The Oxford Handbook of Community Music

Brydie-Leigh Bartleet (ed.), Lee Higgins (ed.)

[Link]
Published: 2018 Online ISBN: 9780190219529 Print ISBN: 9780190219505

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

CHAPTER

1 Introduction: An Overview of Community Music in the

Twenty-First Century 
Brydie-Leigh Bartleet, Lee Higgins

[Link] Pages 1–20

Published: 05 February 2018

Abstract
A documented history of almost fty years and a growing internationalization and interculturalisation
of community music invites a revisiting of some of the eld’s approaches, ideologies, and contexts.
This chapter critically re ects on historical developments and current realities of how the eld is
conceptualized around the globe. It also touches on the role of community music facilitators in
bringing about social change and outlines some of the key skills, working methods, values and ethics
that are commonly associated with work in this eld. It provides a snapshot of what has become a truly
global phenomenon, and critically discusses the recurring question of whether community music
needs a new de tinion or (re)de nition in the twenty- rst century.

Keywords: community music, community music scholarship, community music research, community
music definition, intervention, internationalization of community music, participatory music-making
Subject: Ethnomusicology, Music
Series: Oxford Handbooks
Collection: Oxford Handbooks Online
 Introduction

• A community music concert programme in Tel Aviv, Israel, addresses the issue of diversity and
di erence in an area of con ict and war.

• In the north of England, an experimental community music group works with the whole community
to build ‘new’ musical instruments from scrap material to promote recycling and sustainable living.

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

• In a Brazilian favela where the death rate for young people is high, a community wind band works
in conjunction with a non-government agency to provide a safe environment to learn how to play
and how to teach music.

• In South Africa, community music facilitators work with a non-pro t organization to promote brass
bands in communities that su er from high levels of poverty and social disruption, with the aim of
enhancing the economic, social, physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being of participants.

• Performers in an American community choir comprised of inmates from a local correctional facility
describe how singing brings meaning to their lives.

• In Australia, music students collaborate with First Peoples musicians and community elders on a
community service learning programme designed to promote intercultural reconciliation,
collaboration, and ‘both ways’ learning through community music-making.

• In Penang, young people of diverse ethnicities engage in a community musical theatre project that
promotes peace-building and alternative narratives about history and social relationships, and
p. 2 aims to bring about cultural change.

• In Rome’s northeastern suburbs, known for their economic di culties, a community music
programme promotes health and well-being in children and their parents through the experience of
making music in groups.

• The noise is deafening as seventy amateur drummers parade through the streets of a Scottish city.

As these snapshots of community music from our handbook and around the world suggest, consciously
organized community music activities have become a global phenomenon. The growing
internationalization of the eld has brought with it insights from cultural contexts that have both expanded
and challenged accepted approaches, priorities, and ideas regarding what is labelled ‘community music’.
Likewise, with the increase of scholarship and academic courses in community music, the number of people
engaging in community music has signi cantly increased worldwide. These emerging voices, agendas, and
contexts indicate that the eld is continuing to expand, diversify, and mature. In other words, community
music as a eld has come of age.

As a practice welded so closely to the environment in which it takes place, the growth and development of
community music has occurred in di erent contexts for di erent reasons. As such, the term community
music can be understood in a variety of ways, re ecting a myriad of possible contexts and musical situations
(Higgins & Willingham, 2017; Veblen, 2013). Of course, since time immemorial, music has been made by and
with communities in order to express local identities, traditions, values, beliefs, aspirations, and social
interactions. Indeed, it could be argued that no culture has ever lived without communal music-making (see
Tomlinson, 2015). However, as Huib Schippers suggests in chapter 2 of this handbook, as communities and
their circumstances have changed over time, sometimes the need has arisen for active interventions to
establish or restore lost or compromised music practices within community settings. Other times musical
interventions have been used to establish or restore peace or a sense of well-being in social, cultural, and
 political situations where dysfunction, con ict, or natural disaster has caused damage, or to provide a safe
space for people to meet and make music together. It is mostly these interventions that have now become
widely referred to worldwide as community music. The term and concept of community music as an
intervention has its roots in the UK counter-culture era of the late 1960s and 1970s (Higgins, 2008), but has
grown to take on di erent meanings in a wide variety of cultural contexts across the world. Likewise, as the
eld has developed and grown internationally, other non-interventionist forms of communal music-
making, as well as music of communities (Higgins, 2012), have contributed towards broader, international

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

conceptualizations of the eld. These are unpacked in more detail later in the chapter.

When it comes to conceptualizing interventionist forms of community music-making, many community

music facilitators have drawn on Homi K. Bhabha’s (1994) notion of an intervention as an encounter with
‘newness’, and a perspective that seeks to create situations which interrupt the present towards moments
of transformation. Although there might be a danger in those who intervene operating as an all-knowing
Other, the eld has attempted to operationalize intervention more in terms of an interactive and dialogic
p. 3
negotiation. Interventions, which could include leading workshops, facilitating discussions, or supporting
groups in their musical endeavours, all demand deliberate strategies that seek to enable people to nd self-
expression through musical means. Using learning and teaching concepts such as facilitation (Hogan, 2002)
and non-formal education (Rogers, 2004), the pedagogic approaches employed by community music
facilitators have commonly placed an emphasis on negotiation through collaboration, and thus learning has
customarily taken place through a bottom-up rather than top-down approach. With a heart towards co-
authorship, collaborative group work, and a belief in the creative potential of all sections of the community,
those who work in, and advocate for, community music often attempt to transform attitudes, behaviours,
and values towards music-making through their practice. As such, areas of critical concern for community
music facilitators and community music participation have been inclusion, community responsibility,
excellence, creative opportunities, diversity, and acknowledgement of the importance of music-making
across the lifespan.

