A Study into Key Stage 3 Solo Improvisations

Solo Improvisations at Key Stage 3 (Year 9)

We have work to do as teachers and professors in teacher training institutions to figure out how to balance structure and freedom in our classrooms in order to motivate and inspire students to be free thinkers and improvisers in a way that will serve them for a lifetime (Hickey, 2009: 296).

In this report I propose to address the challenge that music teachers face in promoting a musical activity that research has shown to have the potential to enhance performance, sight-reading and aural recognition skills, as well as bring about positive personal and social changes (Hallam, 2006). Bailey (1992) states that improvisation ‘meets the creative appetite that is a natural part of being a performing musician [and] invites complete involvement...in the act of music-making’ (p. 142), while the following extract from the National Curriculum, ‘students should be able to...improvise, explore and develop musical ideas when performing’ (QCDA, 2008), confirms that improvisation skill is a fundamental element of the creative process and is educationally valuable.

However, is it really conceivable to be able to ‘teach’ improvisation in the traditional sense? Solo improvisations (those which are the focus of this report) are judged in relation to stylistic conventions (Hallam, 2006) and these conventions determine how much such improvisations are ‘rule governed, providing constraints within which the musician must operate’ (Hallam, 2006: 78). How can teachers provide guidance to their students while not restricting students’ creative choices, especially if teachers want students to work within predetermined musical structures? 

Recent research on improvisation in music education has looked at, for example, differences in the improvisational process of adults and children (Custodero, 2007), the musical experiences of student teachers and musicians participating in group improvisation (Wright and Kanellopoulos, 2010), and philosophical, psychological and socio-cultural factors that have influenced the teaching of creativity in music education (Humphreys, 2006). But with the suggestion that music education under-uses creative tasks in music, possibly due to concerns raised about how to teach them effectively (Byrne and Sheridan, MacDonald and Miell, in Hallam, 2006), there is an urgent need for further research to provide insights into effective strategies for embracing creativity, through improvisation, in music education. Reasons for the reluctance by some teachers to want to explore improvisation with students, such as some teachers having biased views about musical creativity, or being unwilling to encourage risk-taking, and a lack of teacher training and confidence (Burnard, 2002), are no longer acceptable in a progressive and inclusive music education.

Context and methodology

The research findings and reflections in this report were amassed over a six week period, focussing on a Year 9 class of 13 male students undertaking a ‘Jazz’ unit of work in a small independent school located in Central London. My research is based on a review of formative feedback, students’ responses, an end-of-unit student questionnaire and summative assessment recordings (on the accompanying audio CD). From a practical point of view, the research focus benefited from being carried out in a school with small class-sizes as the groups for practical work could be relatively small which allowed me to dedicate more time to listening and responding to each group at any one time. Furthermore, this form of model-based improvisation relies on defined and agreed individual roles (who is going to play which part and when?) which are easier for students to negotiate and rehearse within a limited amount of time in groups of a smaller size.

However, a significant drawback of the research is that the sample of students itself is small and by no means representative of the majority of London or national music students. The report examines the responses of only a small selection of students with their own individual educational needs, and it was not possible to investigate any potential differences in attitudes and responses to tasks between boys and girls. Much more widespread research is needed to take into account the above, to include experiences of students from different backgrounds and a variety of schools.

Critical analysis and evaluation of findings

The results of the questionnaire that was taken to immediately assess students’ attitudes to the unit of work can be viewed in the Appendix, the results of which will inform approaches to future practice. The majority of responses were positive and it was particularly pleasing to note that, while over half of all students thought that improvisation wasn’t easy, they would enjoy the challenge of having more opportunities to improvise in class. All students thought that anyone has the potential to be able to improvise, which shows a positive outlook. Considering that these findings only provides a snapshot, the remainder of this reports’ findings, based on a review of formative feedback and students’ musical responses, will be in loosely referenced to excepts of solo improvisations from the summative assessment recordings (on  audio CD).

 Track 1

This group had negotiated the parts and rehearsed thoroughly together and the timing and clarity of the musical parts and harmonic progression is clear. In relation to how students learn to hear harmony, Azzara (1999) suggests that ‘students should develop a melodic sense of harmonic progression, that is, a sense of how melodies combine to create harmony’ (p. 22). It is clear that this approach works well, not only in developing clearly different parts but also creating a strong V-I cadence into each new two-bar phrase. The use of the main melody in the middle-upper range of the keyboard for a counter-melody was a wise choice by the group as it did not distract with the prominent electric guitar playing the solo. This shows that my advice to negotiate which parts they (and other groups) should play was valuable.

One student playing the bassline on acoustic guitar, when asked by me, said that he preferred to take a supportive role throughout the performance rather than take a solo (by swapping over parts with the other guitarist). I accepted this, as he seemed to lack confidence in this area and maybe he felt the other musicians in his group were more able than him. In reflection, I see that it is natural for musicians to prefer to take either leading or supporting roles and these students, should they be on-task and focussed, are to be valued as much as those that are willing to take more risks. In a study on group improvisation by Burnard (2002), ‘roles were constantly negotiated and defined as, for example, ‘leader’ and ‘follower’ (p. 167).

Track 2

The soloist on this track demonstrates higher levels of improvisation skills, showing a good use of phrasing and ‘an understanding of tension and release through resolution of notes and rhythmic variety’ (Azzara, 1999: 23). The end of the solo, which turned into the end of the performance, was unplanned yet the soloist has the instinct to carry on and find a musically-expressive way to end his run.

