Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T19:28:37.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying challenges and opportunities for student composer and performer peer learning through newly-composed classical piano scores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2018

Jennifer MacRitchie ,
Massimo Zicari  and
Diana Blom
Jennifer MacRitchie
Affiliation:
School of Humanities and Communication Arts & The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, 2751, NSW, [email protected] Scuola Universitaria di Musica, Conservatorio della Svizzera Italiana – SUPSI, Via Soldino 9, CH-6900, Lugano, [email protected]
Massimo Zicari
Affiliation:
Scuola Universitaria di Musica, Conservatorio della Svizzera Italiana – SUPSI, Via Soldino 9, CH-6900, Lugano, [email protected]
Diana Blom
Affiliation:
School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, 2751, NSW, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Limited consideration has been given to the challenges young composers and performers face when learning to communicate through notation in contemporary classical music, and the specific opportunities presented for peer learning. This article describes a project at a Swiss music conservatory in which two student composers wrote pieces for solo piano which were performed by three student pianists. Students were deprived of collaborative opportunities, with communication limited to score markings and legends. Results from individual interviews are discussed in relation to categories of approaches drawn from existing studies on learning new piano works, on notation and on collaboration, plus new categories arising from this research. The challenges and potential opportunities arising from this approach are examined here, highlighting specific areas to be targeted for future peer learning.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Music Education , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , July 2018 , pp. 153 - 175
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BLOM, D. (2001) Minimal Music: Roles and Approaches of Teachers Engaging Students with a Contemporary Art Music through Composing Activities. PhD, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
BLOM, D. & POOLE, K. (2004) Peer assessment of tertiary music performance: opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self-reflection. British Journal of Music Education, 21 (1), 111–125.Google Scholar
BURKE, H. (2014) Influential pioneers of creative music education in Victoria, Australia. Australian Journal of Music Education, 2, 23–35.Google Scholar
CHAFFIN, R. & IMREH, G (2002) Stages of Practice Revisited. In Chaffin, R., Imreh, G. and Crawford, M. (Eds.), Practicing Perfection: Memory and Piano Performance (pp. 239–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarPubMed
CLARKE, E., COOK, N., HARRISON, B. & THOMAS, P. (2005) Interpretation and performance in Bryn Harrison's Etre-temps. Musicae Scientiae, 9, 31–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLARKE, E. & DOFFMAN, M. (2014) Expressive performance in contemporary concert music. In Fabian, D., Schubert, E. & Timmers, R. (Eds.), Expressiveness in Musical Performance (pp. 98–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
CLAUHS, M. & NEWELL, M.K. (2013) Co-learning and co-teaching to promote change: A response to the Housewright Declaration in a North American undergraduate music education programme. In Gaunt, H. & Westerlund, H. (Eds.), Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (pp. 219–224). Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Pp. 219–224.Google Scholar
COOK, N. (2001) Between process and product: Music and/as performance. Music Theory Online, 7 (2).Google Scholar
FOLIO, C. & BRINKMAN, A.R. (2007) Rhythm and timing in the two versions of Berio's Sequenza I for flute solo: Psychological and musical differences in performance. In Halfyard, J. K. (Ed.), Berio's ‘Sequenzas’: Essays on Performance, Composition and Analysis (pp. 11–37). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
GAUDEAMUS FOUNDATION (1990) Complexity in Music? : An Inquiry into its Nature, Motivation and Performability. Rotterdam: Gaudeamus Foundation, Nieuw Ensemble and the Rotterdam Arts Council.Google Scholar
GAUNT, H. & WESTERLUND, H. (Eds.) (2013) Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
HASTINGS, C. (2011) How expert pianists interpret scores: A hermeneutical model of learning. In Williamon, A., Edwards, D. & Bartel, L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance Science (pp. 369–374). Utrecht, Netherlands: European Association of Conservatoires.Google Scholar
