n
u
a
.
u
n.
..
u
W
m
.
u
m.
a.
N V
w
a
m

I V

 

 

 

LIBRARY
3m MlClligqn State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY IN A PRAXIAL FRAMEWORK:

A PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY

presented by

HIROMI ITOH, MT- BC

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

M. M. __ degree in Music Therapy

 

 

’l

1/ >/. ~’_) 7 ,
i MMQW

[SM

 

[fl Major Professor' 5 Signature
0% Y r, #900 3

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

.- .—.—.—.-o-o-o-o--a—v—v-u—o-o-u-u-u-o—o—u—n-n-o—._---—o—¢--u-n-o-¢-a-o-._o-n-u-n—o-o-u-.-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K.IProj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/Date0ue indd

AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY IN A PRAXIAL FRAMEWORK:
A PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY

By

Hiromi Itoh, MT-BC

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF MUSIC IN MUSIC THERAPY
School of Music

2003

ABSTRACT

AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY IN A PRAXIAL FRAMEWORK:
A PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY

By

Hiromi Itoh, MT-BC
This philosophical study explored aesthetic discussions regarding the meaning and beauty
of music in music therapy. The author examined and integrated existing studies in
music philosophy and music therapy. Differences in vieWpoint were found between
practitioners of music therapy and theorists of three main branches of aesthetics: the
formalist, the referentialist/ contextualist, and the absolute expressionist. The
differences were notable in the concepts of music, music experiences, its value, and
training. Experimental aesthetics, based on scientific methods, has had influence on the
field of music therapy. In reaction to this empirical tradition, those who valued
subjective experiences began to explore new aesthetic definitions. The concepts of
health and the individual also have been shifting from a reductionist view to a holistic
one. A fourth aesthetics, praxial philosophy, seemed to provide concepts that were
more comprehensive and congruent with music therapy practice. except in the area of
understanding creativity. The author endeavored to synthesize, in a praxial framework,
concepts that have arisen in recent music therapy aesthetic discussions. The framework
consists of four elements: person, music as product, music as process. and context. It

focuses on the therapist‘s value of music and addresses multicultural issues.

Copyright by
Hiromi Itoh, MT-BC

2003

DEDICATION

To all music therapists and those who love music.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to give great thanks to Professor Roger Smeltekop, who is my
thesis adviser and also trained me to become a music therapist during these five and a
half years. I cannot forget his patience and warm support throughout my studies of
music therapy. as well as throughout this thesis project. He always accompanied me
with emotional and intellectual support. I found that this thesis reflects our continuous
dialogue. I would like to also thank Dr. Frederick Tims for opening my eyes for a
philosophical topic. The readings he chose in graduate school were the basis of my
reference list. His insightful and intuitive input through music and words in class were
powerful. I also thank music therapy staff and friends, who encouraged me and studied
together with me. Especially, I was glad to share many interests with Terra Merrill who
gave me interesting ideas regarding aesthetics. I thank the School of Music faculties,
including Dr. John Kratus who served as one of the committee members and gave me
inspiring philosophical suggestions, Dr. Albert LeBlanc and Dr. Cindy Taggart for being
models as researchers. Dr. Midori Koga for teaching me how to perform the piano
creatively, and many other professors who showed me musicianship through their
attitudes.

I would like to also thank my advisers and mentors at International Christian
University in Japan. I was glad to see that their inputs are influential even after nine

years. I want to acknowledge my Japanese and American friends who keep in touch

V

with me regardless of my busy days. My American family, Bonnie and John Bankson
gave me warm supports and helps. Special thanks goes to Dr. Kei Antonio Fujisawa
who gave me piano lessons for two and a half years before I came to the United States.
Without his advise, I would not have chosen music therapy as my career. He changed
my way of life to be ambitious and to dream boldly about the future.

Great thanks goes to Katsushi Okada who is my special friend. If I did not have
his patience, emotional supports, and humor, the process of writing this thesis and even
life in the United States would have been harder. I would like to thank my family,
Hikaru and Yasuko Itoh, my parents, Akemi Itoh, my sister, and Yoshio Sakamoto, my
grandfather who passed away. Due to their financial support, I had a chance to study in
the United States. They also gave me enough space that enabled me to concentrate on

my work. I appreciate their support and encouragement.

vi

PREFACE

While I was working on this thesis, I often thought of my experience of writing
the senior thesis at International Christian University in Japan, where I got my first
undergraduate degree in Religion. Through writing the thesis at that time, I was
reflecting on my experiences in the previous five years, and integrating them into my
twenty-three years of life. During the university days in Japan, I faced many differences
among my family, friends. local community. and the university that had a great impact on
my life. The differences regarded various issues, including indigenous and cultural
backgrounds, religious beliefs, and gender differences. Facing these differences, I
thought extensively about conflicts and cultural difference. Those questions turned out
to be my senior thesis on Christianity and Jews, titled “Who is Israel?: Conflicts between
Christianity and Jews in the First Century.” It was a hermeneutic study focusing on
religious identity embodied through rituals and religious norms. At that time, I did not
know how to solve conflicts; conflicts were just diverging situations that would never
reach a compromise. Then, I stopped thinking about this issue.

Nine years later, studying music therapy in the United States, I found myself
working a philosophical topic again. At first, writing a philosophical study was not a
pleasant idea, because I was trying to avoid philosophical issues after I graduated from
the first university. I worked at a law firm in which I dealt with facts and numbers that

helped me to focus on concrete matters. I liked to make things simple, just being

vii

concerned about win-or-lose situations at the Court. I almost forgot philosophical
language until Dr. Frederick Tims introduced Carolyn Kenny’s book, “The Field of Play”
in a graduate course in 2001. It was a small book. but it was full of inspiring
discussions that I also felt comfortable and familiar with. I then had the courage to say
in class, “I got a language to talk about music therapy!” Then, I started to connect
music therapy to my life at a deeper level.

However, I was not sure I would like to explore that direction, because
philosophy sometimes makes me confused, and it is against my family’s principle of
being practical. In addition. I was not confident with my philosophical knowledge, and
I had never thought about writing philosophy in English. Therefore, it took a while to
set my mind to go in that direction. Once I set my mind for philosophy, choosing
aesthetics, as my topic was not difficult at all. I recalled that my internship supervisor
Connie Gamage helped me identify inner beauty, and I often thought about the idea. I
found it powerful. I wanted to explore beauty in music therapy.

By working on this topic, I found that I had many questions, beliefs, and thoughts
that I was not aware of. I integrated what I learned in these five and a half years and
synthesized them. By doing so, I have discovered that I circled back to the idea of value
conflicts and multicultural issues as shown in chapter five. I found that these are
intriguing and recurring themes that will be answered in different ways throughout my

life.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
What is a Philosophical Study? ...................................................................................... 1
Contexts .................................................................................................................. 1
Procedures ............................................................................................................... 2
Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 3
Philosophy and Practical Experience ...................................................................... 3
Problems ......................................................................................................................... 5
Practical Concerns .................................................................................................. 5
Research Concerns .................................................................................................. 6
Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 7
Method ............................................................................................................................ 8
What is Aesthetics? ......................................................................................................... 8
Types of Aesthetic Studies ..................................................................................... 9
Definition of Aesthetics ........................................................................................ 13
Limitations and Implications ........................................................................................ 14
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 14
Implications .......................................................................................................... 15
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER TWO
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AESTHETICS AND MUSIC
THERAPY .................................................................................................................... 17
Aesthetic Theories ........................................................................................................ 18
The Forrnalist ........................................................................................................ 19
The Referentialist/ Contextualist .......................................................................... 23
The Absolute Expressionist ................................................................................ 25
Underlying Assumptions in Traditional Aesthetics ...................................................... 28
Elliott’s Criticisms ................................................................................................ 29
Music Therapists’ Reactions to the Underlying Assumptions .............................. 31
Music Therapists’ Responses to Aesthetic Theories ............................................ 34
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER THREE
TRADITIONAL AESTHETIC STUDIES IN MUSIC THERAPY ............................. 39
Experimental Aesthetics ............................................................................................... 39

ix

Music Psychology and Experimental Aesthetics .................................................. 39

Experimental Aesthetics and Music Therapy ....................................................... 42
Criticism toward Experimental Aesthetics ................................................................... 44
Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Method ................................................ 45
Qualitative versus Quantitative Aesthetic Studies ................................................ 48
The Concepts of the Individual and Health .................................................................. 50
Gaston’s Concepts of the Individual and Health .................................................. 51
Shifting the Concept of the Individual .................................................................. 53
Shifting the Concept of Health ............................................................................. 55
The Influence of General Systems Theory ........................................................... 58
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER FOUR
TOWARD NEW AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY .......................................... 62
Praxial Philosophy of Music Education ....................................................................... 62
Precursor ............................................................................................................. 62
Praxial Philosophy of Music Education by David Elliott ..................................... 64
Application ............................................................................................................ 66
Limitation .............................................................................................................. 70
New Aesthetics in Music Therapy ................................................................................ 75
Expanding the Meaning of Aesthetics .................................................................. 76
The Meaning of Music .......................................................................................... 82
Music as a Product .............................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER FIVE
AESTHETIC S OF MUSIC THERAPY IN A PRAXIAL FRAMEWORK ................. 87
What is Aesthetics of Music Therapy in a Praxial Framework? .................................. 87
Features ................................................................................................................. 88
Implications .......................................................................................................... 91
The Person: Music Maker and Listener in Context ...................................................... 92
Musical Spaces ..................................................................................................... 92
Three Sources for Musical Meaning ..................................................................... 95
Condition of the Client ......................................................................................... 96
Music as Product in Context ....................................................................................... 100
Application of Elliott’s View .............................................................................. 101
Music as Product in Music Therapy ................................................................... 108
Music as Process in Context ....................................................................................... 109
Music Making and Music Listening in Music Education ................................... 109

Music Making and Music Listening by the Client ............................................. 111

Music Making and Music Listening by the Therapist ........................................ 112
Therapeutic Process and Music Process ............................................................. 1 15
Music Process as Constructing Meanings .......................................................... 116
Context ........................................................................................................................ 122
CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................... 124
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 124
Findings ...................................................................................................................... 126
Practical Issues .................................................................................................... 126
Research Issues ................................................................................................... 126
Further Studies ............................................................................................................ 127
Closing Thoughts ........................................................................................................ 128
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 129

xi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
What is a Philosophical Study?

This study is a philosophical paper dealing with aesthetic issues in music therapy.
Aesthetics is considered to be one of the philosophical inquiries. along with ontology,
epistemology, ethics. and axiology (Aigen, 1995b). Before going into the main
discussion, I would like to clarify what a philosophical study is.

Contexts

Aigen (1995b) states that there are three contexts in which a philosophical study
arises: a) addressing typically philosophical questions, b) evaluating and comparing
theories, theoretical systems, and comprehensive philosophical systems of thought, and c)
creating a philosophy (pp.458-469). All these contexts are found in this paper. This
paper will address aesthetic issues, which are considered to be a typical philosophical
pursuit; it will also evaluate and compare previous philosophies and theories in music
therapy and musicology. and it will organize various theoretical thoughts and
assumptions into a unified framework.

