OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Chapter 43

Get ting in t h e  Way?

Limitations of Technology in Community Music

Gillian Howell

Are there some conditions in which music technology is inappropriate or ineffective?

This is the question I address in this chapter, drawing upon my experiences as a com-
munity musician who leads groups of people—​all ages and abilities, experienced players
and first-​timers—​to create and perform their own music. Based in Australia, I work in
diverse environments around the world—​communities, schools, hospitals, prisons, and
conflict-​affected settings—​leading practical and collaborative projects that by necessity
must respond in some way to the realities of the local environment.
These “local environment realities” lead me to question the suitability or value of
music making based around contemporary music technologies for some community
music projects. While the extraordinary capabilities of computers, music creation
and recording software, synthesizers, and computer-​generated sound-​makers, tab-
lets, smartphones and their apps, and platforms that facilitate remote linking and file-​
sharing across great distance each can offer incredibly powerful solutions and learning
opportunities to some community music projects, there are a number of limitations that
are worth examining in more detail.
In my experience, technology can indeed offer solutions and create new possibilities,
but it can just as easily create problems, and thus be as much a burden as a resource.
Many technologies, particularly computer-​based technologies, have elements of unpre-
dictability that can disrupt or derail workshop flow and focus. Programs freeze, updates
suddenly need to be installed (which may not be a quick process), operating systems
crash, or shut down, or need to be rebooted. Work may be lost, and group music mak-
ing will definitely be paused while solutions are found. Individuals may require more
personalized attention to assist them with their project. It may be that the group leader
or person in command of the technology does not have sufficient knowledge to trou-
bleshoot or solve the problem on the spot, requiring access to specialized technicians,
or a plan B for that particular class or workshop that can be quickly executed. These

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 449 4/13/2017 3:47:02 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

450    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

interruptions halt the momentum and flow of the music-​making experience and endan-
ger the sustained engagement of the group.
Technology also begets technology. Amplified instruments need leads, extension
cords, power boards, and amps. Singers need microphones to boost their sound in order
to be heard above louder instruments. Individuals surreptitiously increase their out-
put so that the overall volume produced by the group gets progressively louder. Sooner
or later a mixing desk (and someone to operate it) becomes necessary. Soundproofed
rooms become essential in order to lessen disturbance to others in neighboring spaces.
And so on—​all of which makes the group music-​making endeavor less portable, less
spontaneous, and more prone to interruptions to the flow of simply playing music
together.
In this chapter, I argue that choices about appropriate music learning technologies
are context-​dependent. This includes the intended goals or rationales for the music
activity—​community music projects often have stated aims focused on well-​being and
positive social experiences, especially in those projects that target vulnerable or margin-
alized groups. This chapter considers questions of environment, resources, sustainabil-
ity, and participant-​centered practice. It examines the value of technology in relation to
what the physical and human environment can sustain, the immense value of direct and
seamless pathways into active music making, and the importance of the feeling of play-
ing music. Finally, I highlight the importance of the facilitator’s interests, experiences,
and skills in deciding how or what technologies to utilize in music education and music
participation projects.

Sustainable Choices That

the Environment Can Support

One of the primary limitations of the use of music technologies in community music
activities is that which is imposed by the environment and workshop context. A leader
may be keen to utilize particular technologies, but the environment’s capacity to support
this choice is a critical factor. Let us consider, for example, how integral electricity is to
many contemporary technologies and music-​making platforms. In some parts of the
world, a safe and reliable source of electricity cannot be guaranteed or even assumed.
Alternatively, electricity and the technologies themselves may be present—​access to
new technologies is indeed spreading through many parts of the developing world—​but
the skilled technicians needed to support any kind of ongoing or sustainable engage-
ment may not yet exist, to say nothing of affordable Internet access.
I illustrate this point with a vignette from a community music residency I undertook
in a remote community in Timor-​Leste (East Timor). One of the world’s newest and
poorest countries, Timor-​Leste spent 500 years under the neglectful colonial yoke of
Portugal. Neighboring Indonesia invaded in 1975, and for 24 years subjected the East

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 450 4/13/2017 3:47:02 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    451