A brief history of community music from the late 1960s to the twenty-
first century

In the United Kingdom, the interventionist approach to community music is linked to the community arts
scene that ourished during the counter-culture era of the late 1960s and 1970s (Higgins, 2008). As a sub-
strand of that movement, community music shared goals of activism, challenging repressive and
hierarchical social norms, and a commitment to personal growth and empowerment. There was a desire to
address issues of access and inclusion in both musical and sociocultural contexts by asking questions such
as these: Who in society has access to music? Who makes and plays music? Who decides what is music and
what is not? In an era of considerable social upheaval in the form of anti-government and anti-
establishment protest, social issues became the subject of art-making, and the experiences of everyday
people received greater prominence. Community music activity grew as part of this response to shifts in
government policy in relation to education curriculum, changes in expectations and delivery requirements
of publicly funded arts organizations (Brown, Higham, & Rimmer, 2014; Doeser, 2014), and in response to
the needs and agendas of formal service providers such as government agencies and non-government
organizations (NGOs) in areas of health, education, and social services. It is this latter set of relationships in
particular that inform the contemporary activities of community music facilitators in the United Kingdom
and other places where intervention has been both a key concept and an area of debate, such as within the
Australian and Irish contexts (Bartleet et al., 2009; Grant, 2003).

With very di erent funding structures and educational systems, it could be argued that the interventionist
p. 4 approach to community music in the United States, often under the umbrella of community cultural
 development, was championed by those who were, at the time, frustrated with approaches to music
education in schools and institutes of higher education during the early part of the twenty- rst century. As
some commentators have pointed out, this exasperation was fuelled by the perception that changes in
music education were slow and that the training of pre-service music educators oftentimes represented a
repetition of past practices (Abeles & Custodero, 2010; Jorgensen, 2003; Kaschub & Smith, 2014). Many
American advocates who called for music education reform looked towards community music as embodying
some (but certainly not all) of the key themes important to invoking change, such as lifelong learning,

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

music as leisure, cultural diversity, improvisation, and popular music pedagogy, to mention but a few
(Sarath, Meyers, & Campbell, 2017; Abril, 2014; Berberick, 2014; Bowman, 2009; Jones, 2009; Mantie, 2013a,
2013b). While community music was certainly not seen as the answer to all the challenges facing the music
education system in the United States, it did appear to inspire alternative approaches to fostering musical
participation across diverse settings.

Further international developments are exponentially growing with a strong focus on community music
and education. For instance, in Germany, community music is just beginning to attract signi cant
1
attention, as is evidenced by the participation of German nationals at a conference held in 2015 and the
commitment of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra to expand their education work and develop
2
community music initiatives, and two publications that have brought German academics and practitioners
together in debate and dialogue (De Ban y-Hall, 2016; Hill & De Ban y-Hall, 2017). This is echoed in
Switzerland where courses have been held at the Züricher Hochschule der Künste (Zürich University of the
3
Arts), which bring together both the social work and music departments. Meanwhile within the Southeast
Asian context, the artists’ collective Ombak-Ombak ARTstudio in Malaysia is engaging young people of
diverse ethnicities in community musical theatre projects that promote peace building in Penang. These
projects have a strong education focus, and provide an opportunity for young people to cross cultural
barriers, deconstruct stereotypes, and respect di erences through shared music-making. Likewise in South
Africa, UKUSA, one of the longest running and most successful community music programmes has
4
continued to grow from its beginnings in the apartheid regime, to working with over 8,000 young people.
This commitment towards arts development is echoed at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
5
where courses have been developed in community music. Other international examples of community
music training include the development of North America’s rst Masters in Community Music in Canada.
6
Although other institutions in North America have options and courses in community music, Wilfrid
Laurier University in Ontario has developed a discrete part-time, interdisciplinary programme that balances
7
theory and practice for the development of leadership skills in community music. Staying within the
Canadian context it is also important to recognize the commitment of music educators working at the
8
Excellence in Music Education Centre at the University of Lavel, Quebec City. Recent colloquia have brought
about important discussions surrounding community music and its potential impact on music education
curriculum reform within a French-speaking community.

p. 5 In addition to these examples, there are countless others emerging from around the world signalling an
exponential growth in community music o erings. For instance, in Japan, the Kunitachi College of Music
has recently introduced a community music programme within the music education o erings. In Oslo,
9
Norway, the Norwegian Academy of Music’s Centre for Educational Research in Music has embedded
notions of community music into its mission as a research centre (Johansen, 2014). Norway has a rich
history (Veblen, 2008) with community music, and these developments have strong connections to those
who advocate for and practice within the area of community music therapy (Ruud, 2004; Stige, 2014). A
special issue of International Journal of Community Music entitled Community Music in the Nordic Countries
(Boeskov & Brøske, 2017) has also contributed to widening the discourse through this region.

As a direct response to this growing wave of international interest in expressions of music-making that are
consciously inclusive, participatory, and culturally diverse, the International Centre for Community Music
 10
(ICCM) at York St John University in the United Kingdom has been established. Likewise, since 2003, the
Queensland Conservatorium Research Centre in Australia has responded to these developments by
championing research projects that engage deeply with communities on issues of musical sustainability,
11
cultural diversity, intercultural collaboration, human rights, and social justice.

Perhaps the most developed and oldest community music network is Sound Sense, the United Kingdom’s
national organization for community music which has shaped, and been uniquely been shaped by, the
12
social, cultural, and economic landscape of the country over the past twenty- ve years. However, probably

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

the most in uential and far-reaching force in the advocacy of international community music has been the
13
International Society for Music Education’s Community Music Activity (CMA) Commission. The
commission continues to attract more and more people to its biennial events and, importantly, it continues
to bring people together who subsequently form professional relationships and other networks—for
example, the European network that held events from 2003–2007, the Asia Paci c Community Music
Network (APCMN) consisting of delegates from Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Fiji, New Zealand Aotearoa,
and Singapore, who held their inaugural seminar in Australia 2013, and their second seminar in Japan in
2015 and third in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2017, whilst various smaller networks have met in Brazil, Israel,
and the United States. With scholarship and practice working closer than ever before, there are now plenty
of exemplars illustrating worldwide community music practice, and these examples from the United States,
Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Australia, Asia-Paci c, and the United Kingdom represent just the
tip of the iceberg in terms of a global interest in community music practice, scholarship, and training.

