Here are some pdf’s of Christmas songs I have arranged for 3-5 year old children.
I have written quite a lot about composition recently, simply because there is so much emphasis on this with the wide educational focus on creativity. I would have loved to have been at yesterday’s Michaela education debates but had to just follow the debates on Twitter. Thankfully the whole building were tweeting like mad, it was hard to keep up! The one I found the most interesting was Guy Claxton vs Daisy Christodoulou on “Sir Ken is right: Traditional Education kills Creativity”. I have been reading “Seven Myths” by Daisy and “Educating Ruby” by Guy so I know where the two are coming from in their individual analysis. Sir Ken of course is Sir Ken Robinson who is famous for his TED talk on schools and creativity (incidentally the most widely seen TED talk on Youtube).
Basically both authors are saying the same thing – we all want children to have creativity, it’s the means to get to this hallowed grail that they argue over. Claxton is saying we can teach creativity directly whereas Christodoulou says that it is through the teaching of knowledge that we become creative. One of her most poignant remarks was that Shakespeare’s very traditional education did not result in uncreative plays but quite the reverse, it was because of his education that he was able to be a creative genius. Anyone who looks at Shakespeare’s plays can see that it would be impossible to write what he does without a traditional education. You can throw out all the historical plays for a start. Claxton’s argument rests on the idea that you can teach transferable generic skills, something that Daisy rejects. Having read both books, I do think that the research favours Daisy, there just is not enough convincing evidence to suggest that generic skills can be transferred between domains. In fact there is a lot of evidence to suggest the reverse.
So how does this relate to music composition in schools? We have to think of what we do in schools and how it relates to creativity. The first thing to understand is that composition at GCSE and A-Level is very different to composition pre-GCSE. The main model at GCSE/A-Level is to compose using a computer either using Logic/Cubase or Sibelius/Finale, finally submitting compositions as a score or as a recording. Sometimes the audio will be people playing instruments but more common will be students submitting work that is played by midi instruments. I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever – it makes complete sense. The only thing I would suggest is that we ensure that children have adequate computer skills before starting the course. If the first time children encounter Sibelius or Logic is in Y10 or worse still 12 then they are going to be on a very difficult learning curve. Anyway, this in my opinion is a good way to produce composition work and I have no complaints. It is done quite regularly in the music industry and will prepare students for work at University if they choose to go or to have experience creatively making something if they choose to do something else. I am very in favour of composition post 14, in fact older children should be spending close to 2/3rds of their time creating music as it is a higher level skill and one that they should be able to accomplish towards the end of their school life.
But in Early Years, Key Stages 1, 2 and 3 the model is completely different. There are some schools that are doing more computer based composition work in KS3 and this is probably a good thing, especially if they can get the core skills of sequencing and scoring correct. But most schools have a system where young people get into small groups with tuned and untuned percussion instruments and collaboratively create music. It is this system where the problems lie. For a start, composition is mostly collaborative at KS 1, 2 and 3 and mostly individualised at KS 4 and 5. Why? The main reason I think is because the children do not know enough about playing an instrument or how to create music using a computer. Also, collaboration is seen as a good thing for pupils to experience. But like I have said before, all this results in is bad group work. How can children create music, often with sound all around them when there are so many factors against them? Anyone who thinks you will get quality work out of a small group of mixed ability adolescents playing instruments has probably never worked with teenagers or is lying to themselves. Also, how on earth can you assess this work? What if person A in the group has done nothing and person B has done all of it? There are ways around this, you can ask the pupils to write down who did what percentage of the work but this seems to be a recipe for social disaster in a class situation. I am not denying there is good group work going on in schools, but I am saying that it is incredibly difficult to get right. And I really don’t want to equate creativity with something that is poor quality. That defeats the object of creative work. Creativity is not supposed to be a process where you have to reject your ideas because other people are more vocal about their own. Creativity is not about bossing everyone else to play what you want them to play. Creativity is about the spark of ideas. Done right I am sure it will be amazing. But the situation in schools is not good. Children leave their musical education aged 14 with generally poor instrumental skills, next to no musical literacy and a poor attitude to classroom music. This then filters through to the next generation and the next. I am not blaming music teachers for this. We have all experienced lessons where compositional group work goes wrong, it is really hard to get right.