Timorese people to brutal military occupation. After a UN-​sponsored independence

referendum in 1999, the Indonesians withdrew, leaving a vengeful trail of terrifying vio-
lence and mass destruction in their wake. Timor-​Leste has been the recipient of more
than a decade of international nation-​building and development interventions. It has
seen gradual but steady progress in many areas of human development since 1999, but
access to reliable electricity, clean water, healthcare, nutrition, and sustainable liveli-
hoods remains a distant goal for many rural communities (United Nations Development
Programme, 2013).
My community music residency took place in a remote rural town where there were
several unavoidable technological limitations on resources. Electricity supply was lim-
ited. It was only available during the evenings, with frequent blackouts and some days
when it never came on at all. Charging up the various devices I used each day was a
nightly ritual. Internet access was extremely expensive—​well beyond the means of the
average local person, with the cost of an hour’s access the equivalent of a day’s income
for many—​and available via a mobile USB modem, or at a single computer in one of the
local shops. Few people owned their own computers—​at least, one that was fully func-
tioning, or one that they would happily let multiple people use.
My project goals were to engage young people and local musicians in some kind of
collaborative music project. Rather than being focused on imparting specialized knowl-
edge and skills, this was a participant-​centered and environment-​sensitive community
music project, responsive to the needs, interests, and capacities of the community and
building on the musical skills and knowledge already present in the group. It was an
example of what Higgins (2012) calls an “active intervention” approach to community
music (p. 4), where a music leader engages a group of people in hands-​on music making
through facilitation and collaborative methods. In this community music context, the
extreme environment dictated all of the technological choices I could make.
The first time children came to my house in Lospalos to play music I had very few
instruments to share with them. I had three sets of alto chime bars (pitches C to C, no
chromatic notes), a pair of bongo drums, an empty “water gallon”—​one of those large
filtered water cooler containers ubiquitous in Western offices—​and some bamboo
sticks. I imagined that a few children would play and the rest of us would sing. About
eight children came along to the first jam, so there was never long to wait before getting
to play an instrument. But once other neighborhood children heard the sounds coming
from our veranda their curiosity and excitement was piqued, and we soon had 30–​40
children coming every day. They would rush to grab the instruments that they wanted
to try (many of these children had not been to school and so were not good at the social
rules of turn-​taking, or taking care of equipment) and sit so close to the people holding
the instruments that they were barely able to play them. We needed more instruments.
We started with bamboo. A neighbor agreed to sell me some from her property. I bor-
rowed a machete; my partner hacked the tall stalks down, and we carried it in armfuls
back to my house with the children’s help. It was green and slender, and splintered eas-
ily. We cut it into short lengths and experimented with blowing the different lengths to
find different pitches (like blowing across the top of a bottle) and tapping pairs together

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 451 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