For many, building sustainable partnerships through creativity, collaboration, and community is central to
operating in a ‘think global, act local’ culture. An idea attributed to town planning, this phrase captures the
sense that our individual contributions for the health of the planet can be driven through our day-to-day
p. 6 interactions with our communities and cities (Stephen, 2015). As the eld continues to come together in an
international community of practice, this concept has great relevance. The growth of the intervention
model worldwide has driven the subsequent rise in importance and professionalization of the role of the
community music facilitator in some countries, although the ways in which these roles have been funded
and supported have di ered greatly. Furthermore, the multiplicity of sites where this work frequently takes
place has necessitated a complex raft of musical and leadership skills, as well as cultural competencies, in
order to enable musical and re exive responses to the social or health needs of a particular target group,
and through this musical action to cultivate some kind of change or transformation. With such growth, a
number of critical questions about how the eld conceptualizes this interventionist approach have begun to
emerge.
 Emerging questions and considerations for community music in the
twenty-first century

Alongside the international developments that we have just outlined has come an expansion of the eld, and
of ways to critically think about music as an intervention. For instance, in parts of the world where
colonization has caused and continues to cause devastating damage, oppression, and large-scale systematic
inequities, this notion of an ‘intervention’ is a deeply loaded concept that needs careful consideration. In

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Australia, for example, the term intervention is associated with a highly controversial and problematic
political package of changes to welfare provisions, law enforcement, land tenure, as well as other measures
in 2007 to address allegations of child sexual abuse and neglect in Northern Territory Aboriginal
communities. Many might argue that in such circumstances musical interventions are needed more than
ever, but community music facilitators are challenged to ask themselves, (1) on whose terms this musical
activity is happening, (2) whether those are appropriate to the cultural context in which they are operating,
and (3) whether the intervention is acting as another colonizing endeavour or promoting a more positive
sense of self-determination for participants. As Te Oti Rakena argues from a Māori First Peoples perspective
in chapter 4, local engagement, ownership, and self-determination are clearly needed for real participation
and change to occur through community music. These considerations are prompting community music
facilitators to take a re exive view of their own cultural legacy in their music-making as they work from,
and alongside, di erent cultural worldviews (see Ashley & Lines, 2016).

Underlying many of these international developments are values and approaches that are geared towards
change—whether on an individual or social level—and they have remained at the heart of many community
music endeavours, despite their di ering contexts. As the chapters in this handbook showcase, the eld of
p. 7 community music is thus not only maturing but also becoming a force for social change around the
world. The politics and practicalities of such a change agenda have long been debated by artists and writers
within the context of instrumentalism (see for example, Bel ore, 2002; Gibson, 2008). Rather than
reigniting an old, and tired, intrinsic–instrumental debate and dichotomy now (Bel ore & Bennett, 2008),
we take heed of Crossick & Kaszynska’s (2016) suggestion that while these dichotomies abound, they should
be treated not as formal oppositions as much as concepts to be explored and probed. It might also be argued
that there is no dichotomy between these two ideas, the instrumental is intrinsic. Empirical evidence from
two large-scale evaluations for Youth Music (Deane, Hunter, & Mullen, 2011; Deane, Holford, & Mullen,
2015) point us towards this conclusion.

Moreover, when it comes to community music and social change, we also recognize the need for deeper and
more critical re ection on the underlying processes and assumptions of community music initiatives. As
Bartleet has argued (2016a), theories of change tell us that it is inadequate to simply say ‘something
miraculous happens’ in community music. Relying solely on the miraculous can create ambiguity when it
comes to understanding what is happening in the actual practice. There needs to be a deep understanding of
what change community music facilitators are trying to make, and the underlying aims, assumptions, and
processes behind it. This is where critical scholarship and research can play a role. We emphasize the word
critical to suggest that community musicians and researchers need to deliberately and systematically
conceptualize, analyze, and evaluate the casual links between their practices and the changes that might be
occurring. As the literature on Theories of Change and Theories of Action suggests, this requires an
interrogation of the goals, strategies, actions, and outcomes of a community music activity, as well as its
challenges, complexities, and opportunities (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). This more nuanced approach focuses
on understanding the changes that are taking place rather than simply proving them; the latter can so often
happen in advocacy-driven research or in evaluative research undertaken to respond to funding-body
requirements.
 Moreover, community music operates as part of a much larger ecosystem of forces and factors, meaning
that simple cause and e ect explanations are rarely su cient (Schippers & Grant, 2016). Take as one
example, the use of community choirs in prisons. Rather than making change claims (such as: ‘community
music initiatives reduce recidivism rates’), which are incredibly complex and problematic, we might do
better to look at music programmes in terms of ‘desistance’ (see Balfour et al., in press; Henley, 2012).
Although desistance is a contested term, it might be generally understood as the process of personal growth
through which o enders become non-o enders. This sometimes involves a four-stage process: openness

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

to change, exposure to ‘hooks’ for change, imagining and believing in a replacement self, and change in the
way in which o ending is viewed (Crossick & Kaszynska, 2016, p. 47; see also Cohen, 2012). At the heart of
desistance is an ability to think about oneself and others, to see genuine choices and options, to imagine
other life circumstances and other possible futures. Community music-making can make a serious
contribution to this if we seek to understand more about this change process, make it part of our work, and
demonstrate it.

p. 8 The discussion so far also points towards the need for community music facilitators to continue exploring
the nexus between practice and theory whilst being mindful of how evaluation can best serve the
development of practice. Our sense is that for the eld to continue evolving in its scholarship, this needs to
occur at the dynamic interface of musical processes and re exive research. Indeed, we caution against
separating practice and theory in some kind of false dichotomy, especially as this theory-practice duality is
oftentimes attached to an unequal system of power (Ben, 2016, p. 222). Looking only at textual or
philosophical readings of community music or only at practical readings of community music, you run the
risk of completely missing the complexities and nuances of this eld as it matures. The kind of critical,
re exive explorations community music facilitators need to engage with in the years to come need to be at
that interface between practice and theory if they are to reach their full potential.