If we are to stop this, let’s just play music. They have band in the States and Canada which seems to work well and has worked well for years. There are some great Orff programs that use traditional instruments well in the classroom. Some of this has composition in the program but the main difference is they are much more structured than composition programs in the UK for Primary and Lower Secondary Music classes. If I were to make some changes to music teacher education I would make all music teachers do Orff Level 1 for a start – it should be compulsory for all trainees. And I would encourage teachers to teach sequencing and scoring at KS3.
I always do composition work in classes for all ages – it is important to give all children the opportunity to create their own music, however badly or well it goes, but I think we need to get away from an expectation that composition happens every lesson or even every month. We should not be putting pressure on teachers to be teaching composition when they are doing great work teaching the children to perform well. I don’t really care what music work we do in schools as long as it is high quality and we prepare children for their higher classes to give them as many options as possible. But in general, an emphasis on performing and aural work in the younger years as well as good musical literacy skills will be the best preparation for children if they want to take music further.
Here is a song I have written to help children to understand good choices. The children really liked singing this one and it was very successful.
Here is a version of Little Donkey I have arranged for piano and voices.
Super Simple Songs are excellent for Early Years. They are very popular and very well made. Just the right level of difficulty too. “Twinkle, Twinkle” has close to half a billion view and is the 70th most viewed video on YouTube. Most pop singers would give anything for that sort of popularity. However, “The Wheels on the Bus” compilation by LittleBabyBum is currently in the lead in the PreSchool world with close to a billion views and in 12th place, just behind “Counting Stars” by OneRepublic.
When I was a student the first thing our music teacher asked us to do for Y10 GCSE Music was Grade V Theory. This was for many reasons but the main one is you cannot progress past Grade 6 on an instrument with the ABRSM unless you have passed your Grade 5 Theory and it was a good excuse to get everyone up to a basic theoretical standard. It was pretty dull to be honest and very much an academic exercise. The musical outcomes appeared to be next to non existent. We grumbled about it as a class and couldn’t see the point apart from to satisfy the crazy requirements of the ABRSM. But reflecting years later it was probably the most important thing we did. The course was easy as a result. We all got A’s and B’s and half of us went on to study Music for A-Level.
In another change I binned the tuba because I could not find any decent videos of a solitary tuba. Yep not even “Tubby the Tuba”.
So I have gone with the djembe as the Year 1’s are also studying Africa and it fitted in nicely.
This is my contribution for Starter for Five
My last post was a bit negative about teaching composition in schools so this is going to be a bit more constructive. Like I said, composition is a higher level skill and mucking about with instruments without having to think carefully and make choices simply is not composition. Yes, composition can be completed in groups but when starting out, group compositions are actually more difficult to administer than individual ones simply due to group dynamics and the necessity to make choices that everyone can agree with. It is easier to agree to your own choice than other peoples.
The key to good composition is listening, aural skills, the ability to know what you are going to do before you play it and more than anything the ability to limit your choices and understand how to develop a compositional feature. This all must take place with knowledge of who is playing your music and where it is to be played. Computers can take away some of these constraints but actually that is one of the reasons why students flounder when it comes to composing using computers – there are too many possibilities and it is not a lack of material that young people suffer from when composing. It is too much – they do not know how to develop their material.
The following is how I would teach a first composition lesson. The first principle is that composing is about taking an idea and making choices. Here is a very simple composition by LaMonte Young:
There is an idea and an instruction. But the music is not developed. LaMonte Young would probably disagree and say “a long time” is the development. There is a title and a signature and it is dated so that we can identify who played what at what time. Interestingly there is no indication what instrument is specified to play it, or whether it should be sung. Obviously it needs to be said that only instruments or voices that are capable of producing the sound can qualify for this to be played. I would ask students to make their own tiny composition as an initial task for 5 minutes. It can only last one bar. It has to have a musical idea, a title, a date and a signature. It has to be played by the person next to you. It does not have to use a musical stave but you might as well get used to using one as it will make the course a lot easier for you. You can’t copy anybody else’s work living or dead that you know about. The reason for this task is two-fold. Firstly, I would want all composition work returned to me to follow those basic non-negotiables right from the very start. Secondly, there are many students who think they cannot compose – there is a stigma and this is a simple task that anyone who has some sort of interest in music will be able to complete. Also, within these simple constraints you will see quite a lot of creativity going on.