452    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

to make claves. At the local market I spotted a plastic home wares stall, where I bought
buckets of all shapes and sizes. We turned these upside down to make drums, and they
proved a good accompaniment to the sounds of the empty water gallon.
We made agogo bells from empty plastic water bottles, pumped full of air by insert-
ing a tire valve in the lid. In a country like Timor-​Leste, where you cannot drink the tap
water and there is no rubbish disposal system or recycling service, empty 1.25 liter bot-
tles pile up quickly. When pumped full of air with a bicycle pump, the side of the bottle
gave a bell-​like “ping” sound when tapped. We then fixed two well-​matched contrasting
pitches together with gaffer tape, and voila: an agogo bell!
At a workshop at the local convent and orphanage, I noticed a pile of thick bamboo,
much older and drier, in a pile in the garden. “Do you need all of that old bamboo?”
I asked. They were happy for me to take some, and these much thicker, wider-​bored
pieces of bamboo had far greater potential for instrument making. We discovered that
one of our neighbors had traditional instrument-​making skills. He showed us how to
make a bamboo log drum that he called a kakalo, using a machete as the primary tool.
We held a Saturday working bee, and the older children and teenagers helped make a set
of 12 kakalos.
All technologies give us the potential to make some kind of change in the mate-
rial environment. If we understand “technology” as being something that extends the
capacity of the human body or mind to make, create, and manipulate something, then
musical instruments are also technologies, for they enable exploration, expression, and
amplification of musical ideas, even in the hands of first-​time players.
In this community, bamboo, bottles, buckets, and a machete were the music tech-
nologies that were a sustainable, suitable match for a humid and remote environment
with little access to many of the resources taken for granted in more developed parts of
the world. These “old” technologies were available locally. If things broke, they could
be replaced easily. They made satisfying sounds. The children’s attraction to the tuned
instruments I had brought with me from Australia (a donation that was later given to the
local school) was considerable, but they loved the kakalos. They were excited to share
something unique from their culture with us and were delighted in turn by our interest
in making them and in taking them with us in workshops throughout the community
(Howell & Dunphy, 2012). Our enthusiasm for their traditions generated renewed pride
and confidence in their cultural knowledge.
Could new technologies have been bought and donated to the community for them
to use in this project, and then to keep forever as community assets? Sadly, the issue
is not purely one of limited financial means. Valuable items require ongoing care and
housing, and this must be sustained locally without the need for external support or
provision. I learned that storage space is in short supply in poor communities. Often,
suitable storage space that is dry and secure does not exist; even when it does, prob-
lems remain. Who will assume (or accept) responsibility for the valuable items? Such a
role can be unattractive in a country grappling with the legacies of long-​term authori-
tarian rule, where being the person in charge once meant being the scapegoat if things
went wrong. Another possible scenario is one of nepotism and potential abuse of power,

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 452 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    453

where only those people closest to the “keyholder” are given opportunities to use the
donated equipment.
There are also ethical points to consider. What does it mean when you bring new
items into a community where they cannot be sustained? Could this create a greater
sense of loss or deficit than was present before said items were introduced? Choosing
technologies that the environment can support is crucial if the benefits derived through
the course of the project are to be sustained in the longer term, beyond the span of the
artist’s visit.
In addition, extreme environments can make extreme demands on equipment.
Humidity, bad roads, and a collective social culture in which all assets should be shared
can all conspire to make less robust technologies like computers have very short lives.
When things break down, technicians are unlikely to be available to perform repairs.
Finally, I have described this approach to community music making as one that is
participant-​centered, as well as environment-​sensitive. I therefore needed to consider
the priorities and goals of the participants, who were mostly young people aged 5–​20.
The children in this town had very few opportunities for engagement in hands-​on music
making and adult-​led creative music making (Howell & Dunphy, 2012). Creating sus-
tainable experiences also meant establishing foundational skills and fostering creative
and curious minds that would serve the children long after I had gone. In an environ-
ment where people survive on the most basic of resources and enjoy little access to the
outside world, perhaps the most important thing to develop and nurture was this curi-
osity, through positive experiences of oneself as a learner and discoverer.

Removing Obstacles and Prioritizing

Immediacy

The following vignette illustrates a workshop process with a group of children who were
newly arrived in Australia and spoke a language other than English. The needs of this
group were considerable. Many of the children in this group were refugees and came
to school in Australia with very few prior schooling experiences to guide them. They
experienced many conflicting feelings of insecurity and fear about learning, extreme
optimism and hope for their new lives, and uncertainty about the behavior expected
of them. (The cultural rules of Australian schooling are a world away from the hyper-
vigilant survival skills they learned in refugee camps.) This was a confusing mix, made
potentially volatile when combined with the traumatic experiences many of them had
survived and the transitional nature of the school community, with new students con-
stantly arriving and others moving on to mainstream schools (Howell, 2011)
The primary goal of the music program was to make and play music, but there
were additional goals related to collaborative learning, social cohesion and trust,
increased individual confidence to explore and learn new things, and the continued

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 453 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

454    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

acquisition of expressive and receptive language. This workshop, a weekly occur-

rence as part of a long-​term music residency in the school, aimed to support these
children in making the necessary adjustments to the culture and expectations of
school life in Australia.

The children enter the room. Some bound in, full of excitement and eagerness. They
already know the workshop leader, having been students in the school for a term or
more. Others are shyer, more cautious—​they are the newest arrivals, and everything
in this school is unfamiliar to them. We form a circle, children and adults together.
We play some introductory games that encourage each person to say his or her name,
or make a sound or gesture, in turn. There is space for every voice.