This critical questioning of the eld, and the tensions it raises, can be seen as a sign of a maturing and
healthy eld. It is also the sign of a eld that draws insight and inspiration from its roots and history, but
one that is growing and expanding in response to the world around it. By engaging with these international
and intercultural perspectives on community music we move into a di erent mindset and dynamic space for
learning, exchange, and progress. This allows us to challenge our assumptions and the ways in which we
think about our core values and practices as a eld. It also enables us to take comfort in our sense of
discomfort, and to realize that any tensions that community music facilitators might be feeling on a
personal level, or indeed more broadly in our eld, are quite possibly a sign of health and growth (Bartleet,
2017).
 The community musician in the twenty-first century: Skills, values,
and ethics

Despite the diversity of contexts, considerations, and approaches that we have just described from across
the world, many community music facilitators place emphasis on inclusive musical participation. Their
practice is often an expression of some kind of ‘cultural democracy’, and musicians who work this way are
focused on the practical concerns of making and creating musical opportunities for people of all ages and

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

abilities. As a system of support that is respectful towards diverse communities, musicians that work under
the banner of community music, and by extension cultural democracy, do so by attempting to enable
historically excluded voices to be heard (Graves, 2005). In continued dialogue with the people they work
with, community music facilitators commonly negotiate musical journeys through facilitated group
processes. The skills needed to undertake this kind of facilitation require community music facilitators to be
well versed in activities and processes that encourage open musical dialogue among di erent individuals
p. 9 with di ering perspectives. Musical skills in improvising, composing, and arranging are also vital, as are
aural skills, for the ability to pick up musical materials by ear, especially when participants are not familiar
with music notation. Community music facilitators with notation and reading skills often use these to create
their own documentation or written archive of musical materials to ensure they can be recalled and used at a
later date, but unless this particular skill is already widely shared among the group, it is less likely to occupy
a central position in a facilitated workshop process (Howell, Higgins, & Bartleet, 2016).

Beyond musicianship, community music facilitators also typically possess leadership, processual, and social
skills to guide the group on a musical journey. For example, a facilitator will constantly call upon the ability
to ‘read’ the responses of individuals and the group as a whole, constantly monitoring the nuances of
interactions. The facilitator will need to be articulate, skilled in providing clear instruction and information
to whatever extent the group requires it. Musicians may at times need to challenge and provoke, and
alternately reassure and encourage, responding to their knowledge of each individual. They also need to be
organized and plan their approach well, aware of imposed time frames and restraints, and the intended
musical goals that must t within these. Facilitators need to be creative, able to improvise and think ‘on
their feet,’ and ensure variety and appropriate pacing so that the group is carried along by their own
momentum, energy, and sense of ow (Howell et al., 2016). Most critically, if each of these skills is
understood as a kind of tool, it is not the range of tools available but the facilitators’ choice of the most
appropriate tools for the task at hand that most distinguishes their work. As Higgins and Patricia Shehan
Campbell (2010, p. 9) have argued, facilitation ‘is an art’, whether or not it takes place in an arts-based
context.

The personal attributes of the music facilitator also play an important role. E ective leadership bene ts
from a certain amount of charisma, the ability to remain positive and calm in less predictable environments,
and a commitment to engaging in one’s own learning alongside that of the participants. Underpinning this
range of skills and attributes is an understanding of the importance of quality in the musical outcomes, the
social bonds that are created, and indeed the entire process (Turino, 2008); in other words, facilitators
understand that the personal and social engagement and growth of participants is as important as their
musical engagement and growth.

Finally, as we have touched on earlier, a crucial skill for community music facilitators is to engage in critical
re ection about intentions, values, processes, and practices. This is a skill that needs to be learned, and it
involves consciously examining and thinking about experiences, actions, feelings, and responses, and then
interpreting these in order to learn from them and develop as facilitators and musicians (Gruhn, 2005, p.
106).
 Schön (1984) distinguishes between re ection-on-action and re ection-in-action in the following way:
Re ection-in-action is concerned with practicing critically. For example, a community music facilitator
working in a workshop setting makes a raft of successive decisions about the suitability of particular
activities, what sequence would suit the group best, and the success of each activity, whilst they are in the
thick of it. Highly skilled and re exive facilitators will often embody a sophisticated use of this kind of
p. 10 re ection, which is deeply embedded in practice. Re ection-on-action on the other hand, occurs after the
community music activity has taken place, when facilitators and participants think about what they did, and

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

whether any changes to what they did could have resulted in di erent outcomes. The results of this type of
re ection will be evident in the actual music-making itself, but will also appear in written re ection and
research about the community music practice and processes. It is our sense that the former type of
re ection has occupied the eld for some time, but it is the latter type of re ection, particularly in the
written form, that has the potential to grow in years to come. This would enable a sharing of critical and
re exive examinations of intentions, processes, and activities that will further and deepen the eld in both
practice and scholarship.

Alongside skills and attributes, community music facilitators working in interventionist ways around the
world appear to share a number of common traits in terms of values, beliefs, and ethical commitments that
are then embodied in individual ways. The values and beliefs held are concerned with rights, capacities, and
capabilities. These include the idea that all people have a right to make, participate in, and enjoy music of
their own choosing, and that almost everybody (Sacks, 2011) possesses an innate capacity and lifelong
potential for music participation and creativity. Community music facilitators also share commitments to
cultivate positive learning environments in which individuals of all ages and backgrounds feel welcome,
included, and valued. They may challenge discriminatory social norms working to overcome barriers that
block access to participation for some people. Frequently we see a commitment to exible approaches to
teaching and learning, including the idea that a workshop will include expertise among participants, and
that learning will take place in all directions—from leader to participants, from participants to leader, and
between participants (Howell et al., 2016). In many cases, getting projects o the ground involves an
entrepreneurial mindset: a focus on individual agency, respect for relevance in an endeavor, problem-
posing and problem-solving, uncovering or creating a need, a willingness to take risks and make important
choices, creativity, independence, opportunity recognition, and innovation, all elements associated with
entrepreneurship.