Creating philosophy is involved with stating a set of beliefs or a set of operating
principles in a field of practice. For example, Elliott (1995) points out that the term
philosophy in common phrases, such as “my philosophy of life” or “the philosophy of

time,” refers to “a grounding network of beliefs about this or that” (p.6). People hold

1

such sets of beliefs because they simply find them enlightening and inspiring.
Philosophy also can be a basic set of operating principles or an overarching policy when
it functions as slogans or mottos (Elliott, 1995). Phrases such as “Our philosophy is to
satisfy our customers according to individual needs” may fall into this type of usage.
Philosophy, in this paper. is not merely a personal statement of one’s beliefs, but it aims
to be academic inquiry that involves philosophical procedures.
Procedures
Philosophical procedures include a) clarifying terms, b) exposing and evaluating
underlying assumptions, c) relating ideas to other systems of thought as well as to human
practices and beliefs, and d) using argument as a primary mode of inquiry (Aigen, 1995b,
pp.449-45 8). I would like to especially emphasize the importance of thinking critically,
and approaching underlying assumptions. Bowman (1998) and Elliott (1995) believe
that what differentiates a philosophical study from a personal statement is that the former
involves a systematic and critical examination of the grounds for belief and a logical
analysis (Bowman, 1998; Elliott, 1995). On the other hand. the enemies of
philosophical study are “the habitual. the stereotypical. the unexamined, the acritical, the
‘common sense’ assumption or assertion” (Bowman, 1998, p.5). I believe that
continuous critical thinking enables a philosophical study to be a source of credibility.
A philosophical study approaches underlying assumptions or assertions that do

not appear on the surface. A philosopher asks, “What grounds are there for holding this

2

belief?” (Elliott. 1995. p.7). The major task for a philosopher is to render implicit ideas
to the explicit (Bowman. 1998). This is an essential difference from an empirical
scientific study that only deals with observable and measurable materials.
Outcomes

Knowledge dealt with in a philosophical inquiry is different from that which is
addressed in a scientific study. While a scientific study is based on a particular
discovery. a given experience. or an observation (Aigen, 1995b; Elliott, 1995), a
philosophical study deals with issues that may not be addressed by factual knowledge
alone. The products of philosophical studies are not new facts, but rather they are new
perspectives on assumptions. beliefs. meanings, and definitions (Elliott, 1995).
Philosophy and Practical Experience

In general, a philosophical discussion is regarded to be far from practical
experience due to its abstract nature; however, I believe that philosophical studies are
important to connect theories and experience, and they ultimately will serve as a
foundation for music therapy practice. Kenny (1989) emphasizes that philosophy is
directly connected with experiences in music therapy practice. She regards philosophy
as the foundation for theory. and theory serves the foundation for practice. A
philosophical study should not be independent from music therapy practices and theories.
In other words, we should study philosophy not for the sake of philosophy. but for the

sake of our theory and practice. Kenny (1998) developed this idea. and used a

3

metaphor of a tree in order to explain the relationships among philosophy, theory,

practice, and data in this way:
I like to think in terms of the metaphor of the “Tree of Knowledge” (see
Figure 2). Having an image helps me to understand the relationships
between things. In this tree, philosophy is at the root of knowledge.
Whenever we discover new things. our discoveries are rooted and
influenced by our philosophies. Our philosophies inform our theories,
being the trunk, the maps we create to understand phenomenon. These
maps guide us in our practice. The data that we accumulate as the result
of our research methods is the fruit of our efforts. the manifestation of the
long process which began deep inside the earth. We might even ask,
what influences have nurtured our philosophies and helped them to grow?
Then we can appreciate the connections between philosophy, theory,
method, and data. Ultimately, the data returns to the earth, which in turn.
nourishes the roots of the tree of knowledge for seasons to come. This
last point is very important. We do not operate in isolation. The results
of our studies cause us to reflect deeply on our practice. This shifts and
modifies in some way. our basic philosophical approach. And the cycle
begins again. (pp.213-215)

This image helps us to consider how philosophical discussions enrich our knowledge of

4

theory and practice. Throughout the history of the music therapy profession, we have
gathered extensive data, experienced practices. and developed theories. but we have
rarely discussed the grounds that support our assumptions. I believe that discussing
philosophy would connect our experiences and theories, and make them root firmly in
the ground in order to enrich our profession, and to suggest a right direction that music
therapy practice should explore.
Problems
Practical Concerns
During the early fall of 2003. in the introductory music therapy class, students
were discussing the benefits and drawbacks of choosing music therapy as their career.
A love for music is a strong motivation for students that induces them to embrace music
therapy. Then we discussed. “what are drawbacks in our practice if we love music too
much?” One student answered that if we love music too much, we would be
disappointed in the client’s music and may feel that their music is incomplete and not
beautiful; accordingly, the client may sense that the therapist is not satisfied, and may be
likely to have a sense of failure to measure up to the therapist’s implicit request.
In music therapy practice, music therapists. including myself, sometimes face
puzzling situations in which we cannot make sense out of the client’s music making; such
as banging the piano and the drums, playing random notes, or making dissonant chords

and non-tonal melodies. In order to relate to our clients’ music, we play together with

5

our clients by matching the tempo and quality of music; however, this effort sometimes
does not bring about results that make musical sense to us. Music therapists may come
up with several possible explanations in such situations. For example, we may consider
that clients do not have technical skills for playing instruments in an organized way; or a
pathological condition (e.g., emotional. cognitive, physical. or perceptual) may be
reflected in the client’s music that renders it unmusical to the music therapist. Or,
ultimately, we may think that it is a matter of preference or taste: the client’s music
preference may simply be different from ours.

Bruscia ( 1998a) suggests that the appropriate attitude for music therapists in this
kind of situation is to be non-j udgmental and generous toward their client’s music.
However, in reality each music therapist has a certain aesthetic value as a musician, as
well as an image of how music should sound. Can music therapists be totally free from
their own aesthetic values and be totally non-judgmental toward their client’s music all
the time? What can we do when our client’s music does not make sense to us? Should
the therapist’s aesthetic value be totally held back within our music therapy practice?
What should we do when the musical values between the therapist and the client seem to
conflict with each other? These questions are related to aesthetic issues.

Research Concerns
The study of aesthetics in music philosophy has a long tradition, dating back to

the time of Ancient Greece. Philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, Kant.

6

Wittgenstein. to name a few. have discussed the aesthetics of art and music. Regardless
of this traditional origin. there are not many aesthetic studies in the field of music therapy.
Aigen (1995b) claims. “Considering that music is an aesthetic medium, it is surprising
that music therapists have not pursued this area [aesthetics] of inquiry extensively”
(p.468). Ansdell (1997) calls our attention to the fact that we have not been discussing
our practice in reference to other musicology studies. Lee (2003) articulates,
“Historically music therapy has drawn its clinical theories from extramusical sources. It
is my belief that there are flaws in this continued dialogue. especially if it is to the
exclusions of other more musical philosophies and theories” (p.13).
Purpose

Considering the above concerns. it is appropriate to explore aesthetics which
examines the meaning and value of music. and to stimulate discussions regarding music
itself in music therapy. It is important to review existing aesthetic discussions in music
philosophy. because music philosophy has a rich heritage of aesthetics. as reflected in the
theories of the forrnalist. the referentialist/ contextualist. the absolute expressionist, and
the praxialist. It has a significant influence on current music education practices
through which music therapists have generally studied music. It is also necessary to
review music therapy aesthetic discussions and to trace the evolution of definitions of
aesthetics in order to organize ideas and concepts of aesthetics in music therapy. The

purpose of this study is to organize the existing aesthetic discussions in music philosophy

7

and music therapy and to examine their applications and limitations. Based on these
examinations. this study will provide a praxial framework to address the meaning and
value of music in practical situations. This paper will help music therapists to be more
aware of aesthetic issues that arise in their practice, to have language and definitions of
aesthetics in relation to music philosophy. and to gain new outlook regarding the value
and meaning of their client’s music.
Method

My discussion is largely based on “Music Matters” (Elliott, 1995), and “Defining
Music Therapy”(Bruscia. 1998a). In his book, Bruscia proposes a working definition of
music therapy as follows: “Music therapy is a systematic process of intervention wherein
the therapist helps the client to promote health, using music experiences and the
relationships that develop through them as dynamic forces of change” (p.20). Bruscia
presents discussions regarding each phrase or word in his book. In chapter eleven,
twelve. and thirteen of his book, Bruscia explores the phrase in the above definition,
“using music experiences,” and he casts aesthetic questions, focusing on issues of the
aesthetic standards in music therapy. His definition of music therapy is helpful in
conceptualizing the aim of this paper within the whole spectrum of music therapy issues.
I consider this paper to be an extension of Bruscia’s above mentioned chapters.

What is Aesthetics?

Researchers understand and often use the term aesthetics in their own particular

8

way. There is a broad notion of aesthetics as a study which is concerned with the beauty
of art. or which explores the meaning and value of art (Radocy & Boyle, 2003). The
following sections examine different types of aesthetic studies. and how this paper uses
the term aesthetics.
Types of A esthetic Studies

Aesthetics as theory.

Aesthetic study is regarded as a theory and doctrine that influences musicology
and the performing arts. Bowman (1998) says, “the study of musical aesthetics takes
its lead from general aesthetic theory, the field of discourse that arose in the eighteenth
century in an effort to describe presumed commonalties among the arts and, more
broadly, instances of beauty” (p.6). In the history of Western Europe, the study of
aesthetics has been traced back to the time of Ancient Greece; however, as Bowman
points out, the aesthetic theories and doctrines that arose in the eighteenth century
formed the basis for contemporary musicology.

In our society. aesthetics is generally considered to be a concern for beauty in art
(Aigen, 1995b; Salas, 1990); however, it was not true in Ancient Greek society.
According to Elliott (1995). the Greek word aisthesis, from which aesthetic is derived,
means “‘sense experience.’ or perception” (p.21). Plato’s philosophical inquires
included aesthetics, but his interest was not in the beauty of the arts. He studied arts for

the sake of examining human nature and people’s attraction to impractical things (Elliott,

9

1995). Aesthetics was not associated with an idea of beauty at all. It was in
eighteenth century Western Europe when the term aesthetics came to be associated with
beauty in art. At that time the concept of “fine arts” appeared. Fine arts form a
category in which painting, music, sculpture, poetry, architecture are all grouped
together. In Ancient Greek society, Plato considered music and the visual arts “as
'crafts,’ like shoemaking or pottery” (Kivy, 2002, p8), whereas he classified poetry and
drama, with prophecy “as an ‘inspirational’ practice” (Kivy, 2002, p.8). According to
Elliott (1995), AG. Baumgarten, a German philosopher who lived from 1714 to 1762,
started to use the term aesthetics for an analysis of poetry. He was influenced by
Rationalism and tried to explain what logic did for reason in artistic activities (Bowman,
1998). Aesthetic studies greatly developed in the Romantic period. Since then
aesthetics of music came to be discussed with other arts, being grouped as the fine arts.
Aesthetics provided the theories by which to look at the fine arts in a special way,
exclusively focusing on the beauty of form or structure (Bowman, 1998; Elliott, 1995).
In this way, aesthetics came to be considered the study of beauty and as theories and
doctrines that integrate music and other arts.
The term aesthetics sometimes elicits both positive and negative reactions.
Elliott (1995) criticizes the philosophy of traditional music education, called aesthetic
education, whose major proponent is Bennett Reimer. Those, like Elliott, who hold

philosophical positions which are different from those of aesthetic education are likely to

10

avoid using the term aesthetics to reduce confusion between their philosophy and
aesthetic education. However. Kenny (2000). a music therapist and a music therapy
scholar. uses the terms aesthetics and Romantic to positively support the validity of
musical experiences that are primarily subjective. Her intention is to criticize the use of
conventional scientific or quantitative methods in music therapy research. Romantic
and aesthetic are meaningful and powerful terms that suggest qualitative properties of
music, such as sacredness or beauty that cannot be described by quantitative inquiries.
It is important to understand that the term aesthetics is not a neutral word in some
aesthetic discussions.