We sing a song together. The children who are old hands already know it, but the
leader reminds them of the words, saying each line slowly and in rhythm and asking
them to say it back in rhythm. The newer children watch the mouths of the leader and
children moving. Some will make some of the sounds, others will just be absorbing
all the visual and aural information, making sense of it for themselves but remaining
quiet at this time.

We add body percussion. The leader starts a syncopated rhythm, and the children
join in when they are ready. The newer children take part in the body percussion
even if they aren’t yet singing. One of the body percussion moves makes the children
laugh. Each time it comes around in the song they laugh harder. By the end of the
song some of them are falling about on the floor, they are laughing so hard. We all
collapse down in a tumble, laughing and grinning. It’s playful, a bit silly, a bit of fun.
It’s also a musical warmup that establishes ensemble skills and risk-​taking, and lets
the children know that it is okay to take things lightly. This is not a place of severity or
punishment but of trying, and exploring.

We move to instruments. The children choose what they want to play. They love
playing instruments more than anything else in music classes. We reestablish
the rhythm from the earlier song, but now on instruments. The leader suggests
notes to play on the tuned instruments, using the alphabet letter names that the
children learn in class, and removing the bars from the instrument that aren’t
needed.

There is very little verbal instruction given in this class. We don’t need it. The
newer children can see what is going on and join in by copying the other chil-
dren. Grooves and rhythms are learned aurally. Instrument techniques are
learned when required in the context of the music. Later, one of the newest chil-
dren will tap absent-​mindedly on a drum, revealing a rhythm that she learned
months or years before in another country, reflecting the music of her cultural
group. The leader will imitate it and encourage it forth, later incorporating it
into one of our class compositions. Later, too, we will pass a drum around the
circle, inviting each child to play a solo. This reveals all sorts of extraordinary
talents and knowledge. As confidence in English grows, we will write songs

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 454 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    455

together that describe, with matter-​of-​factness, sometimes sadness, and often

with humor, their shared experiences of transition, and the hopes they hold for
their new lives in this country.

This vignette describes a musical environment in which any potential obstacles to group
music making have been avoided or removed. The music making begins the moment
the children enter the room. There are no special instructions to listen to, nor equip-
ment to choose (or fight over) or move to. Everyone is working together, and the work-
shop flows seamlessly from the playful warmup games to establishment of foundational
skills in rhythm, introduction of specific musical materials, and to instrumental music
and jamming. The atmosphere is positive and encouraging, and there is no “dead” time.
Everyone is focused and actively involved.
A workshop like this is as much about promoting individual and collective well-​
being as it is about making great music and developing new musical skills. Like many
“intervention-​based” community music projects, the project’s goals include what Cunha
and Lorenzino (2012) describe as the “secondary” outcomes or byproducts of collective
music making (p. 73). These relate to the social, cultural, affective, and cognitive aspects
of human experience that occur in parallel with, or as a result of, group music making.
Well-​being is multifaceted. It comprises many dimensions of how we feel within our-
selves, about ourselves, and about who we are in relation to a wider social group. The
reasons people choose to take part in community music activities relate to these feelings
of well-​being, and include the desire to develop new musical knowledge and experi-
ences, to build social networks and feel bonded with others, and to be part of something
that contributes positively to the wider community (Gridley, Astbury, Sharples, &
Aguirre, 2011).
Consideration of what in the music-​making experience generates these feelings of
well-​being is therefore important. Ruud (2012, citing his earlier work from 1997) has
identified four dimensions of well-​being that collective music making can positively
impact in relation to overall quality of life: vitality (feelings of happiness, relaxation,
being “present in the moment” and free of other worries); social bonding and belong-
ing (feeling connected to others); agency (having voice and visibility, confidence in
one’s powers, and being a contributor); and meaning (where the music making has
value and importance beyond itself). These dimensions are in evidence in the above
vignette. We see a group of children arrive and immediately fall into music-​making
experiences. Their energy is focused through the seamless flow of activities, and the
sense of exploration and inclusion supports them to relax, have fun together, take
calculated risks, and experiment with new ideas and skills. There is laughter in the
process, and acceptance of the different contributions and levels of participation each
child offers. These are characteristics that point to the presence of sustained vitality in
the group.
The workshop focus and flow also promotes feelings of belonging and social connec-
tion. The groups’ members remain in synchrony with one other throughout the work-
shop, enjoying a mutual focus of attention, and entraining their emotional energy just

