Reprinted with permission from the Michigan Music Educator, Michigan MEA Vol. 49 no. 2, Winter 2012.

In band, choir and orchestra classes in our schools, the approach of the teacher has often reflected the approach of a conductor as maestro. While there is much we might emulate about these giants of the podium, we should keep our educational goals in mind and recognize when these goals might sometimes be in conflict with the model provided by those great conductors. Doing so requires that we constantly examine what it means to be a music teacher. For me, this has necessitated the difficult task of letting go of some of our traditions (Shively, 2004). In this article, I discuss one aspect of my continuing effort to rethink my approach in large ensemble settings. I share some experiences from my teaching where I sought to engage my students in musical thinking I hope you can adapt to your own classroom. While the examples I use in this article come from my work with bands, I hope they will resonate with choir and orchestra teachers as well.

The Opportunity to Solve a Musical Problem

We had played (sort of) through Michael Daugherty's Alligator Alley (Hal Leonard) twice and were starting to rehearse. Few in the band having played a composition written primarily in 5/4, they were having a difficult time getting a feel for it. I had been conducting a standard five-pattern up until this point and I had them conduct the same pattern while we counted measures of five beats. We had done this prior to the first reading in an effort to alleviate some of their anxiety. As we continued to struggle with finding the groove, I gave the ensemble this assignment. "With a partner, try to find a better way for me to conduct this. Is there a conducting pattern that you think better communicates the music?"

Everyone took a minute to try out conducting patterns. After their discussions with one another, I asked for suggestions. The first suggestion was to conduct a 3 pattern followed by a 2 pattern. We tried this and it helped somewhat. The next suggestion was 2 + 3, which they decided was not as comfortable as the 3+2 pattern. A clarinetist raised her hand and told me that the piece was in 4 not 5. Trying not to smile, I responded, "How can it be in 4, the music has a 5/4 time signature?" At this point, she conducted a four pattern that reflected a q. q. q q grouping. Soon we had everyone conducting and singing.

Returning to the music with our new pattern, everyone was interested to see how his or her colleague's idea would work. It was the last time we would have to talk about the rhythmic feel of Alligator Alley. Most importantly, giving the ensemble a chance to problem solve rather than just telling them what to do created ownership resulting in a higher level of engagement. This mindset seemed to spill over into the rehearsal of the rest of our music.

Talking Can Lead to Musical Thinking

In researching how ensemble conductors use their time, Goolsby (1996) and Manfredo (2006) found experienced conductors talk less and have their ensembles perform more. However, the problem may not be in talking, but rather in telling. Performing without detailed direct instruction is likely better than being told what to do, because when students perform with limited verbal feedback they take on a greater level of responsibility for making musical decisions. However, asking the right questions can foster more highly engaged musical thinkers.

So how do we get them thinking during rehearsals? I often start with this rehearsal question (based on thinking routines used in Tishman, 2002):

What is going on in the music and what do you hear or see that makes you say that?

I start with the idea of what they hear, as often this will be something that is beyond just their part. At the same time, however, I don't want to dismiss something they see on their own part. This often leads to any number of other questions as our rehearsals progress, For example:

What do we need to do to communicate that to the audience?

What do have to be able to do on your instrument to perform that?

What role do you/does your part play at this point in the music?

What should you expect to see in my conducting gesture?

Where do you need to focus your listening?

How is this the same or different in another piece we are performing or have performed?

We should seek to engage our students in questions that will help them understand not only how what they play is part of a musical whole, but to listen and look beyond that part to more fully understand the music. Of course, questions can be altered to reflect the specifics of a composition and the possibilities are almost limitless.

Meaningful Engagement from the Start

One decision teachers have to make is whether to ask students any questions or give them any information before playing a composition for the first time. I have struggled with this because I wonder whether what I might ask them focuses them too much on what I think is important about the composition. There have been two ways I have gone about "setting the stage" for the first reading. One is their awareness I am going to ask them our basic rehearsal question: "What is going on in the music and what do you hear or see that makes you say that?" after we read it the first time. The other is getting them to consider contextual clues about the composition that might appear on their parts.

Prior to reading the first movement "Elegy: For All the Fallen" from David Long's Homage to Normandy (C. Alan Publications), for example, I asked the students to define "elegy." Their responses focused on memorializing people who had died. From this working definition, I asked them what they expected to hear in the music. Their responses to this question included a lyrical or song-like quality and sadness. Some expected it to be in a minor key. "All right, let's find out whether our ideas about an elegy are the same as those of David Long." In this case, we started by considering the word "elegy" because not all students may know the definition, so why start our work with an uneven playing field? This is also important because it encourages them to listen beyond their own parts from the beginning. After our initial reading of this movement, we discussed whether it sounded as we had expected. It was a brief discussion, as the students quickly identified some central ideas and were ready for a second reading. This immediate opportunity to read through the piece a second time allows not only a chance to apply what was just discussed, but also the opportunity for students to perform at a higher level based on self-assessment before further rehearsal.

As we rehearsed the work, they focused on the anger they heard at one point and we discussed "lamentation". Our thoughts soon turned to how we are going to communicate "elegy" to our audience, which led to discussions about issues such as dynamics, articulation, balance and the overall shape of the work. Most importantly, this provided a context for thinking about and applying musical decisions, rather than just learning absolute verbal definitions for musical terms. All too often, we teach students that forte is loud and piano is soft and then we spend years convincing them of the contextually dependent nuances of those terms. In this case we started from the title of the composition, but another way to get started is by sharing composer's notes with your students at the beginning the process. This information can support your collective consideration of your rehearsal questions. They should be encouraged to pose questions as well, which can also come in the form of asking them which rehearsal questions are the ones we need to be asking.

Building the Knowledge Base

Our efforts should not just focus on specific works, but also on how we make connections between compositions whether they are on the same concert or we perform them at different times. This can be especially useful in helping students apply genre or style knowledge. Prior to reading a march, we might ask our students to tell us everything they know about playing marches. This serves as both an excellent review and a springboard for working on the current march. Conversations about marches tend to focus on ideas such as rhythm, tempo, style, form, articulation, and key changes. Once we've played through it, we can talk about ways in which this march does and doesn't fulfill our understanding of "marchness," building our collective knowledge base about how to perform a march. Shaping our teaching this way creates a classroom where students construct robust knowledge bases and constant re-teaching becomes less necessary.

By using questions on a routine basis we are providing our students with strategies they can use for themselves. Not only does using rehearsal questions engage students in thinking about what and how they a performing, but it increases their ownership in the process. Take it step further and have your students plan rehearsals. "What do we need to work on the next time we rehearse his piece?" This increases their responsibility and commitment, leading to more focused practice and rehearsal. It is also a great way to identify problems individual students may be having. It should be noted we sometimes find out that what we thought we were working on is not what the students thought they were working on.

Telling our students how to perform seems like an efficient way to rehearse. However, we need to consider our long-term investment in the musical development of our students. Approaches that help our students become more informed decision makers will fuel the overall growth of our performance programs. I have used this approach in ensembles from 5th grade to university level and have found it to be an effective way to engage all musicians.

References:

---

Joe Shively is Associate Professor of Music Education at Oakland University in Rochester, MI. Additionally, Dr. Shively serves as Graduate Coordinator for Music and Director of the Center for Applied Research in Musical Understanding (CARMU). He currently serves on the Board of Advisors for the National Conference on Percussion Pedagogy. Having made presentations in the US, Canada, and Japan, his areas of interests include constructivist learning and teaching, instrumental music, teacher education, and philosophy. Email: shively [at] oakland.edu.