My next step would be to take the musical idea that they have thought of and change it in some way. Only a small way. Repetition is certainly allowed but there has to be some sort of development of the material. Again this has to be signed and dated just as every piece will have to be. Finally I would say that the next step is to think of some sort of ending. A musical idea stated, developed and ended is a microcosm of any piece of music. That is the basic premise of composition. I would then probably finish off by playing Beethoven’s Fifth and show how he takes a very simple idea we all know “da da da daaaaa” and develops it. Homework – a piece of music signed and dated which presents an idea, develops it and ends it. Any length is OK but if anyone hands in nothing I am sorry that is unoriginal as it has already been handed in by John Cage a while ago.
Is the following an act of composition?
There is certainly a difference between following instructions and creating something. But is all creation composition? And can a composition be uncreative?
In music, composition is normally termed to be “making up music” but would a child who just repeatedly hits a drum be composing? Is an elephant composing when it hits his trunk on a piano or a cat walks all over the keys? If I gave a child a piece of paper saying “hit the cowbell ten times” that would be termed as a performance as they are following instructions. However, if a child said “I am going to play the cowbell ten times” and then plays it, that would be an act of composition. If I said to a child “you need to make a composition on the cowbell. Decide how many times you are going to play it and then play it”, this too would be an act of composition as it requires thought and the requirement to make a choice or choices. This suggests that composition can only be composition if there is prior thought put into the activity by the individual(s) and there is an element of choice. But then would improvisation be composition? Improvisation is making up music as you go along, so isn’t this just performance? However, a good improviser is someone who creates music on the spot but who has put a lot of prior thought into it beforehand, often over many years. As any good jazz improviser will tell you, you need to know your scales in every key to improvise well.
From this line of thinking, it seems that composition is “music that is made up with prior thought where choices need to be made”. It therefore stands to reason that people with more knowledge of music should be better at composition as they know more and people with more experience of playing an instrument should also be better. However, this is not the case as there are many elite musicologists and performers who say, often with sadness, that they are “useless at composition” or simply “can’t compose”. This is probably because what they think of as composition is a lot more complicated. Given eight bars starting on C and ending on C they could probably make up something in the middle but they are also equating the activity of composition within the constraints of harmony – usually Western tonal harmony. So when does composition require knowledge of harmony? Does it need to? And why if it doesn’t do so many musicians think that it should?
If knowledge of tonal harmony is considered important in the act of composition, is a note row a composition? A note row is a technique often attributed to Arnold Schoenberg in the early twentieth century where each tone has equal importance negating the whole need for tonal harmony. This basically is the equivalent of painting by numbers if you substitute colour for pitch. Some knowledge of rhythm of course is important unless your note row is simply a series of different notes of uniform or undefined duration. Also, a mathematician could probably create an excellent tone row – is it a musical composition if anyone could do it? If a computer generates it, is it a composition? Boulez composed his “Structure 1a” as a serialized piece, mathematically serializing each musical element. This could be programmed as a mathematical algorithm. We could even program in randomization into the algorithm. Does this mean you don’t have to be human or even alive to be a composer?
Also, what is the difference between composition and plagiarism? Did Mahler compose his 1st Symphony or did he just take “Frere Jacques”, turn it into a minor key and orchestrate it? If you took any existing major tune and flatten the 3rd would this be a new composition? Where is the gap between creation and plagiarism? This goes way back to the beginning of what we know from music history – some of the first written-down compositions that we can find plagiarized or incorporated a cantus firmus melody originally chanted by monks.