Improvisation came quite intuitively to this student and I found it more difficult to give him guidance that could challenge him, especially as he liked to take the lead role in group work and was very confident in his own ability. This student had a talent for melodic invention, able to use notes of the blues scale and his internalised understanding of the 12-bar blues structure to full effect. Hallam (2006: 72) states that, ‘to improvise, musicians must have a knowledge base, acquired over time through practice, which is idiomatic to a particular genre, from which they generate novel routines in performance.’ He had the foundations of a knowledge base and was more agile with his hands, which enabled him to use more of the range of the instrument to extemporise over.

Track 3

The tempo which was being sustained (and notes played) by the two supporting roles became gradually less secure and the soloist lost the ability to be able to continue. The soloist’s disappointment was clear to see at the end of the performance and he became very frustrated with one of the other members of the group, in particular, who was noticeably less committed to the task than he was. As soon as the soloist’s frustration showed I reassured him several times that he had just played a really good solo and managed to calm him down. In so doing, I tried to make clear that it had been the other members of the group that had not provided their supportive role as they should have done.

It would have been difficult in such a situation, without being very cautious, to ask this group to ‘reflect on negotiated outcomes and moments of uncertainty and conflict’ (Burnard, 2002: 169). However, with another group in a different situation this could be a good way to resolve an issue and reopen lines of communication. In this case, after a few minutes in the plenary I spoke generally about the different outcomes but gave more eye contact to the soloist when I was talking positively, which he returned back, and I felt this helped. Bailey (1992) suggested that improvisation ‘invites complete involvement…in music-making’ (p. 142) and, although this incident could have been more musically-successful, it was reminded to me that the immersive potential of improvisation has the power to develop social aspects of learning and behaviour and ignite emotions.

Track 4 – 6

I was especially pleased that all three students in these groups attempted an improvisation because they grew in confidence throughout the unit. A combination of one-to-one assistance, to help individuals learn how to play their written parts, and group assistance, to offer guidance about structure and roles, provided the opportunity for these students and the rest in the groups to pull all their learning together.

To simply encourage the process of improvisations and risk-taking, it was important to differentiate the task itself, which being so ‘open’ needed scaffolding. I deliberately asked these three groups to use short, repeated melodic patterns as much as possible, and only two or three notes of the blues scale at first. If too many notes of the scale were introduced, students would sometimes lose their ‘place’ on the keyboard and then not remember where any of the blues notes were, so I decided it better to limit their options slightly in order to secure their note choices and improve memorisation. Instead of telling them which notes to play, however, I would improvise simply with just the three notes to show them how they sounded and they seemed to appreciate this.

Taking an active role in student groups by me asking to join in with their playing (e.g. by playing one of the supporting roles while they had a go soloing, or modelling a short improvisation) created a more upbeat and friendly atmosphere and seemed to enhance the shared experience and connection between teacher and student. Wright and Kanellopoulos (2010) suggest that ‘learning how to build our relationships with children and music…is maybe the most fundamental value of learning through improvisation’ (p. 82).

Track 7 – 8

These two soloists showed considerable talent and musical awareness, with stylistically-sensitive improvisations that responded musically to structural aspects of the 12-bar blues model. The interchange between solos (though cannot be heard on the CD) was remarkably seamless as both had rehearsed how and when to swap roles, which showed a degree of autonomy and motivation.

Conclusion

The most confident solo improvisations were from groups that were able to perform non-improvised musical aspects the most securely. Group members that were able to negotiate and rehearse changing roles were able to support their improvising peers when needed. Some group members were not able to plan or exchange roles effectively or even keep a steady beat due to a lack of focus. For groups that lack security, I would argue that the most important matter is to ensure that the supporting roles and parts are secure so that soloists feel as though they are supported and have a strong idea where they are in relation to the structure. Of course, from any one group to another, there are a complex set of socio-musical interactions taking place between players which, in a model of motivation, Hallam (2006) shows to include individual and environmental factors.

Hickey (2009) argues that the nature of improvisation – the extemporaneous, responsive, in-the-moment music-making experience – cannot be learned with didactic approaches to teaching. Instead, she argues that the process of learning how to improvise should move away from a more structured transmission model to that of a freer enculturation model, in which students are taught not that the acquisition of one or more sets of skills constitutes thinking, but ‘to be disposed to think creatively and critically in appropriate contexts’ (Tishman et al. in Hallam, 2006: 287).

References

Azzara, Christopher D. (1999) ‘An Aural Approach to Improvisation’, Music Educators Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3.

Bailey, Derek (1992) Improvisation It’s Nature and Practice in Music, Ashbourne: Moorland Publishing

Burnard, Pamela (2002) ‘Investigating children’s meaning-making and musical interacting in group improvisation, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 19, No. 2

Custodero, Lori A. (2007) ‘Origins and expertise in the musical improvisations of adults and children: a phenomenological study of content and process’, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 24, No. 1

Hallam, Susan (2006) Music Psychology in Education, University of London, Institute of Education: Bedford way papers.

Humphreys, Jere T. (2006) ‘Toward a reconstruction of ‘creativity’ in music education’, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 23, No. 3

QCDA (2008) Programme of Study Music Key Stage 3, [Online], Available: http://curriculum.qcda.gov.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/key-stage-3/music/programme-of-study/index.aspx?tab=3 [9 June 2010].

Wright, Ruth and Kanellopoulos, Panagiolis (2010) ‘Informal music learning, improvisation and teacher education’, British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 27, No. 1