[This research was presented at the 2024 APME Graduate Student Conference]
The skies are thick with clouds and a chilly wind blows. I shiver as I walk towards the school. It’s an early Saturday morning and I’m here for a day-long session of “Modern Band 101.” As I enter the side door, I am greeted warmly by Jimi, his light brown shoulder length hair pulled up in a bun. He welcomes me in, smiling in that genuine way that makes his eyes crinkle up at the corners.
I’m happy to see someone I recognize; one of my mentors, Ella. She’s sitting in the front row holding a guitar and greets me with a smile and a wave. She’s wearing a zip-up hoodie of a popular band that played in the area last week. I sit next to her, taking out my own guitar. “Do you know what to expect?” I ask.
She shakes her head, “No, but the teachers I talked to said it’s fantastic.”
Fast forward eight years. I’m sitting in Ella’s classroom, notepad on my lap, pen in hand. She’s commenting on how she approached bringing modern band to her elementary general music classroom after the 101 workshop.
“…Especially when I started, it was kind of overwhelming to go from 101 to… ‘Oh snapadoodle, how do I do this?’”
This statement resonated with me. I remember being elated once leaving the workshop, then crestfallen when I realized that the pace and material of the session was not going to work in my K-8 classes. It took years of “noodling” to figure out how modern band fit into my classroom; something I was still tweaking the last year before I started my doctoral program.
I conducted this collective case study to illuminate the experiences of teachers who choose to implement modern band concepts into their classrooms. While the term modern band is used now to describe various types of classes and pedagogy, I refer to the definition given by founder and chief visionary officer of the non-profit Music Will,
“I coined the term ‘modern band’ in 2012 as a means of disrupting the hegemonic structure of music education in our state schools. Modern band is a new category of instrumental, vocal, technological, and performative music education that is taking its place alongside existing programmes such as jazz band, marching band and orchestra.” (Wish, 2020)
To me, modern band is not a curriculum or a method, but a philosophy that can be catered to each unique classroom to engage students in music making that honors their individual identities. I saw many glimpses of this as I interviewed both Jimi and Ella and observed in their classrooms. From coding their responses and what I observed, I likened the experience of modern band implementation to “backwards recipe design.” Teachers experience the initial taste from the 101 workshop, and go through a process of experimentation, testing with students, reflecting, and responding as they explore how modern band best fits into their programs. From this model, I discussed three preliminary themes.
Theme 1: Stay true to the authenticity of popular music pedagogy Something crucial to Jimi and Ella’s successful implementation was staying true to the authenticity of popular music education. Lucy Green in her work on informal learning theory shows that an emphasis on listening, “noodling,” and modeling are central in popular music learning circles (2008). A key component of this is allowing the teacher to explore their musician identity through experiencing music making before teaching. This notion is supported by research by Chen-Hafteck and Heuser (2017), who found similar sentiments from other educators. From there, teachers can employ a type of backwards curriculum design in creating the experience for students, something that Isbell references as a part of popular music pedagogy (2022).
Theme 2: The continuous need for reflection and introspection Besides reflection on the 101 workshop, Ella and Jimi found that they made decisions based on their own musical experiences. They both described their formal musical training as “rigid” and “classical,” with little room for creativity. In contrast, they both had rich musical experiences where they were able to explore the musical process on their own. This led them to prioritize exploration time, improvisation, and creativity in their classrooms. This time to “noodle” or “musick” (Small, 1998) is an important element of enculturation, where one is immersed in the music making experience (Green, 2008). The use of iconic notation and modeling also makes modern band an accessible way to integrate improvisation and composition, supported by Clauhs and Powell in their article about meeting core standards using modern band (2021). Jimi also commented on how modern band can be a way to involve students in music at different points in their education, making it a viable music option for students who may have had gaps in their music instruction timeline.
Theme 3: Keep the focus on the students in front of you I remember my first-year teaching, a colleague told me it would take three years to solidify my curriculum. While there was some truth to that statement, to truly support my students I found I needed to be open to revising my curriculum yearly. Both Jimi and Ella agreed that modern band implementation is a constant process driven by student voice and engagement. This notion is supported in research by Gurgel (2019) and Green (2006) in how honoring student preference, identity, and voice encourages student engagement and creates positive associations with school music.
Conclusion: Implementing modern band can be an overwhelming, retrospective, and tedious process, but the rewards are immense. Jimi, Ella, and my stories are a testament to the power of modern band and how impactful careful implementation can be for students. I hope this study can help inform teachers and lead to further research to better equip educators in bringing modern band to their classrooms and students.
Christy Go is a doctoral student in Music Education at the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to her graduate studies, she taught K-8 general music, modern band, and orchestra in a diverse district in Colorado and has taught abroad in the United Kingdom and Japan. Her research interests include equity in music education and culturally sustaining pedagogy, particularly in the music of East Asia and global Asian diasporas.
References:
Chen-Hafteck, L., & Heuser, F. (2017). Learning and teaching popular music: discovery of the diversity in music learning processes. In C. X. Rodriguez (Ed.), Coming of age: Teaching and learning popular music in academia. http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9470277
Clauhs, M., & Powell, B. (2021). Teaching the core arts standards in modern band. Music Educators Journal, 108(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321211037999
Green, L. (2006). Popular music education in and for itself, and for ‘other’ music: Current research in the classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406065471
Green, L. (2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Ashgate Publishing Company.
Gurgel, R. (2019). The Tanglewood Symposium: Popular music pedagogy from 1967 to today. Music Educators Journal, 105(3), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432119831752
Isbell, D. (2022). Curriculum and assessment in popular music education. Journal of Popular Music Education, 6(3), 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00096_1
Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Wesleyan University Press.
Wish, D. (2020). Popular music education and American democracy: Why I coined the term ‘modern band’ and the road ahead. Journal of Popular Music Education, 4(1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00017