Aesthetics as philosophy.

There are other types of aesthetic studies in contemporary musicology. Some
philosophers regard aesthetics as equated to the philosophy of art. Lippman (1999)
defines aesthetics as a study of philosophy by stating, “[Aesthetics] deals with beauty and
art and the expressiveness of art, ultimately concerns epistemology and metaphysics or,
in a word. philosophy as a whole; but only insofar as these matters bear on art—on the
experience of art and the nature of beauty” (p.99). Bowman (1998) believes that
philosophy is beyond aesthetics. He states that the philosophy of music is broader than
musical aesthetics and subsumes it. In general, aesthetics is regarded as a branch of
philosophy (J. Kratus. September 29. 2003). rather than as philosophy itself.

Aesthetics as science.

11

For Radocy and Boyle (1997, 2003), aesthetic studies, along with affect and
emotion, are regarded as an area of affective response to music. They state that the
following areas are involved in the study of affective response: physiological measures,
adjective descriptors, philosophical inquiry, and psychological aesthetics. Aesthetics as
a philosophy is subsumed under the study of affective responses here. The other types
of study depend on scientific procedures. In psychology of music, aesthetics is regarded
as a type of behavior, not theory or philosophy; and they use keywords such as preference,
attitude, interest. appreciation, or sensitivity toward music (Radocy & Boyle, 1997.
p.272).

In summary. the following three terms describe the scope of the term aesthetics
(Elliott. 1995): tightly. loosely. and broadly (p.26). Tightly aesthetics refers to a “large
collection of philosophical theories that embraces the grounding assumptions of the
aesthetic concept” (p.26). Loosely aesthetics is “a synonym for the philosophy of art”
(p.26). Broadly aesthetics indicates “an umbrella term for all philosophical and
scientific inquiries even remotely concerned with the existence of beautiful things, with
people’s response to beauty. and with artistic efforts and people’s responses to them”
(p.26). This categorization helps us to conceptualize different levels of aesthetic study.
I identify this paper as a philosophical study; therefore, it may fall under the topic of

aesthetics in a “loose” sense.

12

Definition of Aesthetics

In general. aesthetics is often regarded as a study that concerns the beauty of arts
(e.g. Aigen, 1995b). However. according to Sparshott (1987), the typical aesthetic
problems are concemed with “ways in which some or all music is experienced as
meaningful, or is said to have meaning; or with values which music is experienced as
having or is alleged to have; or with problematic relations within music, such as the
artistic proprieties governing the interaction between composers and performers” (p.35).
The meaning and value of music are also central issues in the study of aesthetics. In
music philosophy, as Sparshott mentions. the meaning and value are essential matters.
However, in music therapy many scholars embrace the idea of beauty in discussions of
aesthetics (e.g. Aigen, 1995a. 1995b; Kenny, 1989). In general experiences. the notion
of beauty and the value of music often overlap with each other. Therefore, it seems
better to include both ideas in this paper, because one of the goals of this paper is to
integrate various aesthetic discussions. It should not exclude any discussions of beauty,
or those of the meaning and value of music. Bruscia (1998a) expresses the idea of
aesthetics as “the meaning and beauty of the music” (p.101). It seems appropriate to
address beauty, meaning, and value of music in this paper. The meaning of music
suggests two ideas. One is represented by messages, thoughts, ideas, things, events, or
any non-musical matters conveyed through musical expressions. The other is equated to

value. The questions regarding meaning, such as “Why is this music meaningful?” and

13

“What does this music mean to you?” are about meaning as a value. Value in music
also conveys two ideas: value that is conditional and that which is unconditional. When
value is conditional, it suggests a relationship to outcome of music experiences.
Regelski (1998) states. “‘Good music’ is relative to ‘good results’” (pp.39-40). His
statement connotes that the outcome of music experiences determines the value of music.
Unconditional value is not affected by the outcome of music. It is important to be aware
of how each researcher uses the terms meaning and value.
Limitations and Implications

Limitations

Since aesthetics covers a wide range of subjects, and music therapy has a broad
range of practices; I would like to note the limitations of this study. One limitation is
that this paper discusses aesthetics only related to music. People find aesthetic
experiences by listening to the sounds of singing birds, waterfalls, ocean waves, and other
phenomena of nature. Aesthetic experience occurring through contact with nature is
sometimes counted as a subject in aesthetic study (Radocy & Boyle, 1997, 2003). It is
also common in music therapy practice to use nature sounds as a component in music
interventions. I acknowledge that those sounds of nature are effective for relaxation
practice and other purposes. However, in this paper I will propose aesthetic discussions
only related to music.

A second limitation is regarding the scope of the definition of music therapy.

14

The music interventions that this paper discusses will not include what Bruscia (1998a)
calls “vibrational healing” and some types of “sound healing” (pp.203-206). I do
acknowledge these interventions as a practice of music therapy. I merely regard their
strong emphasis on addressing purely sensory responses and experiences of human
beings as less related to aesthetic issues. I assume that aesthetic experiences are related
to sensory experiences to some degree. but aesthetic matters encompass more than
sensory experiences. I consider that music experiences that strongly emphasize sensory
experiences, as seen in vibrational healing or some types of sound healing, do not leave
room for aesthetic considerations.
Implications
I hope this paper will help music therapists in the following areas:
1. gaining a better insight about the client's music experiences;
2. being aware of one‘s own value of music, and becoming comfortable with talking
about it;
3. expanding the concepts of music;
4. becoming familiar with aesthetic issues in music therapy by increasing one’s music
philosophy vocabulary.
Procedures
The remainder of this paper will be composed of the following chapters.

Chapter two will review traditional aesthetic discussions in musicology. The

15

relationships or differences between traditional musicology and music therapy practice
will be examined. In chapter three, the traditional aesthetic studies in music therapy and
the issues pointed out in recent years regarding aesthetics in music therapy will be
reviewed. The concept of music in music therapy is influenced by how the music
therapist views human beings and health; therefore. the concept of the individual and
health will be examined in chapter three. In chapter four, recent aesthetic discussions in
music philosophy and music therapy will be discussed. Based on problems presented in
chapters two and three, I shall summarize the directions for pursuing aesthetics of music
therapy. In chapter five, I shall attempt to apply music philosophy to music therapy by
constructing a framework that will be a basis for further aesthetic discussions regarding

music therapy.

16

CHAPTER TWO
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AESTHETICS AND MUSIC
THERAPY

There is a general feeling that music therapists do not talk extensively about
aesthetics or music itself. Ansdell (1997) says that in presentations or research articles,
music therapists rarely refer to musicological studies. Aigen (1995b) also claims that
aesthetics is a core topic in music studies. but it is not discussed extensively in music
therapy.

Technically. all music therapists are trained musicians. They have formal music
education like other conventional music students who work toward music professions,
and many music therapists were educated under traditional musicology. They learn
aesthetic theories in class. but they are likely to be puzzled by those theories. They may
wonder whether or not aesthetic theories answer aesthetic questions that arise in their
practices (Aigen. l995a; Ansdell, 1997). They also may think that aesthetic discussions
are irrelevant to music in therapy. according to the aesthetic standards that traditional
musicology implicitly and explicitly suggests. Aigen describes music therapists’ uneasy
feelings and their tendency toward eschewing aesthetic considerations. According to
Aigen (1995a), we are likely to think that we are “not concerned with producing music
that necessarily sounds pleasing” (p.235). or our music “is to be judged on standards

other than those present in the concert hall” (p.235). As Ansdell (1997) claims that

17

traditional musicology is like an ideology that has a strong influence on our
conceptualization of music and aesthetic sense, and it is instilled in our minds. We need
to clarify the differences between traditional aesthetic theories and our music therapy
practice. As we have seen. the term aesthetics was used often. especially in nineteenth
century Western Europe. Since that time, aesthetic discussions have generated
systematic aesthetic theories and doctrines that have influenced today’s musicology.
First, we should briefly look at aesthetic philosophies and theories of the nineteenth
century, and then we should examine differences between those aesthetic theories and our
music therapy practice.
Aesthetic Theories

Bruscia (1998a) listed the philosophical positions regarding the meaning and
beauty of music as follows: “absolute formalism. referentialism, and absolute
expressionism” (p.98). The absolute formalist is often simply called the formalist.
Bruscia treats the absolute expressionist as an independent category, while other
researchers may list the absolute expressionist under the category of the absolutist or the
formalist (e.g. Radocy & Boyle. 1997. 2003). Radocy and Boyle (1997, 2003) split the
expressionist into two positions: the absolute expressionist and the expressionist. They
consider that the former belongs the formalist or absolutist, and the latter belongs to the
referentialist or contextualist. This paper follows Bruscia’s classification. As the

fourth position of aesthetics. praxial philosophy has been growing recently, essentially as

18

proposed by Elliott (1995). This will be discussed in chapter four at greater length.
The first three theories developed as the basis of the philosophy of art in which music is
grouped with other arts. while the fourth philosophy developed in the 1970’s on the basis
of the philosophy of music. independent from other arts. Elliott criticizes the current
philosophy of music education as mostly depending on the three traditional positions. It
is important to review them first.
The F ormalist

The formalist believes that the meaning of music is inherent in the music itself.
All meanings that one finds through music are indigenous to music and music alone
(Bruscia, 1998a). The formalist argues that music should be considered an autonomous
form, and its beauty is attributed to musical structures or forms without any references to
non-musical events or ideas. Tracing back through its history, the idea that music is an
autonomous form was already found in Ancient Greece. According to Bowman (1998,
pp. 1 36-137). Aristoxenus of Tarentum, son of a fourth-century-B.C. musician and a
student of Aristotle. is considered to be the earliest proponent of forrnalistic thinking.
Aristoxenus criticized the theorists who tried to explain music in relation to the
Pythagorean mathematical views. Instead of meaning in music based on non-musical
ideas, such as numbers or ratios, Aristoxenus attempted to create a theoretical explanation
based on how he actually experienced and perceived music. He considered music’s

significance to be explained in terms of sounds, their relationships, and their functions

19

within a musical system but not in relation to mathematical properties (Bowman, 1998).
His view is related to the perspective that the modern formalist accepts. It is interesting
that formalism is not a uniquely contemporary view. but it was also found in the ideas of
Ancient Greek philosophers in a different historical context. Aristoxenus presented an
antithesis to the Pythagorean influences of the day.

According to Kivy (2002). Kant (1724-1804) provided a formalistic view that has
been repeatedly referred to by modern formalist philosophers. Kant emphasized
disinterestedness as the appropriate attitude of those judging music (Bowman, 1998).

He believed that the attitude of disinterestedness enables people to set themselves apart
from the object, which would allow them to make more objective judgments. In Kant’s
thought. aesthetic experiences that depend solely on one’s own senses, and emotions
were not considered a good base for aesthetic judgments. Instead, Kant believed that
the formal beauty of music was the paramount priority (Bowman, 1998).

Kant’s notion of beauty was strictly limited to its form and did not allow any
extramusical concepts or contexts behind the music. For example, one may feel beauty
in an individual thing for its perfection or completeness. However, Kant disapproved of
this experience of beauty, because it is based on comparisons between the individual
thing, and what it is supposed to be. He also did not allow that music could serve
non-musical purposes. He limited the meaning of aesthetics strictly to intrinsic musical

events. and his notions became a foundation of the idealistic View of music.