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 455 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

456    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

as the rhythms of the music entrain and fall into place (Stige, 2012). The participants are
“in tune” and “in sync” with each other, an experience that is deeply satisfying, and can
serve to increase the group’s levels of emotional energy and make them feel supported,
more courageous, and a part of a community. Stige (2012) suggests that these feelings of
connection, emotional support, and community are akin to those experienced in other
“interaction rituals,” such as religious ceremonies.
Increased agency develops as the group gains confidence in its abilities to play and
create music that sounds satisfying and connects them to the musical worlds they
inhabit outside the school environment. Over time, they gain confidence in their capac-
ity to learn, to contribute, and to present their work in visible and audible ways. This is a
common experience for many music learners but particularly significant when applied
to groups that might otherwise be marginalized or socially invisible.
From the detail included in the vignette we can speculate about the meanings that
these musical experiences may hold for the children. The inclusion of musical mate-
rial from their cultures and traditions in the group composing activity may serve to
build confidence in their identity at a time when they feel under pressure to assimilate
with a foreign culture. The songwriting process may support them to find meaningful
ways to describe and share their experiences with others. For these children, coming
from backgrounds of war and division, the experience of working collaboratively with
people from so many different cultural backgrounds and religions may have addi-
tional significance, demonstrating that such crosscultural collaboration is possible,
even desirable, and enjoyable. In this particular vignette, the workshop leader chooses
to go down the nontechnological pathway in order to avoid any interruptions to the
workshop’s flow and focus. This takes the group directly into the music-​making expe-
rience, and the attendant benefits to well-​being that this immediacy and clarity can
engender.
This is not to claim that dimensions of well-​being are not present in community music
projects that utilize music technology. The health-​promoting experience of increased
agency is evident in many music activities built around sampling, sequencing, and syn-
thesizing softwares. These technologies enable individuals to be active producers of
their own art, using accessible tools and platforms that enable users to participate in
real-​world, authentic cultural creation and exchange.
However, these technologies also draw the user’s focus toward the hardware, the
software, and in particular the screen, rather than to others in the room. The oppor-
tunity to be in synchrony with others in nonverbal ways through the real-​time music-​
making experience is greatly reduced, if present at all. In many music softwares, the user
interface is designed primarily for single, independent users, and while collaborative
platforms do exist, they are not the primary purpose of many of the most widely used
sequencing, sampling, recording, and composing tools. There are of course exceptions
to this generalization. Hullick’s (2013) sonic art ensemble Amplified Elephants have
cultivated a strong group identity and sense of community through their work, honed
through their emphasis on group-​devised work and public performance. Nor do I wish
to suggest that technology itself is the problem. There are many technologies in use in

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 456 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    457

these sessions, but they are in the background, and secondary to the activity itself. The
navigation of new technologies is not the focus, and it therefore cannot disrupt or derail
the music-​making experience.
Finding the most direct, seamless pathway into practical music making experiences is
essential in community music groups. The momentum it creates contains and holds the
group in a friendly and safe space, and helps the group members to relax and place their
trust in the leader’s skills. In other words, by removing obstacles and potential or unpre-
dictable interruptions, the facilitator can put in motion the activities that contribute
important experiences of well-​being for participants. Interruptions that halt proceed-
ings and pull the facilitator’s attention away from the group will disrupt or destabilize
the feelings of safety and community that are being cultivated by the leader.