Participation in shared learning has the potential to work towards emancipation and empowerment; open-
ended community music-making places ownership of the resultant musical outcomes in the hands of
participants, at the same time encouraging their continued musical growth. These ethical commitments
imply an act of hospitality—a navigation between the participants’ call to attend a music-making event or
to invite another musician into their world, and the facilitator’s welcome (Higgins, 2007), which can result
in a greater sense of connectivity among and between participants, and between participants and the music
they make. It is through this structure that community music facilitators and participants are entwined in
creative music-making with the potential to produce events that leave a lasting impression on both parties
and on those that surround them.

Underpinning these skills and values is also a strong focus on quality, both in terms of process and
outcomes. Our sense is that Matarasso’s (2013) writing on artistic quality in participatory performing arts is
p. 11 of great relevance to community musicians. As he suggests, it is not possible to have a de nitive
assessment of the quality of artistic work since that work can only be experienced individually and
subjectively. Rather, what matters is the quality of our re ection and debate about it. For Matarasso (2000),
what matters is how we can understand our own and one another’s views of quality. He suggests ve things
that contribute to the quality of an artistic production:

1. Technique. Is something well made in its own terms?

 2. Originality. Has it been done before, by others?

3. Ambition. How far does it reach, and why?

4. Resonance. Does it connect with and speak to an audience?

5. Magic. Does it move or unsettle us, linger in the mind, make us feel di erently?

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

In his later work, Matarasso (2013) suggests that a further challenge with assessing the quality of
participatory arts arises from its nature as a process with multiple actors: community music facilitators,
participants, community organizations, support workers, funding bodies, and so on. He suggests it might be
easier to consider quality in this process by looking separately at each phase of a participatory community
music process, including quality in conception, quality in contracting, quality in working, quality in
creation, and quality in completion (see Matarasso, 2013). An exploration of these themes relating to quality
in community music can enable not just some kind of objective judgement, but rather a deeper
understanding of ourselves and others (Matarasso, 2000).

By outlining these common values that centre on social justice, human rights, cultural democracy,
participation, hospitality, and quality, we are deeply mindful that in many ways these could be described as
aspirational values. These are core ideas that come together in a vision for how community music
facilitators might want to operate, and, broadly, what we believe community music can stand for. That said,
any experienced community music facilitator will tell you in reality the complexities and dynamics of
community music can sometimes be far from ideal. While we see examples and evidence of these values
being played out on a regular basis, there are also many challenges (some of which we have outlined in this
chapter) that require the kind of re exivity and re ection we believe the eld needs as it matures further.
Many experienced facilitators, particularly those working in challenging and complex environments, will
tell you the kind of overly sentimentalized notions of community music in the literature, but also in broader
public advocacy campaigns for musical participation that present a somewhat one-dimensional view of
their practices and scholarship. As the eld of community music matures, its impact will be felt across a
wider range of disciplines. It is important that those who engage with the work, and those for whom the
work constitutes their profession, continue to explore ways to understand the nuances and complexities of
the practice. Finding appropriate research strategies and lines of questions that challenge from both a
position of existing knowledge and disciplinary sensitivity is vital.
p. 12
Why this handbook?

Between July 2012 and January 2013 a trio of scholarly works were published that directly addressed
concerns pertaining to community music. In order of publication date, these were Community Music: In
Theory and in Practice (Higgins, 2012), the rst full length work on the subject that investigated community
music as an active intervention and o ered a theoretical framework from which the activities could be
described and analysed. Next came the two-volume Oxford Handbook of Music Education edited by Gary

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

McPherson and Graham Welch (2012a, 2012b). Appearing in volume 2, and relevant to our concerns here, is
a section dedicated to ‘Music in the Community’, edited by David Elliott. A North American music educator,
Elliott has been an important gure in the history of community music scholarship, most noticeably
through the reciprocal impact the practice has had on his in uential philosophical framework commonly
described as the praxial approach to music education (1995, 2005). The nal publication in this trio
appeared in early 2013 and was entitled Community Music Today (Veblen et al., 2013). A self-confessed
‘labour of love’, this book was an edited collection guided by the music educator and community music
researcher Kari Veblen. The tome featured a collection of twenty essays and, according to Veblen’s
introduction, ‘illuminates the work of community music workers who improvise and reinvent themselves
and their vision in order to lead through music and other expressive media and attempt to answer the
perennial equation “What is Community Music?” ’ (p. 1). Although not part of this suite, the International
Journal of Community Music (IJCM) deserves a mention because during this period it moved into its seventh
year of commercial publication and doubled its institutional circulation since its inception in 2008. Between
2012 and 2013, the Journal published forty-three articles and project reports responding to issues including
disability, well-being, technology, recreation, lifelong learning, service learning, homelessness, and
14
positive ageing.

This Oxford Handbook of Community Music has been a direct response to the growth in community music
scholarship and has been made possible because of the developments outlined in this introduction. This
growth in scholarship, evidenced through a multitude of publications across a diverse range of journals and
books, had also been re ected in the international meetings we were attending. Within this context, new
debates about the nexus of practice, pedagogy, research, and ethics were emerging, and new voices had
begun broadening the agenda to consider settings where community music was engaging. For example, we
noticed the areas of social justice, political activism, peacemaking, health and wellbeing, and online
engagement present amongst other elds. Likewise, with emerging issues of global concern such as climate
change, which require a creative and community-driven response, we predict in the years to come that
community musicians will increasingly become valuable collaborators and connectors in this space (see, for
example, Barclay, 2013). Further internationalization of the eld also brings insights from cultural contexts
such as Asia and the Middle East, which as we’ve touched on in this introduction, are challenging and
p. 13 problematizing accepted approaches, priorities, and ideas within the eld (see, for example, Bartleet et
al., in press Dillon, Bartleet, & Leong, 2012). The increase of scholarship and academic courses has
signi cantly increased the amount of people engaging in community music, and these new voices, agendas,
and contexts indicate that the eld is continuing to expand and diversify.

We felt that a dedicated volume that gives an authoritative and comprehensive review of what has been
achieved in the eld to date would provide a ‘go-to’ volume that celebrated this moment. We also wanted
this volume to be future-focused and to feature scholars and practitioners whose ideas point towards
activity in the years to come, both in terms of theoretical development and practical engagement. As such
this handbook captures the vibrant, dynamic, and divergent approaches that now characterize the eld, but
also chart the new and emerging contexts, practices, pedagogies, and research approaches that will de ne
the eld in the coming decades. While these chapters feature a diversity of topics, approaches, and authors,
 the resulting collection has been structured into ve parts: Contexts; Transformations; Politics;
Intersections; and Education.