20

In this way. Kant’s discussion of aesthetic judgments seems in keeping with the
ideas of the modern absolute formalist; however, Stige (2002) suggests that the
interpretation of Kant’s aesthetic discussions is controversial. Stige considers Kant’s
aesthetic judgment as “democracy of taste” (p.61) which stresses inter-subjective
judgments. and he admits that his interpretation is contemporary. For the absolute
formalist, Kant’s idea of disinterestedness is emphasized. Kivy (2002) also points out
that Kant’s precise ideas of formal beauty are not always similar to those of the
contemporary absolute formalist. For example, Kant believed that the formal properties
were more akin to the vibrations of sound rather than the formal properties that later
formalists accepted. such as tonalities and harmonies. Because there are various
interpretations of what he meant, it is not easy to understand the aesthetic judgment
proposed by Kant. As Kivy says. the important thing is that Kant provided a ground for
formalistic ideas. and modern philosophers developed a logic of the formal beauty in
music based on the ideas.

Kant’s idealistic aesthetic views were revised and succeeded by those of idealistic
philosophers such as Schiller (1759-1805) and Hegel (1770-1831). Their theories were
different from each other, but they held common characteristics of being speculative,
idealistic, metaphysical, and contextless (Bowman, 1998). It seems that they intended
to free music from any non-musical contexts and strove to extract something which was

not contaminated by sensational or emotional music experiences. In their theories, we

21

can see the influence of the dualistic view of the mind and sense that Descartes
(1596-1650) proposed. They tried to view music as a product of the mind separating it
from sensory properties. In Hegel’s view, music which is a product of the mind came to
be elevated to the status of representing an absolute idea.

Since the emphasis of this paper is not historical. it will not extensively explain
the relationship between the above philosophers’ views and their social backgrounds.
However. one brief discussion presented by Elliott (1995) is interesting with regard to the
relationship between their contextless view and their social backgrounds. Elliott refers
to Eagleton’s book titled “The Ideology of the Aesthetic” (cited in Elliott, 1995,
pp.23-24). Eagleton assumes that the concept of music is correlated with the social
ideology of the day. In post-aristocratic society, the prevailing ideology emphasized
that all men were autonomous. and an individual’s background should not be considered.
This ideology was the antithesis of the aristocratic society where one’s social background,
including privilege and wealth. were important. In the new social order, individual
personal sensibilities and tastes, inner worth. and self-discipline were considered to be
more important. This ideology influenced the concept of music. As human beings are
autonomous, music can exist by itself, and can be free from any social and cultural
contexts.

Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904) was the most influential Viennese music critic of

the nineteenth century (Bowman, 1998). Hanslick proposed a clear formalistic view.

22

He believed that the beauty of music is found in moving tonal forms (as cited in
Bowman. 1998). Hanslick’s view is thought to present the extreme formalistic view,
because he attributed beauty in music to musical form alone independent from emotions.
His position held that arousing emotions in listeners did not matter for aesthetic response
or the value of the music. Aesthetics of music existed regardless of how individuals
responded to it (Bowman, 1998).

The Referentialist/ Contextualist

As we have seen. the formalist would find the meaning of music in its form alone.

The formalist did not account for feelings or other meaningful experiences aroused by
music. Indeed. they did not consider the contexts relating to each individual important
at all. The referentialist’s main criticism of the formalist view is that the formalist
isolates music from other life experiences. The referentialist argues, “the core meanings
of music and music experiences are found outside of the work itself—in nonartistic or
extramusical phenomena. events, ideas, feelings, etc.. communicated through the music.
For them, music embodies meaning by representing, symbolizing, expressing, or
referring to the (nonmusical) world of human experience” (Bruscia, 1998a, p.99). For
the referentialist, the value of music may extend beyond the realm of art. While
aesthetics or beauty in music is the primary concern for the formalist, the meaning
represented or symbolized by music is the primary concern for the referentialist; and the

meaning of music does not always have aesthetic value. Reimer (1970) states that

23

social communists may hold a typical and extreme referentialistic view. Social
communists believe that art should serve their political ideal and should convey messages.
For social communists. people should make music not for the sake of music but for the
sake of the political ideal; music should convey their political message through music.
According to Reimer, a general referentialist is concerned with the realm of emotions, as
represented by the views of Leo Tolstoy, a Russian novelist in the twentieth century.
Tolstoy believed that music should convey emotions, and his aesthetic judgment as to
whether the music is good or bad, is based on the qualities of emotion which music
conveys. If the music conveys good emotions, the music is good; and if the music
conveys bad emotions. it is regarded as bad music. The value of music is not in the
music itself as the formalist thought, but it is in the quality of emotions indicated by
music. An example of one type of music with referentialistic views is called program
music. Program music is supposed to describe a story or scenery outside of the musical
events, such as singing birds or the winds of cold winter. The clarity of the information
indicated by music determines the value of music. In the referentialist View, music
would not allow for personal interpretations, because it is supposed to convey clear
messages that are equally understood by all individuals.

Radocy and Boyle (1997, 2003) treat the referentialist and the contextualist in the
same category. The referentialist may claim that there is no room for individual

interpretation and individual association of meanings with music; however, the

24

contextualist allows for differences in individual contexts (J. Kratus, September 19, 2003).
In her explanation of the referentialist’s position. Pavlicevic (I997) highlights the role of
contexts in listening. In fact. when she uses the term “the referentialist,” it seems that
she is discussing the contextualist. She explains that once in a while a specific melody
reminds a person of specific emotions or experiences. The contextualist focuses on
those emotions or experiences. For the contextualist. Pavlicevic explains that the
meaning of music is “personal and rather idiosyncratic, having little to do with the music
itself” (p.21). The referentialist and the contextualist may be different from each other
in their way of treating individual contexts. but both of them are in line with each other
through their belief that what determines the value of music are extra-musical materials,
such as emotions. messages, stories. events, and so on. Neither of them is deeply
concerned with what is going on inside the music itself.
The Absolute Expressionist
Leonard Meyer was an influential music theorist in the last century. He asserted
that there were two types of meaning in music: designative and embodied. Gardstrom
(n.d.) explains the difference between them in this way:
Designative meaning results when the signs or symbols being perceived
are different in kind from the object or concept to which they refer. For
instance, when we encounter a traffic signal, we understand that the red

and green lights mean. signify. or stand for. the intended actions of stop

25

and go. . . .Embodied meaning occurs when the sign and the signified are of
the same kind. (p.12)

In short. the designative meaning is extramusical or referentialistic, while the
embodied meaning is inherent in music itself or formalistic. Although he
acknowledged these two meanings, Meyer asserted that the true musical meaning is
experienced in the latter. Therefore. Bowman (1998) considers Meyer basically in line
with the formalists.

What differentiated his idea from those of the formalists before him, such as
Hanslick. was that Meyer attempted to account for the emotional experiences aroused by
music. The formalist’s interest was primarily intellectual, and emotional experiences
were likely to be ignored. Meyer (1956) addressed this domain. He was consistent
with the formalists in terms of his belief that the meaning of music was essentially
intramusical; however. he argued that music was capable of exciting feelings of
emotions in the listener. Although he emphasized the emotional realm of experiences,
Meyer was not a referentialist. He basically believed that expressive emotional
meanings arise in response to structures and forms of music.

Meyer proposed a theory called the theory of expectancy (Bowman. 1998; Gfeller,
1990). His assumption was that people have certain expectations or predictions about
what will happen moment-to-moment stylistically while listening to music. The theory

holds that those expectations are formed and conditioned through past experiences. For

26

example. if one listens to a dissonant chord. he or she would expect that the dissonance
should be resolved to a consonant chord. Such expectations have been built through
past music experiences. However, the composer may betray these expectations by
purposefully choosing an unexpected musical happening that makes the listener become
frustrated. When the dissonance is resolved, the listener experiences an amplified
satisfaction and aesthetic experience after a prolonged frustration.

There is a strong stream of thought that has been influenced by linguistic studies.
Those who are interested in viewing music as a symbol have made intensive analyses in
what and how symbols or signs signify, refer to, or stand for other things (Bowman,
1998). Susanne Langer (1895-1985) was the most influential philosopher holding this
position, and she claimed that music was fundamentally symbolic. She believed that
music indicated something we cannot know through words. Her basic assumption
regarding human beings and reality was that we cannot know the world as it really is
(Bowman. 1998); the way in which we know the world is to look at the world through
symbols. Langer strove to explain that music functions as a symbol by its structural
resemblance to the realm of human sentience, as tensions and resolutions in musical
movements resemble those of emotions in their morphic characteristics (Bowman, 1998).
Her explanations were criticized by later philosophers. but her influence was strong in
the last century. Her emphasis on music and emotions especially gave a philosophical

foundation for music education in the United Stated and has been embraced even in

27

recent years (Elliott, 1995).

Meyer and Langer had different views toward the relationship between emotions
and music, but they are regarded as expressionists. Both of them were interested in
emotional experiences aroused by music. and they tried to figure out why music makes it
possible to elicit those emotional experiences. The referentialists were also concerned
with emotional experiences, but they did not examine events in music itself.

We have briefly reviewed three basic aesthetic positions. Their influences on
current musicology and music education are prominent. According to Radocy and
Boyle (1997, 2003). Bennett Reimer has been influential in the philosophical foundation
of the current music education system, and he supports the absolute expressionist position.
According to Elliott (1995), other positions, such as Langer’s theory of music as a
symbol, also play an important role in music education philosophy. Overall, current
musicology and music education are oriented toward the absolute expressionist position.
Music education practices that emphasize those aesthetic theories are called aesthetic
education. Aesthetic education is espoused by twentieth century educational
philosophers such as James Mursell. Harry Broudy. Charles Leonhard, Robert House,
Keith Swanwick. David Peters, Robert Miller, and Bennett Reimer (Elliott, 1995,
pp.27-28).

Underlying Assumptions in Traditional Aesthetics

In this endeavor to describe aesthetics of music therapy, it is important to

28

understand what is going on in aesthetic education, because music therapists are
influenced by it in their own musical training. In his book, “Music Matters,” Elliott
(1995) criticizes the foundation of aesthetic education and proposes a new approach for
music education. His views will be helpful for music therapists in clarifying the
differences between aesthetic music education and music therapy.
Elliott’s Criticisms

Elliott’s (1995, pp.31-38) criticism of aesthetic theories are based on the
following three problems: a) music is regarded as an object or a work of art; b) a primary
focus is on listening skills; c) aesthetic education has illogical theories within its system.
In aesthetic education, Elliott claims that music is regarded solely as an art work or a
product; accordingly. aesthetic theories emphasize listening and do not explain the nature
of music making in general. such as performing, improvising, composing, arranging, and
conducting. Elliott considers that those forms of music activity are equally important
for music education. His second claim is that the primary educational goal is to focus
on increasing the individual’s perceptual skills in order to respond to the aesthetic
qualities of music alone. However. Elliott believes that it is irrelevant to impose a
single activity on music students in educational settings. Thirdly, Elliott criticizes the
theories of both Meyer and Langer, which have served as a foundation for aesthetic
education. As we have seen, Langer conceived of musical works as constituting a

special kind of symbol that represents the general forms that feelings take. According to

29

Elliott, Langer’s theory suggests that in order to perceive and respond to the aesthetic
qualities of musical works one should gain a special kind of knowledge or insight into
how feelings are experienced. Elliott disapproves of her idea because her explanation
may be partially true for certain musical phrases; but it is not a comprehensive
explanation. Elliott also criticizes Meyer’s theory, which is based on the psychological
frustration of an expectation. Elliott says that Meyer’s account is inherently negative,
and it does not explain positive music experiences. In addition, Elliott points out that
Meyer and Langer made differing statements regarding the relationship between music
sound patterns and affect. Langer claimed that music sound patterns are not the cause of
feelings. while Meyer claimed that music sound patterns arouse emotions in listeners.
Their claims are contradictory to one another, but music educators accept both theories at
the same time; accordingly. their position is inherently illogical. Elliott concludes,
“there are several good reasons to believe that music education’s traditional doctrine of
music education as aesthetic education fails to provide a logical and comprehensive
philosophical foundation for music teaching and learning” (p.38). His discussion has
stimulated controversy among music educators. While it is beyond the scope of this
paper to examine his educational philosophy precisely, his articulate criticisms toward
aesthetic theories and education can help music therapists to understand the basic
concepts of music in aesthetic education.

