During my undergrad, I had a very difficult time in Aural Theory. I could not hear chord changes easily, and I struggled singing solfege with accurate pitch.  I also shied away from soloing during jazz ensemble. On the other hand, my boyfriend, who is completing his Masters in Jazz Studies and Composition, was much more willing to improvise during jazz ensemble, and he breezed through Aural Theory. He can hear chord changes easily and often analyzes music he hears on a daily basis in public. What caused this different between us?

The only difference I could find is our family music background. While in public school, I do not remember composing often in any manner. I remember singing from a textbook in elementary school, studying basic music theory and history and guitar in middle school, and performing in high school bands. In addition, my family is not very musical. My dad sings in church, and my mom does not sing. Likewise, my sister will sing to the radio occasionally, but she ceased most of her music career after entering college. Although my boyfriend had a similar public school music education, his family is extremely musical. They sing often in and outside of church, and they talk about music as a family. For example, they sang 4-part harmony at his last birthday party.

I firmly believe my boyfriend’s family background filled the gaps his public school music education left. By filling these gaps, he was more eager to solo in jazz ensembles, sing and write music he heard in his head, and have a better ear for aural theory. As a music educator, I believe it is our responsibility to fill these gaps in the first place. We do not depend on family support to ensure students can read and write, so why do we depend on family support for students to be successful in improvising and composing? We should be taking the same amount of time we take to teach rhythms and fingerings to teach improvising and composing.

One reason I believe music educators do not allot that amount of time for improvising and composing is because it is an uncomfortable area for them. For example, most music educators are classically trained. As an instrumentalist or vocalist, most music majors are not expected to improvise on their major instrument. Even all cadenzas and solo sections are written out based on other performers. A second reason for not teaching improvisation and composition is the time alloted for music classes in schools. Educators are so busy preparing the students for a good performance that creative activities are left out of the curriculum.

However, during Module 2, I discovered a few ways to incorporate improvising and composing into daily lessons within the classroom that I would feel comfortable teaching, even as a classically trained musician, within a short amount of time. I derived these ideas from Music Learning Today: Digital Pedagogy for Creating, Performing, and Responding to Music by William Bauer. In the book, Bauer (2014) references’ Kratus’ “seven-level sequential model for the development of improvisational abilities” (p. 65). The seven levels are as follows:

            Level 1: Exploration

            Level 2: Process-Oriented

            Level 3: Product-Oriented

            Level 4: Fluid Improvisation

            Level 5: Structural Improvisation

            Level 6: Stylistic Improvisation

            Level 7: Personal Improvisation

As a public school music educator, I believe we can realistically help our students to reach Level 4. Collegiate professors and personal curiosity would allow students reach Levels 5-6, and Level 7 would be only accomplishable through personal perseverance and practice. However, I believe the 4 levels are only accomplishable through a well-round music education from elementary to high school.

To begin with, Level 1: Exploration, should be explored during elementary school in the very beginning years of a child’s music education. In Level 1, students try “out various sounds, without any particular structure” (Bauer, 2014, p. 65). For example, activities should focus on pitch matching and voice exploration with non-sense syllables. Through the use of instruments, students can improvise the sounds of nature, such as creating rain with xylophones.

In Level 2: Process-Oriented, “Students have some control over the process, coordinating motor skills with intentionally created sound patterns, patterns that are often repeated” (Bauer, 2014, p. 65). I can see this stage being experienced during second grade and onward. For example, students could improvise using given solfege patterns during a call and response activity. Likewise on percussion instruments, students could perform short rhythmic patterns in an order of their choosing. This level also opens up numerous partner and small group activities that would encourage teamwork and performance. In addition, students should be able to begin training their ear at this level. Educators can use technology, such as aural theory apps and games to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses.

During Level 3: Product-Oriented, students become “…more aware of musical structures – tonality, meters, tempo, harmonic changes, and phrases – and begins to utilize these structures in improvisations” (Bauer, 2014, p. 66). This would be introduced during third or fourth grade when students begin learning staff notation and playing recorder. At this age, students should be able to build on their basic understanding of music and their experiences by adding notation. I firmly believe students would be able to compose simple patterns on their own, and rhythmically improvise to an ostinato. In addition, music educators should encourage students to improvise on their recorder as they master notes. This could be accomplished by setting specific parameters, such as stay on one or two notes; students could then improvise over a piano or recorded accompaniment.

Finally, during Level 4: Fluid Improvisation, students exhibit “more control and automaticity over the technical aspects of performance (being able to sing/play without having to consciously think about it) with greater fluidity in keys, meters, and tempos” (Bauer, 2014, p. 66). This level could be experienced as early as middle school and definitely experienced during high school. Even if they are improvising in simple keys, such as Bb, G, and C, students should be able to analyze which notes are playable for specific chords, and then solo based on this knowledge.

Ideally, students should start their improvisation experience in the very early years of music education. As they grow, they will strengthen and build upon their basic skills. I also believe that these levels provide a basic outline for scaffolding. Students must take baby steps to improvisation, by starting with given parameters and examples. As students’ improvisation skills develop, they will naturally develop composition skills by adding notation. I firmly believe you cannot have composition without a firm education in improvisation. Once an education in improvisation is established, students can then explore composition tools, such as Noteflight, MuseScore, or Finale.

As a final thought, as an early elementary music educator, it is easy for me to layout a framework for a long-term improvisation and composition education. However, not all music educators in the upper grades have a supportive or substantial elementary or middle school music program. I believe it is the responsibility of the music educator to assess his/her students and challenge them appropriately. Ideally, students should reach and be exposed to Kratus’ Level 4 of Improvisation, but some teachers may only reach Level 3. The level is not the most important concept. The experience and exposure in a larger amount is what is important, and it is imperative that this experience is positive. Music educators must give their students an improvisation and composition experience that leaves them wanting more, no matter what level they are at when they leave.

Reference:

Bauer, W. I. (2014). Music learning today: Digital pedagogy for creating, performing, and responding to music. New York: Oxford University Press.