In Year 11 and 12 Music in Queensland, Australia, students work from the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (QCAA) Music: Senior Syllabus[i]. From the learning experiences devised from this document, students are assessed across three dimensions of musical study – Composition, Musicology, and Performance.

In my experience, the dimensions of Performance and Composition often draw students to the subject. They ‘music’[ii] through these means; these ways of working house what it is ‘to music’ for them. Musicology – the analytical side of music knowing, and the analysis and evaluation of repertoire – often takes a distant third place… Within this dimension, students examine a range of contexts, styles and genres, synthesising findings and information to express a music viewpoint. Of course, forming a viewpoint relies largely upon analysis and critical listening.

However, one question I have found myself asking of late is: “Are they listening? I mean, really listening?”

I think the answer to this is… yes, well, in part. They listen to me – what I say about the music, what I reveal to be there, what I say on my listening guides… – but what about the music itself? Are they really listening to the music?

What about thinking? What do they think? Are they thinking about music musically?

I am not always convinced.

The objectives underpinning Musicology focus on three areas – perceive and interpret; analyse and evaluate; and, synthesise, justify and communicate music ideas – and these areas become criteria statements that student work is measured against. The syllabus clarifies:

When students perceive and interpret music elements and concepts, they identify and show understanding of the meaning of words, sounds and symbols

When students analyse and evaluate music, they investigate, review and critique repertoire, extract and clarify information. They draw conclusions through the evaluation of a range of repertoire and other music material

When students synthesise findings, justify music viewpoints and communicate music ideas, they consider possibilities and make judgments about music repertoire. They structure and organise extended written text using correct spelling, punctuation, grammar and vocabulary, appropriate to a music context[iii]

The focus here is obviously (and very rightly so!) on making sense of music itself. How can any of these objectives be achieved to any degree of success or significance if students aren’t listening or thinking for themselves… making their own discoveries, asking their own questions of music, taking an evaluative stance (perhaps taking a risk in doing so)…?

I want my students to listen and think for themselves – not wait for me to hand the analysis to them via listening guides or worksheets. I am learning to step back and allow them to discover… they learn, and importantly, I then learn from them.

Recently, I shared some of the ideas about the teaching of Musicology at a conference session[iv], and I will step through these developing ideas here.

To get students thinking for themselves, I am working to encourage deep, focused and ‘untainted’ listening. By ‘untainted’, I mean listening without the baggage of context or background. I want them to come to know and understand the repertoire and how it uses and manipulates the music elements to achieve particular effects.

The start of this process sees me get the music to the students – sound recordings and scores (if applicable) – through an online platform used by the school (the LMS). They are to listen to the music independently (and read the score, if applicable) across a few days before class[v] and become familiar with it – become ‘saturated’ by the music.

When class time arrives, we listen several times through the music together – the music is somewhat familiar; there is opportunity to listen with more ‘depth’ – and the high cognitive load associated with listening and responding to new music has been lessened somewhat. The students are given several Post-it notes, and upon each they are asked to write down a separate ‘finding’ on each – in their own words, focusing on elements of their choosing, no ‘right or wrong’… their own ‘voice’ on the music. Once done, they adhere them to the whiteboard.

We listen again. We add more Post-it notes.

It is after these experiences that I frame the repertoire with a question, for example: “Does this music effectively convey the emotion of sadness?”

More Post-it notes. All voices are represented – everyone contributes. The students begin to construct a viewpoint; the classroom is then characterised by conversation about the music from their own experiences with it.

From here the objectives/criteria statements frame our collective discussion. The first criteria – perceive and interpret – is unpacked through the questions, “What’s important here?” and “Why is this important?” Through discussion we sift through the Post-it notes and distill, ‘tease-out’ and draw connections between features of the music that are needed to support a response to the teacher-posed question/viewpoint. This is where the most ‘light-bulb’ moments occur, and where meaning and connectivity is experienced.

At this point, students independently move onto a template I created (see ‘Resources’ page – or click here) that attempts to capture this process and align it with analysis and evaluation (criteria 2) and synthesis and justification of music ideas (criteria 3). Through the first stage of the process we find out whether or not our initial perceptions are ‘worthy’. We move through the questions: “What evidence can you find to support this?” “Where is this evidence?”, “How can we unpack this evidence?”, and “How effective (or otherwise) is the use, application and manipulation of music elements and stylistic concepts?” Then, we draw all of this together and ask: “So what?” and “How does this support my argument/viewpoint/position?” We make sense of it all and synthesise our findings.

At least, that’s the plan.

Musicology is a challenging dimension for many students to work within. Many feel uncomfortable and unable to respond in detail as to how and why something works musically. Early findings suggest that this process is beginning to demystify the process of analysis and evaluation for many of my students. I also find it a useful diagnostic tool, and as a result I can target my feedback, support and assistance to specific students.

The most challenging part of this for me has been stepping back and leaving the initial learning to the students. I’ve realised that in wanting to help right from the beginning I just may have been having the opposite effect – I was doing the thinking for them.

Not anymore.

I will keep you updated as to refinements and developments on this way of working, in particular the template housed on the ‘Resources’ page. Please also feel free to share your insights below.

[i] Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2013). Music: Senior Syllabus.

[ii] To ‘music’ is to treat music as a verb, not a noun. I wrote of this in my post – “It’s All About the Verb”.

[iii] These three statements are drawn frm the Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2013) Music: Senior Syllabus, p. 3.

[iv] The ASME Qld Mastering Musicology workshop held at UQ on Saturday 8 August, 2015.

[v] From what little I know, this appears to follow a ‘flipped classroom’ model. I dislike such ‘edu-babble’, and am wary of the approach when detail is required. The ‘immersion’ or ‘saturation’ in the music asked of here though seems to work – there’s no baggage, no pressure to respond.