The underlying assumptions of aesthetic education suggested by Elliott (1995) are

30

summarized as follows:
1. Music is a work. a product or an object. not a process.
2. Listening is the main music activity.

Instrumental music is considered the ultimate aesthetic art.

DJ

4. Music serves only an aesthetic purpose.

5. The meaning of music is intrinsic. Structural properties, such as harmonies,
melodies. tonalities are aesthetic qualities.

6. In order to gain aesthetic experiences, people are supposed to have certain training to
perceive aesthetic qualities of music; otherwise. they cannot appreciate and
understand music.

In relating to the fourth and sixth assumption. an elitism of aesthetic education is pointed

out by several authors (e.g. Madsen. Bymes. C apperella-Sheldon. & Brittin, 1993).

Music Therapists‘ Reactions to the Underlying Assumptions

As music therapists. our conceptions of aesthetics and music are influenced by the
above underlying assumptions; therefore. we have felt that aesthetic theories are not
applicable to our practice. Let us examine our conceptions regarding the above areas.

Process versus product.

Considering music as a work or an object does not match with the music

therapist’s general sense of music. The music therapist considers that music is a process

as well as a product. In music therapy practice, both musical products and the events

31

that happen in the process of music activities are therapeutically important (Bruscia,
1998a). In his discussion. Aigen (1995a) further states that the music is a process in
itself and has a therapeutic purpose. Aigen uses the metaphor of travel. He argues that
there are two means for traveling. One is a means for going to the designated place.
The purpose of this trip is to go to that place as safely, quickly, and efficiently as possible.
The other means of travel serves to find pleasure and aesthetic enjoyment in the process
of the trip. and is called “medium” (p.238). For Aigen, participating in the musical
process is like traveling in the latter sense. Music is a medium for clients. Through
the musical process. clients will experience free expression. confidence and insight about
themselves. In this way. Aigen considers that music is a therapeutic medium that can
provide such experiences for clients, and participation in such a process is a therapeutic
goal.

Music activities/experiences.

According to Elliott (1995), perceiving and identifying aesthetic qualities are
important for music students in aesthetic education. Certain listening skills are
considered to be crucial for appreciating music. However. music activities in music
therapy are not limited to passive listening to instrumental music; music activities are
widely varied and include composing. improvising, playing instruments, singing, relaxing
through music. feeling the vibration of sounds, and so on. Instrumental music, vocal

music, and texts with musical melodies, and chants are highly important in music therapy.

32

They can be used for various purposes. which include enhancing speech skills, learning
words. expressing feelings. and discussing lyrics. Music is also experienced in
conjunction with other modalities, such as drawing, writing poems, dancing, drama, and
so on.

In music therapy. the client and the therapist may sometimes experience a type of
listening that occurs in the process of playing music. Ansdell (1995) labels this type of
listening as “‘listening-in-playing’ or the ‘social listening’” (pp.156-16l). This listening
takes place usually while playing instruments or singing together, such as during
improvisation with therapists and clients. Both the therapist and the client, are not
merely playing or singing, but they are listening to their own and each other’s playing.
They make an immediate response to what they hear. Music therapy needs aesthetic
explanations that encompass these unconventional music activities.

Aesthetic versus non-aesthetic values.

In music therapy, music does not serve as an auditory aesthetic experience alone.
Music is sometimes regarded as sounds. vibrations, and energy forms that engage all of
the senses. including visual. tactile and kinesthetic (Bruscia, 1998a). Music is to be
heard, seen. touched and felt not for its aesthetic properties alone, but also for sensing its
vibration. and experiencing events or feelings that are symbolized, expressed, or
associated with music. The shapes and colors of the instruments, and a performer’s

kinesthetic movements could be therapeutic components as well. These multisensory

33

aspects of music events enable clients with different kinds of impairments and disabilities
to access music experiences that are not always aesthetic by traditional standards.
Musical training.

In aesthetic education. there is a general notion that people should have a certain
training to appreciate the aesthetics of music. As Bruscia (1998a) discusses, most music
therapy clients are non-trained musicians. It is our ethical standard to provide music
therapy services equally to those who do not have music training. Aesthetic issues
involving musically untrained clients is one of the themes of this paper. This will be
discussed later.

Music Therapists ’ Responses to Aesthetic Theories

Bruscia (1998a) has reviewed and commented on the above philosophical
positions. Bruscia agrees with the basic ideas of the referentialist and the expressionist
in the way that they acknowledge meaningful relationships between music and non-music
events. Bruscia says, “Music conveys meaning and beauty both in reference to itself
and in reference to the world beyond it” (p.105). He seems to accept the formalistic
idea of intrinsic value, but he does not support the formalist position. First of all,
formalistic ideas ignore the importance of any relationship that may exist between music
and significant non-music events. Acknowledging relationships of that sort would give
credence to the possibility that the client could express feelings, events, or past

experiences musically. Secondly, the formalist position requires training and education

34

to increase perceptive and cognitive skills so that people can appreciate music
intellectually as well as aesthetically. Accordingly, the formalist believes that people
are unable to achieve aesthetic experiences unless they are trained and talented. Music
therapy is supposed to serve clients regardless of their musical training. Music
therapists believe that clients can achieve aesthetic experiences regardless of their
training. Therefore, the formalist’s view rules out the possibility of those clients having
aesthetic experiences.

I agree that the above statements by Bruscia seem to generally represent music
therapists’ responses toward aesthetic theories. However, his understanding of the
absolute expressionist seems to be different from that of Elliott. Bruscia (1998a)
believes that the absolute expressionist’s view represented by Reimer is basically
consistent with music therapy. He agrees with Reimer’s statements regarding the
relationship between the significance of life and aesthetics of music (p.101). Elliott
(1995) regards Reimer’s theory as representing aesthetic education, which we found
cannot comprehensively explain music therapy practice. Bruscia is not the only music
therapist who supports the absolute expressionist position. Kenny (1982) positively
evaluated Meyer’s theory, claiming that his analysis refers to the effect on “the total
person” (p.52). Gfeller (1990) applied Meyer’s theory of expectancy in a therapeutic
context. She suggested that his theory could be used to explain certain psychological

responses and could be used to support the concept of music as a focus on which

35

participants maintain their attention.

Aigen (1995a) critically evaluated Langer’s perspective of music as a symbol.

In Langer’s theory. the relationship between music and emotions is that of a symbol
(musical sounds) representing things symbolized (emotions). However, for Aigen the
relationship between music and actual feelings is more than that. Aigen claims that
Langer’s view promotes the idea that identification of actual feelings, emotions, or
individuals, with pieces of music is likely to be regarded as a primitive and naive view.
Aigen believes that music is not merely an abstract symbol system. He completely
agrees with Dewey’s view that music is “a direct vehicle. a concrete embodiment, a vital
incarnation” (cited in Aigen. 1995a, p.249). Aigen states, “One’s values, fears,
strengths, frailties. humanity, openness. communicativeness, and degree of caring for
others is directly expressed [in music]” (p.250). He believes that music is an
embodiment of self and should not be conceptualized as a triadic relationship consisting
of the symbol, the referent of the symbol. and the symbol user.

The music therapist is basically a utilitarian. We use music in various
therapeutic contexts; therefore. music may be considered to be referentialistic at times,
but to be formalistic at other times. Rather than supporting one philosophical position,
music therapists accept various philosophies that apply to different therapeutic contexts.
In short, there is no single philosophy in traditional aesthetics that explains music therapy

experiences.

36

So far. we have examined traditional aesthetic theories and aesthetic education,
essentially based on Elliott’s viewpoint (1995). However, Reimer’s (2003) latest
publication, titled “A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision” presents a
wider scope of music in response to Elliott’s argument. For example, Reimer proposes
a comprehensive concept of a music curriculum that include “knowings and doings
related to (1) singing. (2) playing. (3) improvising, (4) composing and arranging, (5)
notation skills and understandings, (6) listening, (7) evaluating, (8) understanding
relationships of music to other arts and other disciplines. and (9) understanding music in
its historical and cultural dimensions” (p.13). With this recent shift in Reimer’s position,
Elliott’s arguments are no longer current. However, it is still meaningful to discuss
Elliott’s arguments considering the fact that many music therapists have formal music
training based on a traditional curriculum, and their understanding of music philosophy is
dependent on traditional aesthetics.

Summary

In this chapter, we have examined differences between music therapy and
traditional aesthetics and have concluded the following:

1. Traditional aesthetic theories that music therapists learn in their own musical training
should be understood as ideologies that originated in 1,8th century Western Europe.
2. There are differences in viewpoint between traditional music philosophers and music

therapists. notably in the concepts of music, music activities, the value of music, and

37

an emphasis on training.

Music therapy scholars basically agree with the views of the referentialist and the
absolute expressionist. However. even though they acknowledge that the
referentialist and the absolute expressionist theories may not be contradictory to the
practice of music therapy. it is not an indication that music therapists rely on a single

philosophical position.

38

CHAPTER THREE
TRADITIONAL AESTHETIC STUDIES IN MUSIC THERAPY

This chapter will review aesthetic studies in music therapy. Although Aigen
(l995b) claims that we have not pursued aesthetics extensively, there are abundant
aesthetic studies represented by Gfeller (1990, 2002) in our field. It is important to
examine aesthetics through different approaches. In the second half of this chapter, I
will present an overview of our concepts of human beings and health. I believe that it is
important to examine these concepts in the discussion of aesthetics in music therapy. I
also will discuss the influence of General Systems Theory, a conceptual view point that
influences the thinking with regard to how the world functions.

Experimental Aesthetics

Music Psychology and Experimental Aesthetics

Music therapy aesthetic concepts traditionally have relied on music psychology
studies. I would like to review music psychology and aesthetics first. The study of
aesthetics in music psychology has grown in the twentieth century, and its beginning can
be traced back to the late nineteenth century (Madsen. Bymes, Capperella-Sheldon, &
Brittin, 1993). According to Berlyne (1971), G. T. Fechner (1801-1887), a German
physicist, philosopher. and psychologist. was commonly considered to have established
an experimental approach to aesthetics, as published his book called, “Elemente der

Psychophysik” (Elements of Psychophysics) in 1860. Fechner strove to examine the

39

nature of aesthetic experiences and the effects of these experiences on people. However,
this experimental approach to aesthetics had not found prominence, even as late as the
middle of the 1960’s. According to Gaston (I964). aesthetics was generally regarded as
a philosophical study and was strongly involved in theoretical discussions at that time.

It was specifically called speculative aesthetics. Gaston points out that studying
aesthetics in a scientific way was difficult and showed that few studies on aesthetics were
conducted, as reflected in the Handbook of Experimental Psychology.