The Feeling of Playing

For most community music groups, making music is the primary goal. The participants
may be motivated by the opportunity to learn more about or participate in a style of
music that holds particular meaning or interest for them, but even more, they may be
attracted by the opportunity to play. Music making is not just about the sounds that
ensue, although these are a core part of the great satisfaction many people derive from
music participation. It is also about the feeling of playing music.
I question the extent to which music making that is strongly mediated through music
technology can satisfy the desire for the feeling of playing music. Recently I worked as
a visiting artist in a primary school with a group of 15 children aged 10. Despite the
project goal being built around the use of music technology, a participant-​centered
approach revealed what they really wanted to do. This vignette describes the evolution
of a project that began with a music technology focus but evolved into something quite
different:

It’s my fourth week in this school. I’ve been invited to be artist-​in-​residence at a well-​
to-​do inner-​city primary school in Melbourne, Australia. It is a collaboration with
the Mandarin language teacher, with the aim of using iPad technologies to make
quirky, child-​designed language-​learning aids. I’ll guide the children in recording
sounds and language samples within the school environment, and we’ll use various
sampling programs to create the language-​focused musical soundscapes, embed-
ding Mandarin vocabulary and phrases into original melodies, harmonies, and beats
to create “ear worms” that will help users to memorize the words. We have all the
technology that we need, and I am excited to get started.

By week 4 we have lost some momentum. My Mandarin-​language collaborator has

fallen sick, the iPads aren’t yet ready (something to do with them being new, needing
to be “registered” on the school system, and loaded with the appropriate software,
which I, as a visitor, cannot instigate), and the alternative machines (netbooks) are

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 457 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

458    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

slow and clunky, with oversensitive trackpads and tiny screens. No one is having fun
with the netbooks.

Meanwhile, we have access to a great music room, with a drum kit, a keyboard, sev-
eral guitars, and loads of percussion. So while we wait for the Mandarin teacher
to get better and the iPads to be available, the children and I have begun to play.
We’ve made a rock band, learning to count and play together, and inventing riffs and
grooves. The children correct and support each other, showing initiative, engage-
ment, and ownership. They are filled with enthusiasm. Every week when I arrive
in the school the children race up to me, demanding, “Are we doing the rock band
today?”

It’s taken me by surprise that these children are far more engaged by the imme-
diacy and physical challenges of instrumental music making than by the more
abstract experience of working with sound recording and sequencers. Sure, that’s
interesting, they seem to be saying, but give us a chance to play these real instru-
ments over holding that box, pressing buttons, and listening through headphones
any day!

This vignette raises two points in particular for discussion. The first is that, given the
choice, the child participants in this project were far more interested in playing drums,
guitars, keyboards, and glockenspiels than in using technology to make music and
soundscapes. There could be several reasons for this preference. One is that the instru-
ments were familiar, housed as they were in the music room, albeit stored under dust
sheets and rarely used in the classroom music program. Clearly, the children had an
interest in these instruments that was not yet close to being sated. They hadn’t had
enough turns playing instruments!
Music making with instruments and voices is very much a multisensory, embodied
experience, and I believe this was a strong part of the attraction of using the instru-
ments for these children. There is a compelling and absorbing quality of immediacy
and responsiveness; as the player makes the gesture, the sound sounds. The air mole-
cules inside the instrument and around the room move in turn, and the body responds
in sympathy. The energy generated is palpable even to those in the room who are not
involved in the music making. This contributes to what participants may identify as the
exhilarating and heady “buzz,” the “vibe,” or the “energy” of the music-​making experi-
ence. This multisensory, multidirectional, intangible feedback loop is one of the hard-​
to-​pin-​down but thrilling ingredients in collective music making with instruments and
voices.
The more a group music-​making experience is mediated by music technology, the
more the multisensory feedback is lessened. Music making with new technologies
is more abstracted from the physical world and embodied experiences, with much of
the sound happening through headphones, or amplifiers and speakers, and generated
through the computer rather than through physical human sound-​making gestures.
While the concentration or on-​task focus of participants may be similarly intense, the

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 458 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    459

“buzz,” the “vibe,” or the “energy” that emanates from embodied human musicking is
simply not as discernable when the sounds are being generated electronically.
Furthermore, the pleasurable experience of being in synchrony with others, discussed
in the previous section, is lessened. Such synchrony is audible, but it is reinforced and
intensified through the eye contact, physical proximity, and visual and aural aspects of
sound generation, and the entrainment of pulse, breath, and energy that is part of a live,
in-​person, vocal or instrumental collective music-​making experience.
Music technologies still continued to play a minor role in the project above. What
is a rock band, after all, without an electric guitar or an amplified keyboard? We used
online music notation software (www.noteflight.com) to score and rehearse the com-
positions they created, and we documented the process with video diaries. However,
playing music that they had created together on instruments that were both new (as far
as skills and experience were concerned) and familiar (in that they had real-​world cred-
ibility) was the clear preference of this group.