It is for these reasons that we can make sense of the changes in attainment targets for the National Curriculum for Music in England and Wales. To start with there were three – performance, composition and listening. These were along the lines promoted by Keith Swanwick when the original curriculum was devised although he talks about “audition” rather than “listening”. This is why so many music lessons divided each lesson into three so each attainment target was met. Many music teachers in the 1990’s would spend 30% of their lesson listening to music, 30% performing and 30% composing and leave 10% for tidying up. This was almost impossible considering time restraints in a music lesson and led to singing being marginalized as that was something that could be covered in whole school assemblies. This was one of the reasons why the National Curriculum was changed to two attainment targets – “performing and composing” and “listening and appraising”. This makes sense because, as we have seen, performance and composition are interlinked in many ways and it is a greyer area than many people think. Finally music ended up with one attainment target “music” and this is the one that is currently used. The general idea is that performing, composing and listening happen in lessons but are not split up into their components.
The fundamental problem is that it assumes that performance, composition and listening are all the same level of difficulty. They are not. Another is an assumption made that these elements should all be delivered together every lesson. This is a mistake. To understand this we need to think about Bloom’s taxonomy and its ranking system. Bloom’s is not gospel and there are many things in the model that we can disagree with. However, as a general principle it is fair to say that “creating” is a more complex intellectual skill than “remembering”. Some educators say that in a good lesson we should start each lesson at the bottom of the pyramid and end with the top. In music’s case, that would mean we should start with listening, go to performing and then end with composition. Unfortunately, this is a complete misunderstanding of the taxonomy. The whole point is that each level builds on the foundations of the levels before. So to get good creative work, what we should be doing is building very strong prior foundations. This takes time and requires a solid knowledge base. In music lessons, this would suggest that we should be focused more with listening, aural and performance skills in the younger years and creation should be the priority in the senior years. I am not advocating that there should be no composition in the youngest years, but there should be less of it than later on when children have more musical experience. This stands to reason – a good chef has good knowledge of recipes but understands that a certain ingredient will make something new and delicious. Without that knowledge it is a matter of trial and error to discover a new recipe. Sometimes by luck this could happen but most of the time it would be a culinary disaster. The same goes for music – if we build the creation of music on the firm foundations of aural, listening and performing work with a good theoretical knowledge then we have more chance of it being successful.
What I believe should be happening in music education is a gradual transition. The youngest children should be doing a predominately aural and performance based curriculum whereas the oldest should be predominately creating music. However, this is not the case as many children struggle with composition, not because they haven’t been doing it, but because they are building on sand as not enough listening, aural, performance and theoretical skills have been emphasized when they were younger. This is not because teachers have concentrated on composition but because composition takes so much time to set up – getting the instruments ready, allocating groups, setting parameters before any composition work has actually begun. And composition requires thought and there is so little time to actually think in a fifty minute class where you have to produce some sort of quality end product. Finally, all lessons are zero-sum games as they are based in time – if you work on composition, something else has to give and normally that will be to the detriment of aural and performing work.
Sadly, many children come out of their musical education at the age of fourteen and can barely play an instrument, have little to no musical literacy skills, know next to nothing about musical history and when asked say “we just played the keyboards” or “messed around in groups”. This is not because music teachers are terrible, it is because the curriculum has been inadequately organized and composition overtly or unconsciously emphasized. There is also a lack of joined-up thinking as secondary colleagues can sometimes know nothing about the musical accomplishments of the children they are inheriting. I have worked in schools where the secondary music teacher says “we start from scratch as they haven’t learned anything in primary”. There is also a lack of awareness of educational psychology and how children learn, especially when concerned with cognitive load theory and its implications.
Fourteen should be the age when the majority of composition starts. By this age, all children should have good aural skills, can sing in tune with a repertoire of hundreds of songs, can play at least a dozen pieces of music to a good standard on an instrument, can understand standard Western notation and basic harmony and have some insight into some of the best music that has been composed and played around the world. And then with good instruction, as composition still needs to be taught well, children will have a better chance of creating music they can be proud of.