finnegan, R. (1989). Hidden musicians: Music-making in an English town. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge: University Press.

Gerson, R. A. (1940). Music in Philadelphia. New York: Theodore Presser.

Habash, D. (2003). The National Conservatory of Music: Where talents are discovered and nurtured. MIFTAH http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=2297&CategoryId=24

Hannan, M. (2002). Music making in the village of Nimbin. Transformations, 1, ISSN 1444-377. http://www.cqu.edu.au/transformations

Harrison, G. (1996). Community music in Australia. In M. A. Leglar (Ed.), The role of community music in a changing world: Proceedings of the International Society for Music Education, 1994 Seminar of the Commission on Community Music Activity (pp. 39-45). Athens: University of Georgia

Heimonen, M. (2004). Music and Arts Schools Extra-curricular Music Education in Sweden: A Comparative Study. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education. 3(2), Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/MUSIC/ACTPAPERS/v3/Heimonen04.htm

Higgins, Lee (2002). Towards community music conceptualizations. In H. Schippers & N. Kors (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. Rotterdam, NK: http://www.cdime-network.com

Hillery, G. (1955). Definitions of community: Areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20, 86-118.

Horfilla, N. T. ( 2000). Theater networking in Mindanao: Recognizing creative diversities and building a culture of peace. Philippines: National Commission for Culture and the Arts. E-mail: cyberspace@ncca.gov.ph http://www.ncca.gov.ph/phil_culture/arts/dramatic/dramatic_mindanao.htm

Joss, T. (1996). Setting the stage: The mission of the seminar. In Mary Leglar (Ed.), The Role of community music in a changing world; Proceedings of the 1994 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. pp. 1-3. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Kibby, M. D. (2000). Home on the page: A virtual place of music community. Popular Music, 19 (1), 91-100.

Knight, F. (1980). Cambridge music from the middle ages to modern times. New York: Oleander.

Leglar, M. & Smith, D. (1996). Community music in the United States: An overview of origins and evolution. In Leglar, M. (Ed), The role of community music in a changing world: Proceedings o f the International Society for Music Education 1994 Seminar of the Commission on Community Music Activity. pp. 95-108. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Letts, R. (2003, October 17). Personal communication, Montevideo, Uruguay.

___. (2002). Why doesn’t your town have its own music school? Community Music Australia, Retrieved from: http://www.mca.org.au/m15208.htm

___. (2000). Editorial. International Journal of Music Education, 35, 1.

Lipsitz, G. (1994). Dangerous crossroads: Popular music, postmodernism and the poetics of place. London: Verso.

Livingston, T. E., et al. (Eds.) (1993). Community of music: An ethnographic seminar in Champaign-Urbana. Champaign, IL: Elephant and Cat.

Marc, S., & Kollock, P. (Eds.). (1999). Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge

McCarthy, M. (1995). The foundations of sociology in American music education (1900-1935). In R. Rideout (Ed.), On the sociology of music education (pp. 71-80). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.

McNee, M. (2002). Stage might: Brazil’s landless find strength in art. http://www.americas.org/item_235

Moore, C. (1999). Scenes, identity and the importance of locality: Lesbians and dance music in Norwich – A case study. The International Journal of Urban Labour and Leisure, 3(1). See: http://www.ijull.org/vol3/1/000019.htm

Moser, P. (1995). More music in Morecambe; A report on projects, April – December 1995. Private printing: collected newspaper articles, bulletins and media releases.

Mullen, P. (2002). We don’t teach, we explore: Aspects of Community Music delivery. In H. Schippers & N. Kors (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. Rotterdam, NK: http://www.cdime-network.com

___. (2003, March 29). Informal communication, Limerick, UK.

Murao, T. (2000). Music education at “Culture Schools” International Journal of Music Education, 35, 15-16.

Nettl, B. (1995). Heartland excursions: Ethnomusicological reflections on schools of music. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Poblocki, K. (2001). The Napster music community. First Monday, 6, 11. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_11/poblocki/index.html

Price, David (2002). “A quiet revolution”: An overview of current Community Music initiatives in the UK. In H. Schippers & N. Kors (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. Rotterdam, NK: http://www.cdime-network.com

Redfield, R. (1956). The little community and peasant society and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shank, S. (1994). Dissonant identities: The rock and roll scene in Austin, Texas. Hanover: University Press of New England.

Shelemay, K. K. (2001). Soundscapes: Exploring music in a changing world. New York: W. W. Norton.

Slobin, M. (1993). Subcultural sounds: Micromusics of the west. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Stige, Brynjulf (2002). The relentless roots of Community Music Therapy. Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. Retrieved May 7, 2004, from: http://www.voices.no/mainissues/Voices2(3)Stige.html

Straw, W. (1991). Systems of articulation and logics of change: Communities and Scenes in popular music. Cultural Studies 5, 9, pp. 368-388.

Strohm, R. (1985). Music in late medieval Bruges. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tönnies, F. (1887/1988). Community and society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). (C.P. Loomis, Trans.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transcation.

Veblen, K. K. (2003). Community musicians, music educators, and music workers: International dialogues. In M. Espelund, (Ed.), Sampsel: Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Conference. Bergen, Norway: ISME.

___. (2002). Apples and oranges, solar systems and galaxies: Comparing systems of community music. In H. Schippers & N. Kors (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 ISME Commission on Community Music Activity. Rotterdam, NK: http://www.worldmusiccentre.com/uploads/cma/veblen.PDF

Veblen, K.K., & Olsson, B. (2002). Community music: Towards an international perspective. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The New Handbook of Research on Music Teaching and Learning. pp. 730-753. New York: Oxford University Press.

Veblen, K. K., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Music teaching and learning: A community perspective. Canadian Music Educator, 42(3), 17-20.

Wallis, G. (in press). The burgeoning growth of a community school. In K. K. Veblen & S. A. Johnson (Eds.), Studies in Music, 21.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (Trans by T. Parsons). New York: Charles Scribners Sons.