Technology, the Music Facilitator,

and Keeping It Real

A further point for discussion from the second vignette recalls my observation at the
start of this chapter that the use of technologies can increase the scope for things to go
wrong. However, rather than highlighting again the unpredictable characteristics of cer-
tain technologies, I now focus on the skills, experiences, and interests of the music facili-
tator, and the support offered by the environment, as the final limitations to consider
with regard to the place of music technology in community music projects.
The vignette above describes a well-​resourced, wealthy, inner-​city school that prided
itself on the opportunities provided to its students. All the equipment that was required
for this project was (in theory, at least) there, listed in inventories and willingly made
available to the project. However, things still went wrong that halted the momentum of
the workshops and the overall project. Use of the technology required further supports
(technical support expertise, access to networks, the sustained interest from key staff
members) that could not be relied upon.
Furthermore, the project moved me into new creative territories. I  was familiar
with the technologies involved, having used them to make many works in the past, but
despite having the requisite knowledge to successfully lead the project described in this
vignette, I was nevertheless halted when a lack of support in the school environment
arose. Interestingly, the change in direction was a return to music-​making ground that,
for me as facilitator, had far fewer unpredictable elements, and required far less depen-
dence on supports outside the project. The project regained its momentum, which
indicates the difference that familiar ground, with tools and external supports that are
predictable for the facilitator, can make to a community music outcome.

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 459 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

460    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

When workshops flow, when participants feel safe, supported, encouraged, and inspired,
and when exciting and engaging musical outcomes emerge from the process, there is a
skilled facilitator at work. Skilled facilitators and the knowledge they possess are critical
factors in community music outcomes, musical or otherwise. If the facilitator is working
outside his or her sphere of experience, knowledge, and local influence or authority, this
will have an impact on the workshop. If external supports are not available, the potential for
unpredictable elements to derail the workshop process increase. Hullick (2013), describing
his role as mentor to Amplified Elephants, emphasizes the importance of artists mentoring
others in “the art that they know” (p. 223) rather than following particular trends, formulas,
or manuals. Of course, new directions can and should be trialed. But if this is to happen,
extended time frames and external technical supports that allow the new approach to evolve
become critical factors, for both the artist-​facilitator and the community music group.
What draws us as community music facilitators and leaders toward particular tools
and approaches? For some, there may be pressure (direct or perceived or self-​imposed)
to keep up to date with the latest new resources and to use music technology with our
project participants. However, community musicians and music educators should not
be pressured to engage with music technology just because it is there, especially if they
are sufficiently skilled in practical music making to draw participants into satisfying
and inspiring music experiences using resources like instruments, voices, and bodies.
Musicians in all contexts should not underestimate the power of what we have at the
grassroots of musical practice and engagement.
The pressures to get on board are not imagined: in community music, the music leader
is often required to be everything to everyone, from engaging challenging groups with
different needs to practical facilitation of a wide range of musical genres. However, as
leaders we have to ensure we know our materials or we risk losing the trust and engage-
ment of the group, which, once lost, can be very difficult to win back. Community
music participants sign up to make music. There may be many other benefits related to
health and well-​being that ensue, but it is the music that attracts them in the first place.
Therefore, it has to happen in ways that make them feel satisfied, or intrigued, or excited,
or inspired, or safe, for them keep coming back.
Finally, there is a risk that, in our eagerness to embrace the solutions that music tech-
nology offers, we lose sight of what the goal is, which is frequently centered on live,
socially rich, and responsive musical interactions. For all that watching a concert live
online is an amazing and enjoyable thing to do, it remains second best to actually being
there. Remote linking community music projects do a wonderful job of enabling musi-
cal interactions to take place between people who are geographically distant, and offer a
platform for meaningful contact with skilled musicians and other enthusiasts. But as one
participant in an online old time and bluegrass community explained, online engage-
ment did not replace the “relationships and bonds that form as a result of ‘live’ jam ses-
sions and lessons” (Waldron, 2012, p. 99). The remote linkup is beneficial, and better than
no contact at all, but let us not forget that what would be really ideal would be for the same
experiences to be available in person! The technology offers valuable solutions, but it is
not a complete substitute for the real face-​to-​face, in-​person physical experience.