Conclusions: Does community music need a definition or

(re)definition in the twenty-first century?

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

As we bring this introductory chapter to a close, we are mindful we have traversed the history of the eld
and mapped out some of its latest developments; we have hinted at diverse contexts and practices from
around the world; and we have articulated some of the underlying values and intentions associated with
community music and its associated challenges and questions. Noticeably, what we have not done is provide
a concise, all-encompassing de nition of what community music is. This is no accident or unintended
omission. Nor do we see this as an epistemological de ciency. Without a doubt, this very de nitional debate
has been one of the most hotly contested topics at international gatherings of community music facilitators
over many years. While there have been many e orts to de ne community music, de nitions have tended to
be either too speci c or too general to be of great use to practitioners. Much of the published research on the
topic seems to be based on single projects, often conducted by the facilitators involved. While this has led to
valuable contributions to understanding the scope and breadth of this eld, it has done little to create
perspectives that can be applied across the wide gamut of practices referred to as community music
activities (Schippers & Bartleet, 2013). Other de nitions have tended to con ate descriptions of speci c
practices with learning and pedagogical approaches, sets of beliefs, and values, which has led to even
further ambiguity. Others yet have resisted the de nition question altogether, and suggested that seeking a
scholarly de nition could be interpreted as an act of symbolic violence. They have been critical of the power
dynamics of naming, and pointed out that there is a danger in assuming scholarly de nitions are somehow
p. 14 superior to more operational de nitions, which community music facilitators use on a daily basis (Ben,
2016, p. 221).

Some of the eld’s leaders have dealt with this by suggesting that there are many de nitions of community
music (Veblen, 2008) and that de nitions need to always be contextualised, contested, and never pinned
down (Elliott, Higgins, & Veblen, 2008). In light of this, Bartleet and her colleague Huib Schippers worked
on a major national project in Australia that did not seek a new de nition of community music, but rather a
framework that maps out the key ‘ingredients’ of successful practices across demographic, geographic,
cultural, and contextual variations. This Sound Links framework was designed to enable better
understanding, planning, execution, and evaluation of community music activities (Schippers & Bartleet,
2013; Bartleet et al, 2009 and see Chapter 2). Many leaders in the eld have also suggested that rather than
asking what community music is, we should be asking what community music does.

The many ways in which the authors featured in this handbook have conceptualized community music is a
further illustration of this multiplicity. As the eld becomes more and more internationalized, and di erent
cultural contexts enter the mix, these conceptualizations of community music are both deepening, and
diversifying. Much like the contextual illustrations we gave in the opening to this chapter, the following
examples make this point:

Huib Schippers conceptualises community music in terms of organic practices, interventionist practices,
and institutionalised practices, and explores the relationship between community and the sustainability
of music practices through the concept of ‘musical ecosystems’.

Te Oti Rakena conceptualises community music in terms of Indigenous Māori ‘Whanaungatanga’, a

philosophy that underpins the function and operation of Paci c Island communities that includes a
 spiritual dimension, a knowledge of Paci c cosmology, and acknowledges the responsibilities and duties
of reciprocity that are expressed within these type of collective relationships.

Janice Waldron conceptualizes community music in terms of online and convergent community music
activities, and draws on theories of interactive participation from new media activism to examine how
community music can grow and reach disenfranchised, disabled, or geographically isolated community
music participants, amongst others.

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

There are only three of the many examples found in this handbook. As editors, we could attempt to distil all
of these conceptualizations and provide a concise de nition right here. However, in recent years we have
closely observed the rami cations of what can unfurl when this is done. In Higgins’ highly cited book
Community Music: In Theory and in Practice (2012), he was asked to provide a clear and concise de nition of
community music. As our OUP representative quite fairly stated: How can a senior music editor advocate for
a text if they themselves cannot be sure what it is? In short, it was the inclusion of a de nition that
described community music as (1) an intervention; (2) music of the community; and (3) communal music-
p. 15 making, that ‘allowed’ the book to be published. This de nition gave readers something to hold onto,
something to get behind, and, in some cases, something to resist. Either way, it seemed to bring a degree of
focus to the rather woolly and often frustrating international discussions of what community music is. Since
this publication, what we’ve noticed is not only a proli c citing of Higgins’s de nition, but an almost an
uncritical acceptance of the constructs Higgins proposed.

That said, this de nition did provide a strong starting point for this publication and was a key concept
outlined in our initial proposal to OUP. Initially, it was our guiding principle, the mechanism through which
we would nd our focus and our contributors. However, over the four years it has taken to bring this large
handbook together, we have been asking ourselves deeply critical questions about this de nition and the
impact it has had on the eld. As we described in the aforementioned section on emerging questions and
considerations, we have questioned whether the prevailing notion of community music as an active
intervention still accurately re ects the contemporary manifestations of the eld. We have asked ourselves
whether there is a better term to use, and, if so, what it would be. Moreover, we have pointedly asked
ourselves whether it is time for a (re)de nition of the eld.

In our current thinking, the term intervention does potentially still encapsulate a number of community
music practices across the world and is re ective of the intention to ‘interrupt’ particular situations, such as
social and political disadvantage, and bring about social change. That said, we believe it is worth
(re)de ning what this notion of an intervention does, what the intentions behind it are, and to critically
examine where the power, agency, and self-determination resides. Contrary to some de nitions of
interventions that involve a ‘coming between’, we are advocating for a far more reciprocal approach. The
theoretical character of community music as an act of hospitality was never intended as a one-way street.
The relationship between music facilitator and participant has always customarily been structured through
an ethical experience where the rst move is always through the participants’ call to attend a music-making
event. This cyclical structure of call and welcome, decision and responsibility, o ers a far more complex and
nuanced (re)de ning of the term that allows for considerations of power, control, and privilege to be
critiqued and unpacked within the musical exchange. As such, the notion of intervention is a loaded one,
and our hope is that by generating this discussion here, our handbook might provide an opportunity to
recalibrate the language and understanding of what community music does, what it can be, and what it is.