In the 1970’s, the experimental aesthetic approach saw a dramatic development
through the contributions of Berlyne. a music psychologist. Berlyne (cited in Radocy
and Boyle. 1997) also reacted to speculative aesthetics. claiming as follows:

They [speculative aesthetic philosophers] depend on deduction—from
definitions of concepts, from self evident principles, from generally
accepted propositions. from an author’s own beliefs. intuitions, and
experience. . . .their method is ‘hermeneutic,’ i.e., they rely heavily on
interpretive examination of particular texts, particular specimens of
literary. musical. or visual art. Their ultimate criterion of validity is
whether they leave the reader with a feeling of conviction. (p.288)
Berlyne attempted to study aesthetics as psychology. not as philosophy. Berlyne (1971)
defined psychology as a branch of science. As scientists. psychologists are interested in

events that are perceived through the eyes and ears and that are measurable.

40

Psychologists are supposed to describe observable events and note the associations and
correlations among them. According to Berlyne. psychologists used to think that their
subject matter was related to the mind, and it was impossible to study the mind
scientifically. However, during his time, more people believed that psychologists
should study human and animal behaviors, not the mind, per se. He applied this idea by
proposing that art should also be scientifically studied as aesthetic behavior.

Berlyne (1971) also emphasized the tight relationship between psychology and
biology by stating. “Every form of behavior must depend on bodily structures, including
characteristics of the human nervous system, that have appeared in the course of
evolution because they could contribute to the survival of the individual and of the
species” (p.8). In this way. Berlyne developed the scientific study of aesthetic behaviors.
He treated music as the aesthetic stimuli and studied people’s reaction to those stimuli, as
well as exploring the relationship between psychological and aesthetic responses
(Madsen. Bymes, CapperelIa-Sheldon, & Brittin, 1993).

After Berlyne’s contributions, experimental aesthetic researchers sought to
quantify specific aspects of music. such as rhythms. tempo, complexity of music
structures, and pitches. Then they examined how those aspects had an impact on human
psychology. including moods, preferences, and designated behaviors. In the 1970’s,
experimental aesthetic studies incorporated the perspectives of social psychology,

focusing social variables. such as adult approval, peer influence, and group consensus, on

41

certain behaviors. such as music preferences. In the 1980’s, researchers. such as
Goldstein were interested in the relationship between physiological and emotional
responses. In addition. the development of technology enabled researchers to quantify
aesthetic experiences more accurately and closer to what we experience in reality
(Madsen. Bymes. Capperella-Sheldon, & Brittin, 1993). For example, some measuring
devices allow continuous data collection of physiological and emotional responses while
the subjects are listening to music. This method showed more accurate relationships
between some specific music characteristics, and physiological and emotional responses.
Experimental Aesthetics and Music Therapy

The history of aesthetic studies in music therapy has been mostly in accordance
with the above history of music psychology. In music therapy, S. B. Sterne criticized
speculative aesthetics in 1955 (Gfeller. 1990), by claiming that more objective and
empirical investigations were needed to substantiate music’s benefits as a therapeutic tool.
The statements of Gaston were especially influential. Gaston (1964) presented an
article titled “The Aesthetic Experience and Biological Man” on the first page of the first
issue in The Journal ofMusic Therapy. which was the first nation-wide academic music
therapy journal. In his article, Gaston criticized speculative aesthetics, as they were
likely to discuss art for the sake of art; instead. he proposed a scientific method, which
focused on the cause and effect in aesthetic behaviors. As Berlyne attempted, Gaston

aimed at shifting the meaning of aesthetics from a philosophical and theoretical one to a

42

scientific one. He believed that music therapy needed to explore an experimental
approach for aesthetic issues.

In recent music therapy literature. Gfeller (1990. 2002) attempts to apply the
results of experimental aesthetic theories to music therapy practice, for example, theory
of optimal complexity by Berlyne. and cognitive theory of aesthetic response by Kreitler
and Kreitler. As a music therapist. she regards musical sounds as aesthetic stimuli that
bring pleasant or unpleasant experiences to the client. She points out that those
aesthetic stimuli have therapeutic potential in many areas, including attention, perception,
cognitive process, emotion. and mood.

Gfeller (1990. 2002) discusses how experimental aesthetic theories could apply to
practical situations. For example. controlling attention is an important client skill to
music therapists. It is necessary for establishing and maintaining attending behaviors of
the client. In this regard. Gfeller refers to the theory of Berlyne, who points out that
breaking habituation is important. The habituation is the result of either monotonous
regularity or possibly too many novel stimuli. These habituation conditions are not
always pleasant and may diminish response to the sensory signals which the music
therapist presents. Gfeller applies this habituation theory to music therapy practice.

She states that attractive music may function to break habituation. By listening to music
which supplies an appropriate amount of stimulus, the client may maintain focus on given

tasks.

43

Another example is that music, as an aesthetic stimulus, enhances higher
cognitive processes (Gfeller, 1990, 2002). According to Gfeller, Kreitler and Kreitler
argued that our behavior is directed by knowledge and beliefs about objects. These are
based on judgments and evaluations known as cognitive orientation. For example, when
we conceptualize our own persons, if cognitive orientation is limited, we are likely to
have a limited insight about ourselves. However, if our cognitive orientation is
expanded, deeper insights about ourselves may be achieved. Gfeller claims that in order
to expand cognitive orientation, introducing music which includes both familiar and
unfamiliar stimuli will be important. This blending of both types of stimuli replaces the
boredom of habituation with interest. curiosity, and exploration at a level of arousal that
is palatable to the individual. Gfeller (2002) points out that one music activity that
reflects this function of music is lyric analysis: “The therapist introduces a song or music
video in which the lyrics present a situation or emotional expression on a topic related to
the client’s personal issues. As clients reflect upon the lyrics, they may recognize a
familiar dilemma, situation, or feeling within the song” (p.77).

Criticism toward Experimental Aesthetics

In the 1990's, Aigen started to explore aesthetic issues in music therapy based on
a new approach (e.g. Aigen, 1995a, 1995b). In his article, “An Aesthetic Foundation of
Clinical Theory: An Underlying Basis of Creative Music Therapy” (Aigen, 1995a), he

discusses the validity of subjective knowledge and experiences in music therapy research.

44

He believes that aesthetic issues are essentially a matter of subjective experiences.
However, the tradition of music therapy research is oriented toward a scientific or
medical model, in which objective knowledge is important. Aigen notes that the
emphasis on objective knowledge has been important in order to acquire the sanction of
the medical community and to portray music therapy practice as akin to that of medical
practice. However, at the same time, this emphasis on objective knowledge has been an
obstacle to extensive aesthetic discussion, because it excludes aesthetic experiences that
are subjective. Aigen questions the objective knowledge that the traditional music
therapy community has emphasized and proposes that an investigation of aesthetics
proceeds in a different way from that of experimental aesthetics.
Qualitative versus Quantitative Research Method

Aigen’s criticism of experimental aesthetic study includes intense heated debate
over research methods. As an interdisciplinary practice. music therapy has traditionally
borrowed its theories from psychology and medical areas, and it has applied research
methods from those areas to music therapy research. It has been based on the
experimental research. method. Since the 1990’s, questions regarding the applicability
and validity of the experimental research method have emerged, and those researchers
who criticize the traditional method have been proposing the qualitative research method.
This questioning has grown during the last decade, and in 1994 the First Symposium for

Qualitative Research was held in Dusseldorf, Germany (Smeij sters. 1997). In the late

45

1990’ Ruud (1998b) stated that music therapists in both the United States and Europe
seem to accept a multiparadigmatic state in which both quantitative and qualitative
approaches are equally accepted.

The difference between the qualitative method and the quantitative method is an
epistemological issue. Their approaches are different not merely in technical research
procedures. but in their worldview itself (Aigen, 1995c). Smeijster (1997) summarized
the characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research and the differences between
them. In quantitative research, all experiences are described in terms of numerals, such
as the frequency. the existence/nonexistence, or the strength of a phenomenon.
Quantitative researchers set hypotheses based on previous theories that determine the
research procedure. The people who serve as research subjects are considered to be a
sample who represents the whole population, and they are studied in an artificial
experimental environment. instead ofa naturalistic context. The quantitative researcher
quantifies the results so that they can generalize the results from a sample to a large
population, aiming for developing a universal theory.

In contrast, for qualitative researchers numerals are not a primary tool for
describing experiences in their study. Description is the tool that they rely on. They
do not utilize assessment scales or figures. They analyze information that they gain by
coding and categorizing.

As described, quantitative researchers are interested in forming a universal theory.

46

Smeij ster (1997) states that the idea underlying this paradigm is that the experience of
people from different places and cultures can be described by general concepts. This
idea is based on a belief that people are not unique and that experiences are not
context-bound (Smeij ster. 1997). On the other hand, qualitative researchers believe that
individuals are unique and cannot be free from the contexts in which they are placed.
Qualitative researchers are interested in examining people’s experiences in their own
natural environment. rather than those in an artificial laboratory setting. Qualitative
researchers are interested in “organic, dynamic, multiple, complex, and idiosyncratic
realities” (Smeij ster, 1997, p.17) between people and their environment. They even
consider their own relationship to the people and the environment that they are studying.
According to Smeijster. the research design in a qualitative study is a treatment itself, so
there is “no gap between research findings and clinical significance” (p.17).

As discussed. the worldviews are different between the quantitative and
qualitative paradigms. One aims to describe people as being under a general law; the
other considers the uniqueness of individuals and the contexts of the individuals.
Handling this multiparadi gm situation has not been clearly resolved. Aigen (19950)
supports only qualitative research methods, and is extremely sensitive to the different
worldviews between qualitative and quantitative research. He insists, “Because the two
ways of conducting research are founded upon axioms which are mutually contradictory,

it does not make sense to argue that they can be equally useful in one and the same

47

domain. such as music therapy” (p.286). Smeijster (1997) and Aldridge (1996) consider
both methods of study equally useful because each can answer distinct questions
(Smeij ster, 1997). Aldridge (1996) regards this multiparadigm situation as an issue of
conflict between art and science: quantitative as a realm of science, and qualitative as a
realm of art. He believes that both art and science are fundamentally different, but both
poles are necessary to express the whole life of human beings. Pavlicevic (1997) is also
concerned about the dualistic discussions comparing qualitative and quantitative. She
points out, “[access to the professional literature has been complicated by] at one end of
the spectrum, highly personal and unsystematic accounts of music therapy that do little to
enhance the profession’s status; and, at the other extreme, glamorous number crunching
and attempts at standardized and ‘objective’ truth that seem to have little bearing on the
dynamic, live and idiographic experience in the music therapy room” (p.52). In order to
differentiate subjective knowledge that is durable for validations, Bruscia (1998c)
attempts to propose the standardized process for the qualitative study.
Qualitative versus Quantitative Aesthetic Studies

The growing attention to the qualitative research method has highlighted different
perspectives of aesthetic studies. As we have seen, what differentiates the qualitative
perspective from the quantitative perspective are the regard for the uniqueness of the
individual and the influence of context. In the experimental aesthetic study, the

researcher is concerned with controlling and standardizing aesthetic stimuli as

48

independent variables in order to conclude a universal law. Aesthetic components of
music such as rhythms and tempo are quantified, and the researchers are interested in the
effects of those aesthetic components on emotional, physiological, and behavioral
responses, such as mood and preference. In those studies, the uniqueness of the
individual experience is ignored, and their contexts are not considered.

As the qualitative research method is becoming more widely accepted among
members of the music therapy research community, aesthetic issues are being
reconsidered as subjective experiences that may be closer to real experiences (Aigen,
1995a). Now. as Aigen (1995a) discussed, the current academic climate is moving
toward acknowledging subjective knowledge as a valid source.