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 460 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

Limitations of Technology in Community Music    461

Conclusion

In this chapter I have raised questions about where and when there may be limitations to
the use of technology in music learning and music participation contexts. I propose that
environments can pose limitations, as can facilitators in the skills and experience they
possess. I also highlight the multiple benefits to well-​being that collective music mak-
ing can have, and the importance of these in participant-​centered community music
endeavors. Not least of these is the significance of the multisensory, emotional, and
social feelings of playing music with others.
The limitations I observe are not insurmountable. They are not inherent within the
technology-​in-​workshop context itself. Variables such as the amount of time the group
has to work and explore together, the makeup of the group in terms of interests, abili-
ties, and commitment, and the relationships between goals, intentions, time frames, and
resources (available skills and knowledge as well as material resources such as gear and
space) will each play a part in determining the content of a workshop and the place of
technology within it.
Technology in community music can offer students and music learners power-
ful tools for the creation of their own work, and platforms for connecting with others
who are geographically distant. However, this potential does not mean technological
solutions are always suitable substitutes. The benefits of face-​to-​face musical engage-
ment with instruments requiring an element of physicality for the sounds to sound are
substantial, and in a music context where a central reason for the project’s existence is
related to dimensions of well-​being, these benefits need to be given due weight. Before
launching into the latest technology on offer, perhaps the facilitator should think deeply
about how suitable and sustainable it is for the music environment in which she is
working, whether it is a good match for the needs of the group and her own skills, and
whether she is sure she can’t get a more potent shared outcome through engaging in “old
technologies” like voices, bodies, and instruments. Sometimes the tools you need might
already be there, forgotten, in the back of the classroom cupboard.

References
Cunha, Rosemyriam, & Lorenzino, Lisa. (2012). The secondary aspects of collective music-​
making. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(1), 73–​88.
Gridley, Heather, Astbury, Jill, Sharples, Jenny, & Aguirre, Carolina. (2011). Benefits of group
singing for community mental health and well-​being. Carlton, Australia: Victorian Health
Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).
Higgins, Lee. (2012). Community music:  In theory and in practice. Oxford:  Oxford
University Press.
Howell, Gillian. (2011). Do they know they’re composing?: Music making and understanding
among newly arrived immigrant and refugee children. International Journal of Community
Music, 4(1), 47–​58.

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 461 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM

 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Thu Apr 13 2017, NEWGEN

462    Experiencing, Expressing, Learning, and Teaching

Howell, Gillian, & Dunphy, Kim. (2012). Toka Boot/​The Big Jam: Making music in rural East
Timor. International Journal of Community Music, 5(1), 27–​44.
Hullick, James. (2013). The rise of the Amplified Elephants. International Journal of Community
Music, 6(2), 219–​233.
Ruud, E. (2012). The new health musicians. In R. MacDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (Eds.),
Music, health, and wellbeing (pp. 87–​96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stige, B. (2012). Health musicking: A perspective on music and health as action and perfor-
mance. In R. MacDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mitchell (Eds.), Music, health, and wellbeing (pp.
183–​195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Rise of the South:  Human progress in a
diverse world. New York: UNDP. Retrieved 25 January, 2014, from http://​hdr.undp.org/​sites/​
default/​files/​reports/​14/​hdr2013_​en_​complete.pdf.
Waldron, Janice. (2012). YouTube, fanvids, forums, vlogs and blogs: Informal music learning
in a convergent on-​and offline music community. International Journal of Music Education,
31(1), 91–​105.

oxfordhb-9780199372133-part-3.indd 462 4/13/2017 3:47:03 PM