Although in this chapter we have primarily discussed community music approaches with some kind of
intervention at their core, there is a growing body of community music-making practices that might fall
outside this interventionist approach, whether these be described as communal music-making or music of a
community. In many places around the world, such as Australia and the United States, these types of music-
making signi cantly predate interventionist approaches, and they are most commonly classi ed under the
 broad umbrella of community music. Our sense is that there are equally important insights for community
p. 16 music practice in the years to come that are occurring in these communal and participatory music-
making settings across a range of di erent cultural contexts, outside the facilitated workshop methods
commonly associated with the interventionist approach. As Bartleet has argued, the interplay between these
di erent constructs is an emerging and, as yet, untapped area of consideration for the eld (see Bartleet,
2016). The borders Higgins created in his de nition were never meant to be rigid and xed. Our sense is that
moving beyond the xity of these constructs will also enable community music facilitators to consider how

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

community music practices might move in and through these constructs over time. By critiquing these
constructs in such a way, we believe a (re)de ning of the eld will continue to emerge in the years to come.
For these reasons we have decided to leave the de nitional discussion open, and not trap the eld down in
constructs and words that become xed and uncritically used and simpli ed over time. Instead, we
encourage you as the reader to deeply engage with the chapters in the handbook and the plethora of insights
and ideas they o er on the theme of community music, and then to critically examine, re ect, and
(re)de ne how these relate to your own community music practices. To encourage this deep engagement
and re ection at the end of each chapter, the authors have also listed a series of re ective questions to guide
further discussion and consideration. The structure of this handbook has also been designed to inspire
(re)de nitions of (1) the contexts for community music in the twenty- rst century; (2) how community
music is transforming the lives of individuals, communities, and society more broadly; (3) the politics and
policies in uencing community music and how community music is in turn in uencing politics and
policies; (4) the expanding intersections between community music as other forms of music-making, as
well as other elds of endeavour within and beyond the creative arts; and lastly, (5) how community music
is continuing to change the nature of music education, and how to best provide community music education
and training in this ever-expanding international eld. We hope that the wealth of insights and practices in
the following pages will inspire and serve as a sounding board for the eld for many years to come.

Acknowledgements

We extend our warmest thanks to our community of community music colleagues across the globe for the
many discussions and debates over the years that have helped inform this introductory chapter. In
particular, we also thank our ‘critical friends’ Kathryn Deane, Huib Schippers, and Catherine Grant for
looking over earlier drafts of this chapter, and our OUP reviewers for their insightful feedback.

Notes
1. [Link]

2. [Link]

3. [Link]

p. 17 4. [Link]

5. [Link]

6. For example, UMass Lowell, New York University, and the University of Washington. There are also a number of places that
run community music schools, such as the University of Delaware, De Paul, and Southeastern Louisiana University.

7. [Link]

8. [Link]
9. [Link]

10. [Link]

11. [Link] [Link]/music/queensland-conservatorium-research-centre

12. [Link]

13. [Link]

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

14. See IJCM webpage: [Link]
 References

Abeles, H. F., & Custodero, L. A., eds. (2010). Critical Issues in Music Education. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Abril, C. R. (2014). Invoking an innovative spirit in music teacher education. In M. Kaschub & J. Smith (Eds.), Promising Practices in
21st Century Music Teacher Education (pp. 175–188). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Ashley, L., & Lines, D., eds. (2016). Intersecting Cultures in Music and Dance Education: An Oceanic Perspective (Vol. 19). New York:
Springer.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Balfour, M., Bartleet, B. L., Davey, L., Rynne, J., & Schippers, H., eds. (in press). Performing Arts in Prisons. Bristol: Intellect.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Barclay, L. (2013). Sonic ecologies: Exploring the agency of soundscapes in ecological crisis. Soundscape, The Journal of Acoustic
Ecology, 12(1), 29–32.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Bartleet, B. L. (2016). Can music change the world. Public Lecture. Brisbane: Gri ith University. [Link]
v=WNH-1W2V_wc
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bartleet, B. L. (2017). Die wachsende Interkulturalisierung und Internationalisierung von Community Music Einblicke aus dem
asiatisch-pazifischen Raum [Translation: The growing interculturalisation and internationalization of community music: Insights
from the Asia Pacific Region]. In A. Ban y (Ed.), Community Music: In Theorie und Praxis (pp. 63–72). Münster, Germany:
Waxmann.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bartleet, B. L., Cain, M., Tolmie, D., Power, A., & Shiobara, M. (in press). Community Music in Oceania: Many Voices, One Horizon.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bartleet, B.-L., Dunbar-Hall, P., Letts, R., & Schippers, H. (2009). Sound Links: Community Music in Australia. South Brisbane:
Queensland Conservatorium Gri ith University.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Ben, A. G. (2016). In dialogue: Response to Alexandra Kertz-Welzel, ʻDaring to question: A philosophical critique of community
musicʼ. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 24(2), 220–224.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Berberick, D. M. (2014). Music opportunities in school outside the traditional large ensembles in Minnesota: A multiple case
study. (PhD dissertation), University of Minnesota. Retrieved from [Link]
WorldCat

Belfiore, E. (2002). Art as a means of alleviating social exclusion: Does it really work? A critique of instrumental cultural policies
and social impact studies in the UK. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 8(1), 91–106.
Google Scholar WorldCat

p. 18 Belfiore, E., & Bennett, O. (2008). The Social Impact of the Arts: An Intellectual History. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Boeskov, K., & Brøske, B. A., eds. (2017). International Journal of Community: Community Music in the Nordic Countries, 10(3).
Special issue.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Bowman, W. (2009). The community in music. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2&3), 109–128.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Brown, T., Higham, B., & Rimmer, M. (2014). Whatever happened to community music? AHRC Research Network Project Report.
Working Paper. Retrieved from
[Link]
_.pdf
WorldCat