These discussions of music therapy research methods reflect the dual nature of
music therapy: that is music therapy as an art and as a science (e.g. Aldridge, 1996;
Bruscia. 1998a: Lee & Khare, 2001; Pavlicevic, 1997). There is a general
understanding that the qualitative method represents the artistic aspect of music therapy
practice. and the quantitative method emphasizes music therapy practice as a science
(Pavlicevic. 1997). Bruscia (1998a) also expressed a similar idea: “As an art, it is
concerned with subjectivity, individuality, creativity, and beauty. As a science, it is
concerned with objectivity. universality. replicability, and truth” (p.10). Balancing
between the dual nature of art and science has been a great concern for music therapy.

Even Gaston (1964), who set directions for experimental aesthetics, strove to integrate art

49

and science by claiming. “both science and art are human products” (p.6). He
attempted to explain how music interplays with people’s experiences by using medical
terms. From our contemporary views, his emphasis on scientific knowledge and
physiology seems to lack the humanity and artistic aspects of music. However, the
social situation in the early twentieth century was different from contemporary society;
the Cartesian dualistic view used to be predominant. and artistic activities and medical
practice were independent of each other, conducted by specialized people (Pavlicevic,
1997). Gaston’s attempt to integrate art and science must have been an epoch-making
event. What he attempted was to study art experiences in a scientific method, though
now his approach has been criticized as being too scientific. Balancing the dual nature
of art and science has been a task throughout entire music therapy history. Some may
consider this situation a dilemma. but I prefer to consider this situation, as Bruscia
(I998a) describes it. as a uniqueness of music therapy.
The Concepts of the Individual and Health

I believe that we cannot discuss aesthetics of music alone without asking
ourselves what health is. and what people are. In other words. the ontological status of
music in music therapy is always related to our concepts of the individual and health.
We utilize music according to the client’s needs. Sometimes the client articulates what
he/she needs. However. in reality. not many clients express their own needs. Instead,

we determine them based on assessment. I believe that the music therapist’s concepts of

50

the individual and health affect our process of determining needs. We need to be aware
of these issues.
Gaston '5 Concepts of the Individual and Health

First of all, we would like to review Gaston’s concepts of the individual and
health. Considering the strong influence of Gaston in our practice, reviewing his
concept is important for understanding the ideas underlying music therapy in the last
half-century.

Gaston (1964) regarded the human being as a biological man. Gaston
considered that “man is a part of the cosmos and subject to all of its laws. He is a
biological unit and operates always in agreement with the principles of biology” (p.2).
He believes that human beings are understood by the laws of biology. Gaston tried to
explain all kinds of experience. including aesthetic experiences, in reference to the law of
biology. For example. Gaston claimed that aesthetic experiences, such as being
impressed with a symphony or being attracted by the fragrance of a rose, should
ultimately be analyzed based on only biochemistry and physics.

Gaston (1964) believed that scientific knowledge is the primary characteristic of
human beings. as well as the goal for human growth. He acknowledged that human
beings are akin to other animals in physiological foundation; however, human beings
should be superior to animals. He proposed these unique characteristics, which

differentiate humans from other animals: the level of articulate speech, abstract thinking,

51

and mathematical communication. His ideal human beings were those who organize
and seek causes and endings scientifically. Biology and science were the key for his
concepts of the individual and health.

This concept influenced his understanding of music. Gaston (1964) attempted to
incorporate art experiences in a scientific framework. He considered music to be sound
stimuli that elicited sensory experiences. He regarded sensory experiences as those that
enrich people’s lives. In music therapy. he claimed that music experiences would help
developing children and people with. disabilities to develop sensory functions. Gaston
(1964) also discussed an aesthetic dimension of music. Gaston pointed out the unique
aesthetic properties of each culture in music. For him, such aesthetic properties were a
device for social adjustment. Through music learning, people would Ieam an aesthetic
world that is unique in the culture. and learn how to adjust oneself to one’s own
environment. This idea seems to suggest that people should learn how to adjust oneself
to a larger society by meeting the aesthetic standards that each society and culture
possesses.

In summary. it seems that Gaston’s general position was strongly influenced by
biological views. He believed that the individual is “biological man,” who is ruled by
the laws of biology. and that human beings maintain their own dignity by acknowledging
that they are rational. He regarded sensory experiences as the first important events for

a human being, and music can play a role in enriching those experiences. Human

52

beings also need aesthetic experiences through learning music as a tool for adjusting
themselves to their own environments.
Shifting the Concept of the Individual

Ruud (1998a) makes an extensive presentation regarding the concept of the
individual. According to Ruud, when the individual is regarded as being controlled by
biological processes. and when therapeutic changes are described in terms of bodily or
physiological changes of the client as Gaston believed, the underlying concept is
described as “the individual as an organism” (pp.20-21 ). Later. in contrast to this view,
the humanistic approach brought about the idea as “the individual as a person” (Ruud,
1998a, pp.22-23). In this view, human beings are considered as a subject who makes
decisions and has the freedom to make choices. The individual’s capacity for
responsibility and free choice is an important component in music therapy interventions.

However, Ruud (1998a) is not totally satisfied with this view because it does not
consider one’s own context and the dynamic relationships between the individual, society,
and culture. “The individual as a social being” (pp.25-26) emphasizes the above
dimensions of the human being. Gaston (1964) also acknowledged that music is related
to society and culture, and that aesthetics is unique in each culture. However, in his
view the emphasis was on the adaptation of the individual to one’s own environment; it
was a one-way communication between the individual and the society. What Ruud

emphasizes is the interactive and dynamic relationship between the individual and the

53

society. Ruud says, “Music therapists stress the adaptation of the individual in relation
to the institution or the larger world. not how society can be transformed so it can adapt
to people or how music and music therapy can involve participants in meaningful
interaction” (p.25). In this view. the client is an agent of action, and has the potential
power to influence society. This view is correlated with the view of Aldridge (1996),
that of the human being as a performer. In their lives individuals are thought to pursue
health based on their own beliefs even those that are not enforced by society. The view
of the individual as a performer puts an emphasis on the power of the individual over his
or her own society. Conversely, Ruud (1998a) warns us that social force and structure
may amplify the disabilities of the client. When the therapist represents a single value
system of society, “all questions about who is going to control whom or about how
material or economic structures in an institution or a society may promote symptoms or
maladaptive behavior are removed from the discussion” (Ruud, 1998. p.25). Viewing
the individual as a social being, Ruud emphasizes the influence of society and economic
structure on one’s musical expressions. Ruud relates one’s musical. expressions to the
musical identity that conveys one’s self-concept in society. Therefore. he emphasizes
the importance of a basic respect for the musical identity of the client. equating the
musical identity with the human dignity of the client.

In current society. great attention has been paid to the power of the mind and its

interplay with physiological functions. Ruud (1998a) states that this view is based on an

54

ecological approach. In this approach, the concept of the individual is ruled by
interactions of “biological. psychological, and sociological factors” (p.26). Considering
biological factors alone, as Gaston attempted to do, does not encompass the many
dimensions of the individual. In the ecological or holistic approach the relationships
that may influence one’s health status are not one-way cause-and-effect relationships, but
parts of a circular model of cause and effect. Therefore. in music therapy interventions,
the music therapist pays attention to changes in the whole system surrounding the client.
For example. music therapists who believe this approach may be interested in engaging in
the community. and building social networks through music groups.

The holistic view also highlights spiritual issues. The concept of the individual
by Kenny (1982) focuses on spiritual issues, and it is influenced by the Native American
worldview. She states her concept of the individual in relation to sacredness and nature:
“The Indian considered Nature. and a man as a part of Nature, Divine and Sacred. . ..in
order to survive people must appreciate the link between themselves and the natural
world” (p.47). Her view reflects her Indian cultural and ethnic background. For her,
nature is related to spiritual issues. and she believes that people, as holistic beings, should
be linked with nature.

Shifting the Concept ofHealth
Changes in the concept of the individual have allowed us to examine health,

which is the focus of music therapy, in a different way. In the traditional view. in which

55

the individual was regarded as an organism (Ruud, 1998a), illness is the state in which
people suffer from physical or mental dysfunction that negatively affects them.
Therefore. the purpose of therapy is to fix disabilities or to alleviate them. This type of
view is correlated with a reductionist approach. The reductionist analyzes a given
phenomenon by separating the whole into constituent parts at an atomic level; then they
figure out cause-effect relationships between parts and the whole. For the reductionist,
the whole is the sum of all individual components.

In reaction to the reductionist view, the General Systems Theory emerged in the
middle of twentieth century. Ludwig von Bertalanffy, an Austrian theoretical biologist
is said to be one of the originators of this theory (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992). This
theory has continued to be widely accepted in the various fields of science, including
medical areas since the 1970’s (Taboada, 2002). It also serves as a conceptual
framework in philosophy. math, and other areas (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992). Those
who believe this theory take given phenomena as “organized wholes” (Taboada, 2002,
p.35). rather than breaking a phenomenon into sub parts. They do not treat each part in
isolation. rather they consider it in relation to other parts. and examine dynamic
interaction between them. There are different levels at which we find a phenomenon as
an organized whole, such as cell, an organ, a living organism, a community, the society,
the world, and the cosmos (Taboada, 2002). How parts are integrated, organized and

maintained as a whole system is their interest.

56

In General Systems Theory a life is considered to have a spontaneous tendency
toward disorder. In order to resist such a destructive tendency, a life as a living system
should maintain its steady state by operating dynamic interactions between self and the
environment. A life as a living system incorporates new matter. energy and information
dynamically so that it remains self-organized and will be preserved. This constant
renewal creates a state offlowing balance (Taboada, 2002, p.37), and this is what
Bertalanffy calls the notion of steady state (Taboada, 2002, p.36).

When General Systems Theory is applied to the concept of health, two important
abilities are highlighted. One is health balance, in which living beings possess an ability
to preserve a state of dynamic balance. The other is health potential, in which living
beings are thought to have potential to adapt to their changing environments in a
meaningful and successful way. Health in the latter sense is also synonymous with
one’s own coping skills. In the reductionist approach, the individual is seen as a
mechanical being who reacts to different external stimuli in a linear cause-effect
relationship. while the General Systems Theory emphasizes one’s own ability to cope
with changes at each moment. In this theory, the individual is open to interact with
one’s own environment, and to find a meaningful relationship between it and oneself.

While Taboada (2002) acknowledges the positive influence of the General
Systems Theory, she also points out a danger underlying the concept of human health in

this theory. According to her. expanding the concept of human health to multiple

57

relationships and interactions of a person with other persons in one’s family and society.
with one’s environment. and even with the whole cosmos would obscure the boundaries
and responsibility of health care policies. This criticism is worth considering in
determining boundaries of the health care professions; however, in general, the emphasis
of the theory on creativity of the individual as an active agent and on the interactive
relationship between a person and the environment in multiple levels is attractive to
music therapists.
The Influence ofGeneral Systems Theory

Many music therapists in recent years have been interested in holistic views even
without the mention of any theoretical background. Aldridge (1996) differentiates
disease and illness. While the former indicates pathological dysfunctions, illness refers
to subjective experiences in reaction to one’s own dysfunctions. He also claims that
health is not a given condition, rather it is created by the individuals in their own way.
He sees that the therapeutic process is to promote creative coping responses and to help
clients establish the possibilities of “renewed health”’(p.58). Aldridge (1996) and
Ansdell (1995) believe that health is related to one’s flexibility in coping with the
always-changing conditions. At the opposite end of flexibility, rigidity is regarded as
illness. In music activity. Ansdell points out that when people are handicapped, they
seem to narrow their flexibility in playing music. Therefore, Aldridge and Ansdell

propose that experiencing music at one’s full range and flexibility is the purpose of music

58

therapy. Such experience will be applied to the clients’ coping skills in their own
changing environments.