HAYDEN, S. & WINDSOR, L. (2007) Collaboration and the composer: Case studies from the end of the 20th century. Tempo, 240, 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEATON, R. (2012) Contemporary performance practice and tradition. Music Performance Research, 5, 96–104.Google Scholar
HULTBERG, C. (2002) Approaches to music notation: The printed score as a mediator of meaning in Western tonal tradition. Music Education Research, 4 (2), 185–197.Google Scholar
GYGER, E. (2014) No stone unturned: Mapping composer-performer collaboration. In Barrett, M. S. (Ed.) Collaborative Creative Thought and Practice in Music (pp. 33–48). Farnham: AshgateGoogle Scholar
HANKEN, I. M. (2016) Peer learning in specialist higher music education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15 (3–4), 364–375.Google Scholar
KANGA, Z. (2014) Inside composer-performer collaboration. Resonate Magazine, Australian Music Centre, (15 May). http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/article/inside-composer-performer-collaborationGoogle Scholar
KANNO, M. (2007) Prescriptive notation: Limits and challenges. Contemporary Music Review, 26 (2), 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KARTTUNEN, A. (1999) Discovering the music around me. Finnish Music Quarterly, 2, 16–21.Google Scholar
KUZMICH, N. (1987) Research, problem-solving and music education. British Journal of Music Education, 4 (3), 211–222.Google Scholar
LEBLER, D. (2013) Using formal self- and peer- assessment as a proactive tool in building a collaborative learning environment: Theory into practice in a popular music programme. In Gaunt, H. & Westerlund, H. (Eds), Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education (pp. 111–121). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
LEECH−WILKINSON, D. (2010) Performance style in Elena Gerhardt's Schubert song recordings. Musicae Scientiae, 14, 57–84.Google Scholar
LINJAMA, J. (1999) Composers and kids. Finnish Music Quarterly, 2, 2–7.Google Scholar
LOFFREDO, A. (2010) Chamber music: teaching programs and choice of repertoire. In Proceedings of the 29th World Conference of the International Society for Music Education, Beijing, China (pp. 1–4). ISBN 978-0-9806310-0-5Google Scholar
LOFFREDO, A. (2015) Personal email to D. Blom [7 April, 7.28am].Google Scholar
MULLER, T. (1997) Music is not a solitary act: Conversation with Luciano Berio. Tempo, 199, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NOMURA, M. (1996) Follow children's music! . . . The fundamental idea. British Journal of Music Education, 13 (3), 203–224.Google Scholar
PERLOVE, N. (1998) Transmission, interpretation, collaboration – a performer's perspective on the language of contemporary music: An interview with Sophie Cherrier. Perspectives of New Music, 36 (1), 43–58.Google Scholar
REDGATE, C. (2007) A discussion of practices used in learning complex music with specific reference to Roger Redgate's Ausgangspunkte. Contemporary Music Review, 26 (2), 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REID, A. & DUKE, M. (2015) Student for student: peer learning in music higher education. International Journal of Music Education, 33 (2), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REISE, H., SAMARA, A. & LILLEJORD, S. (2012) Peer relations in peer learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25 (5), 601–624.Google Scholar
THOMAS, P. (1999) Interpretative Issues in Performing Contemporary Piano Music. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
THOMAS, P. (2007) Determining the indeterminate. Contemporary Music Review, 26 (2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VINEY, L. & BLOM, D. (2014) Preparing stylistically challenging contemporary classical repertoire for performance: Interpreting Kumari. International Journal of Music Education, 33 (1), 66–79.Google Scholar
WILLIAMON, A., VALENTINE, E. & VALENTINE, J. (2002) Shifting the focus of attention between levels of musical structure. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 493–520.Google Scholar
WILSON, C. (2004) György Ligeti and the rhetoric of autonomy. Twentieth Century Music, 1 (1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 1

Appendix

Download MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 1(PDF)
PDF 1.1 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 2

Appendix

Download MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 2(PDF)
PDF 703.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 3

Appendix

Download MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 3(PDF)
PDF 620.5 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 4

Appendix

Download MacRitchie et al. supplementary material 4(PDF)
PDF 90.7 KB