Cohen, M. L. (2012). Harmony within the walls: Perceptions of worthiness and competence in a community prison choir.
International Journal of Music Education, 30(1), 46–56.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the value of arts and culture. The AHRC Cultural Value Project. Retrieved from
[Link]
WorldCat

De Ban y-Hall, A. (2016). Developing community music in Germany: The journey to this journal issue. International Journal of
Community Music, 9(1), 99–114.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Deane, K., Hunter, R., & Mullen, P. (2011). Move on up: An evaluation of youth music mentors. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/glosmm/reports/[Link]
WorldCat

Deane, K., Holford, A., & Mullen, P. (2015). The power of equality 2: Final evaluation of youth musicʼs musical inclusion programme
2012–2015. Retrieved from [Link]
musics-musical-inclusion-programme-2012-20
WorldCat

Dillon, S., Bartleet, B. L., & Leong, S., eds. (2012). International Journal of Community Music. Special Issue: Music in the Asia Pacific
Region, 5(1). [Link]
WorldCat

Doeser, J. (2014). Step by step: Arts policy and young people 1944–2014. Retrieved from
[Link]
WorldCat

Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Elliott, D. J., ed. (2005). Praxial Music Education: Reflections and Dialogues. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Elliott, D., Higgins, L., & Veblen, K. (2008). Editorial. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 3–4.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: E ective use of theories of change and logic models (Vol. 31). New
York: Wiley.
 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Gibson, L. (2008). In defence of instrumentality. Cultural Trends, 17(4), 247–257.

Google Scholar WorldCat

Grant, E. (2003). The community music debate. The Journal of Music. Retrieved from
[Link]
WorldCat

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Graves, J. B. (2005). Cultural Democracy: The Arts, Community, and the Public Purpose. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Gruhn, W. (2005). Understanding musical understanding. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music education: Reflections and dialogues (pp.
98–111). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Henley, J., Caulfield, L. S., Wilson, D., & Wilkinson, D. J. (2012). Good Vibrations: positive change through social music-making.
Music Education Research, 14(4), 499–520.
Google Scholar WorldCat

p. 19 Higgins, L. (2007). Acts of hospitality: The community in community music. Music Education Research, 9(2), 281–292.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Higgins, L. (2008). Growth, pathways, and groundwork: Community music in the United Kingdom. International Journal of
Community Music, 1(1), 23–37.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Higgins, L. (2012). Community Music: In Theory and in Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Higgins, L., & Campbell, P. S. (2010). Free to Be Musical: Group Improvisation in Music. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Higgins, L., & Willingham, L. (2017). Community Music Engagement. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Hill, B., & De Ban y-Hall, A., eds. (in press). Community Music: In Theorie und Praxis. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Hogan, C. (2002). Understanding Facilitation: Theory and Principles. London: Kogan Page.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Howell, G., Higgins, L., & Bartleet, B.-L. (2016). Community music practice: Intervention through facilitation. In R. Mantie &
G. D. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music and Leisure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Johansen, G. (2014). Sociology, music education, and social change: The prospect of addressing their relations by attending to
some central, expanded concepts. Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education, 13(1), 70–100.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Jones, P. (2009). Lifewide as well as lifelong: Broadening primary and secondary school music educationʼs service to studentsʼ
musical needs. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2/3), 201–214.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Jorgensen, E. R. (2003). Transforming Music Education. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Kaschub, M., & Smith, J., eds. (2014). Promising Practices in 21st Century Music Teacher Education. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Mantie, R. (2013a). A comparison of ʻpopular music pedagogyʼ discourses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 334–352.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Mantie, R. (2013b). Structure and agency in university-level recreational music making. Music Education Research, 15(1), 39–58.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Matarasso, F. (2000). Weighing poetry: Exploring funding criteria for assessing artistic quality. The Arts Council of Ireland.
Retrieved from [Link]
criteria-for-assessing-artistic-quality/
WorldCat

Matarasso, F. (2013). Creative progression: Reflections on quality in participatory arts. UNESCO Observatory Multi-Disciplinary
Journal in the Arts, 3(3), 1–15.
Google Scholar WorldCat

McPherson, G., & Welch, G. F., eds. (2012a). The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

McPherson, G., & Welch, G. F., eds. (2012b). The Oxford Handbook of Music Education (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Rogers, A. (2004). Non-Formal Education: Flexible Schooling or Participatory Education? Comparative Education Research Centre,
University of Hong Kong.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Ruud, E. (2004). Reclaiming music. In M. Pavlicevic & G. Ansdell (Eds.), Community Music Therapy (pp. 11–14). London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Sacks, O. W. (2011). Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain (Rev. and expanded edn.). London: Picador.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Sarath, E., Myers, D. E., & Campbell, P. S. (2017). Redefining Music Studies in an Age of Change: Creativity, Diversity, and
Integration. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

p. 20 Schippers, H., & Bartleet, B. L. (2013). The nine domains of community music: Exploring the crossroads of formal and informal
music education. International Journal of Music Education, 31(4), 454–471.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Schippers, H., & Grant, C., eds. (2016). Sustainable Futures for Music Cultures: An Ecological Perspective. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Schön, D. A. (1984). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Vol. 5126). New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Stephen, W. (2015). Think Global, Act Local: Life and Legacy of Patrick Geddes (2nd edn.). Edinburgh: Luath Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC
Stige, B. (2014). Community music therapy and the process of learning about and struggling for openness. International Journal
of Community Music, 7(1), 47–55.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Tomlinson, G. (2015). A Million Years of Music: The Emergence of Human Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Turino, T. (2008). Music as Social Life: The Politics of Participation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Downloaded from [Link] by Universitaetsbibliothek Hildesheim user on 14 April 2024

Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Veblen, K. (2008). The many ways of community music. International Journal of Community Music, 1(1), 5–21.
Google Scholar WorldCat

Veblen, K. (2013). The tapestry: Introducing community music. In K. Veblen, S. J. Messenger, M. Silverman, & D. J. Elliott (Eds.),
Community Music Today (pp. 1–9). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Veblen, K., Messenger, S. J., Silverman, M., & Elliott, D. J., eds. (2013). Community Music Today. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC