This article reports part of the results of a larger study, where the goal was to explore music composer’s representations of music composition. Previously published interviews of 57 established vanguard contemporary music composers (based across continents) were subject to a thematic analysis, validated by an independent analysis of a percentage of those interviews. The analysis revealed two overarching dimensions relating to learning. The first of those dimensions referred to the experience of developing the competency to compose and the second dimension referred to learning as changing through composing. First of those dimensions involves a diversity of aspects (i.e., learning context, learning process, learning product), for which a variety of notions emerged from the interview analysis. Second dimension also comprises a variety of aspects (i.e., insights on other realities, insights on sounds, increased self-awareness). Implications for the teaching and learning of musical composition are drawn.
AnS. A.KulmG. O.MaT. (2008). The effects of a music composition activity on Chinese students’ attitudes and beliefs towards mathematics: An exploratory study. Journal of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 91–108.
2.
BakemanR.GottmanJ. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BakerF. A.MacDonaldR. A. (2013). Flow, identity, achievement, satisfaction and ownership during therapeutic songwriting experiences with university students and retirees. Musicae Scientiae, 17, 131–146. doi:10.1177/1029864913476287
4.
BeamanC. P.WilliamsT. I. (2010). Earworms (‘stuck song syndrome’): Towards a natural history of intrusive thoughts. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 637–653. doi:10.1348/000712609X479636
BurnardP. (2012). The practice of diverse compositional creativities. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 111–138). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
7.
ByrneC.HallidayJ.SheridanM.SodenR.HunterS. (2001). Thinking music matters: Key skills and composition. Music Education Research, 3, 63–75. doi:10.1080/14613800020029964
8.
ChiricoA.SerinoS.CipressoP.GaggioliA.RivaG. (2015). When music ‘flows’. State and trait in musical performance, composition and listening: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 906. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00906
9.
CollinsD. (2012). ‘Getting there’: Do we need to study how people compose music?Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 4, 173–179. doi:10.1386/jmte.4.2–3.173_1
10.
CopeD. (2012). Rules, tactics and strategies for composing music. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 255–280). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
11.
CoplandA. (1939). What to listen for in music. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
12.
CreechA. (2009). The role of the family in supporting learning. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 295–306). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity (pp. 313–338). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
de BruinL. R. (2019). The use of cognitive apprenticeship in the learning and teaching of improvisation: Teacher and student perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 41, 261–279. doi:10.1177/1321103X18773110
16.
DoninN. (2012). Empirical and historical musicologies of compositional processes: Towards a cross-fertilization. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 1–26). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
17.
EntwistleN. (2015). The origins and evolution of the concept of ‘approaches to learning’. Psychology of Education Review, 39, 9–14.
18.
FalthinP. (2014). Synthetic activity: Semiosis, conceptualizations and meaning-making in music composition. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 7, 141–161. doi:10.1386/jmte.7.2.141_1
GauntG.HallamS. (2009). Individuality in the learning of musical skills. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 274–284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
HallamS. (2009). Motivation to learn. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 285–294). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
HetlandL. (2000). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 179–238.
23.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1995). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
24.
KozbeltA. (2012). Process, self-evaluation and lifespan creativity trajectories in eminent composers. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 27–52). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
25.
LoveK. G.BarrettM. S. (2016). A case study of teaching and learning strategies in an orchestral composition masterclass. Psychology of Music, 44, 830–846. doi:10.1177/0305735615594490
26.
LuptonM.BruceC. S. (2010). Craft, process and art: Teaching and learning music composition in higher education. British Journal of Music Education, 27, 271–287.
27.
Mateos-MorenoD. (2011). Is it possible to teach music composition today? A search for the challenges of teaching music composition to student composers in a tertiary context. Music Education Research, 13, 407–429. doi:10.1080/14613808.2011.632082
28.
MacDonaldR.ByrneC.CarltonL. (2006). Creativity and flow in musical composition: An empirical investigation. Psychology of Music, 34, 292–306.
29.
McPhersonG.HallamS. (2009). Musical potential. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 255–264). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PearceM. T.WigginsG. A. (2007). Evaluating cognitive models of musical composition. In CardosoA.WigginsG. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity (pp. 73–80). London, UK: Goldsmiths, University of London.
33.
RoseS.MacDonaldR. (2012). Improvisation as real-time composition. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 187–214). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
34.
RuthmannS. A. (2008). Whose agency matters? Negotiating pedagogical and creative intent during composing experiences. Research Studies in Music Education, 30, 43–58. doi:10.1177/1321103X08089889
35.
SætreJ. H. (2011). Teaching and learning music composition in primary school settings. Music Education Research, 13, 29–50. doi:10.1080/14613808.2011.553276
36.
ToiviainenP.EerolaT. (2005). Where is the beat? Comparison of Finnish and South-African listeners. In KopiezR.LehmannA.WoltherI.WolfC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Triennial ESCOM Conference (pp. 501–504). Hanover: Hanover University of Music and Drama.
37.
TrigwellK. (2012). Relations between teachers’ emotions in teaching and their approaches to teaching in higher education. Instructional Science, 40, 607–621. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9192-3
38.
VygotskyL. (1986). Thought and language (Trans. KozulinA.). Cambridge, UK: The MIT Press.
39.
WelchG.OckelfordA. (2009). The role of the institution and teachers in supporting learning. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 307–319). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
WigginsG. A. (2012). Defining inspiration? Modelling the non-conscious creative process. In CollinsD. (Ed.), The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process (pp. 233–254). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