Ruud (1998a) also considers the individual as an acting agent who interacts with
one’s own environment. His emphasis is especially strong on the interaction between a
person and his/her culture and social structure. Instead of adapting oneself, he claims
that larger society must make a compromise for individuals. He suggests we consider
music therapy itself as apart of a cultural movement to make changes.

Kenny (1989) sees that people are living under various conditions, such as “love
and loss. suffering and joy, pain and pleasure” (p.73). She reorganizes the meaning of
these conditions as stemming from limitations they impose on people’s growth. For
Kenny, creating new patterns of these conditions and finding a new meaning in them is
the therapeutic process. As discussed earlier, her concept of the individual is based on
the person as a spiritual being who is interacting with nature. Therefore, a therapeutic
process is to help the client to build the spiritual relationship between him/herself and
nature, and also to find the meaning of life between them.

As the General Systems Theory portrays the tendency toward self-organization as
a living system, Aldridge (1996) stresses the importance of order in one’s music and
speech. Aldridge states. “In music lies the phenomenon of a person coming into order.
It may perhaps be that when a sense of that order is lost a person experiences a loss of

health” (p.27). His emphasis on both flexibility and order seems to be correlated with

59

the idea of the General Systems Theory, in which the idea of a steady state is actualized

through consistent dynamic interaction of a person with the environment. Ruud (1998a)

also has a similar idea. He finds it meaningful to have identity that is flexible as well as
coherent for increasing one’s quality of life. He explains, “A flexible identity implies
the ability to compose and adjust a personal narrative in accordance with how life is
perceived and lived. A coherent identity would imply that I feel continuity and
sameness in life” (p.57). The two ideas of flexibility and order/coherency remind

Aldridge and Ruud of improvisational music. Aldridge regards jazz music as an

embodiment of life itself. and Ruud sees the individual as an improviser through one’s

own life.
Summary
This chapter reviewed experimental aesthetics in music psychology and music
therapy. including a look at recent criticism of traditional music therapy research, and
examined the concepts of the individual and health.

1. Before experimental aesthetics developed. speculative aesthetics, a branch of
philosophy. was dominant. In the late twentieth century, music psychologists
developed an experimental approach. In music therapy. Gaston, the founder of
music therapy. set the direction for experimental aesthetics, and music therapists
traditionally incorporated them. Their results were applied to the clinical settings in

music therapy practice; however. researchers, like Aigen, criticize traditional

60

aesthetics for their emphasis on scientific methods, represented by quantitative
research. Aigen and some other researchers believe that knowledge based on the
quantitative method does not express our experience in music therapy.

The concepts of the individual shifted from a biological view to holistic one. In a
holistic view. the individual is regarded as a biological. emotional, social, and
spiritual being. General Systems Theory developed in the late twentieth century and
emphasizes one’s ability to dynamically maintain a balance of components within a
system and to cope with changes. This theory has influenced the concept of health
in music therapy. which focuses on one’s flexibility and creativity to respond to
changes and to reorganize oneself. This focus musically correlates with

improvisational experiences.

61

CHAPTER FOUR
TOWARD NEW AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY

We have looked at three traditional aesthetic philosophies: the formalist, the
referentialist or the contextualist. and the expressionist. We have examined gaps
between those philosophies and music therapy practice, and we reviewed experimental
aesthetics, which has been the major approach for studying aesthetic issues in music
therapy. We also reviewed changes in the concept of the individual and of health by
examining General Systems Theory. In this chapter, based on previous discussions, we
would like to examine a new aesthetics called praxial philosophy, which is now regarded
as the fourth aesthetics in music philosophy (J. Kratus, September 19, 2003), and how it
can apply to music therapy practice. Then. we turn our eyes to recent aesthetic
discussions in music therapy. The goal of this chapter is to create a basis for aesthetics
presented in the next chapter.

Praxial Philosophy of Music Education

Precursor

It is not only music therapists. but also musicological researchers who have been
questioning traditional philosophies for the last several decades. With a rise of
non-Westem music practices such as jazz. the birth of atonal music, and the demise of the
tonalin system on which traditional Western classical music is based, Western

musicologists have become more aware of their past ideologies regarding music practice.

62

They have been interested in better defining Western music practice as compared to
non-Westem music practice.

Before discussing praxial philosophy we should acknowledge the claims made by
Francis Edward Sparshott, a music philosopher. His viewpoint is considered to be a
precursor to the developing criticism of traditional aesthetics. Sparshott (1987)
proposes concerns regarding traditional aesthetics in his article, “Aesthetics of Music:
Limits and Grounds.” He points out that music came to be treated as one of the fine arts,
producing aesthetic theories in which music and other creative arts were discussed on the
same ground. However, Sparshott attempts to explain the uniqueness of music that
differentiates it from other arts. He also claims that aesthetic studies of music were
originally inductive. examining specific issues that occur in music practice. In current
traditional aesthetic study, the approach to aesthetic issues is normative, in which the
emphasis is placed on how to apply aesthetic theories to music practice. He notes that
traditional aesthetics tends to ignore the context of music. however, he believes, “What is
chosen is not usually what is ‘best’ but what is right in context” (p.41). Sparshott states
that the special circumstances in which music is experienced are important factors to be
considered. Sparshott extends his discussion to non-aesthetic functions of music, such
as in ceremonial use. and to popular music or songs that are not considered to be an
authentic form of music in traditional musicology. These viewpoints are synthesized by

Elliott as praxial philosophy, which we will examine in the following sections.

63

Praxial Philosophy of Music Education by David Elliott

As mentioned in previous chapters, Elliott (1995) criticizes aesthetic education
that relies on traditional aesthetic theories. He proposes a new philosophy as an
alternative, which he calls praxial philosophy of music education (p.19). This praxial
philosophy is influential in current music education, and now it is considered to be the
fourth aesthetics, on equal footing with the three previous aesthetic theories (J. Kratus,
September 29. 2003). Elliott intentionally avoids referring to his philosophy as
aesthetics, because the term aesthetics is likely to imply an aesthetic theory and the
aesthetic education that Bennett Reimer proposes. This paper earlier defined the study
of aesthetics as concerned not only with beauty, but also with the meaning and value of
music. This is what Elliott addresses. Therefore, it seems to be appropriate to refer to
his philosophy as aesthetics. based on the definition offered in this paper.

Praxial philosophy is differentiated from previous theories in that the former is
based on the philosophy of music. and the latter theories are based on the philosophy of
art (J. Kratus, September 29. 2003). Traditional aesthetic theories of music found their
place in the study of fine arts. in which music is grouped together with other creative arts,
but a philosophy of music rather emphasizes unique and distinctive characteristics of
music. Identifying what makes music unique among the fine arts is an on-going
discussion in the area of music philosophy.

According to Elliott (1995). the noun praxis is derived from the verb prasso in

64

Greek. Its meaning is “‘to do’ or ‘to act purposefully”’(p.l4). However, when we use
prasso intransitively. its meaning changes from action alone to “the idea of action in a
situation”(p. I 4). Elliott calls his thoughts praxial philosophy, intending to emphasize an
ability to act musically in response to context. He regards music as “a particular form of
action that is purposeful and situated and. therefore, revealing of one’s self and one’s
relationship with others in a community” (p.14). This view of music is radically
different from that of traditional aesthetic theories essentially in three ways. First,
whereas traditional aesthetics and aesthetic education has focused on music as merely a
form of product. praxial philosophy proposes the following additional dimensions of
music: a) the music maker or listener, b) the product, c) the activity or process, and d) the
context in which each dimension should be considered.

Secondly. praxial philosophy illuminates the importance of the context that
creates various meanings. According to Elliott, context means “the total of ideas,
associations, and circumstances that surround, shape, frame, and influence something and
our understanding of that something” (p.40). The above four dimensions are related
each other and create a dynamic system of exchange and feedback according to a context.
The music maker acts and reacts in response to the music product or the process of music
making and listening. This action will also be influenced by the context of music
practice. such as feedback and reactions from peers. society, or standards of performance

in the past and present. The emphasis on the context is radically different from the

65

formalist’s view in which the meaning and value of music is independent from any
contexts.

Thirdly, knowledge of music is also different from the conventional meaning of
knowledge. Knowing the historical context and musical characteristics of a piece, and
explaining what you have learned and understand in words is not enough in praxial
philosophy of music education. That knowledge should be expressed through music
making and music listening at each level of the musical learning process. Elliott (1995)
calls this knowledge procedural knowledge. He asserts that this procedural knowledge
is essential and is enhanced by other types of knowledge, such as formal, informal,
impressionistic or intuitive, and supervisory or metacognitive knowledge. The
procedural knowledge enables students to make and listen to music in different ways that
best fit each context. Elliott says. “music ought to be understood in relation to the
meanings and values evidenced in actual music making and music listening in specific
cultural contexts” (p.14). The actions of 'music making and listening are not arbitrary,
but rather purposeful, intentional, and controlled according to context. Therefore,
praxial philosophy defines music as an intentional form of activity. Music is not a
product that is independent from the person who is involved in it, instead, it is an
intended action by a person.

Application

Although we previously believed that music philosophy was not helpful for

66

understanding our therapy practice (e.g. Ansdell, 1997), the above praxial views
encourage us to examine music therapy from a new aesthetic philosophy. First of all,
when Elliott (1995) states that music is essentially “a human activity” (p.39), this reminds
us of a comment by Gaston (1968). He asserted that music is “a form of human
behavior”(p.7). By viewing music as behavior. Gaston attempted to discuss music in
the realm of behavioral science, which expanded the potential of music in therapeutic
settings. By considering music as a human behavior, Elliott finds rich and fruitful
dimensions of music experience that are related to one’s own society, culture, and history.
Embracing those music experiences has been an essential part of our practice. The
praxial view supports our basic understanding of music.

Secondly, praxial philosophy provides a more satisfactory response to music
therapists regarding the differences discussed in chapter two between traditional aesthetic
theories and our practice. Let us examine how praxial philosophy regards music in the
following areas brought up in chapter two: a) product or process, b) music
activities/experiences. c) aesthetic versus nonaesthetic values. and d) musical training.

Product or process.

We found out that in traditional aesthetic theories, there is no consideration of the
process of music making. Music is regarded as an accomplished product only.
Traditional theorists did not include discussions of how music influenced the society and

people, or how the performer presented the music in a specific context. Bruscia (1998a)

67

proposes that music therapy practice includes at least four components: a) a person. b) a
process. c) a product. and d) a context (p.101). In fact. these components are parallel to
those that Elliott (1995) suggests. While traditional aesthetics focuses only on music as
a product. praxial philosophy of music education widens the concept of music such that it
is closer to the music therapist’s concept of music.

Music activitiesvexperiences.

According to Elliott (1995). music is “a multidimensional human phenomenon
involving two interlocking forms of intentional human activity: music making and music
listening” (p.42). Making music includes five forms: performing, improvising,
composing. arranging. and conducting. In traditional aesthetics, music listening is the
central activity. but praxial philosophy views it as only a part of the whole music
experience. In fact. listening and music making are two paratactic activities. They are
interlocked, and they define and condition each other. In music therapy, the
interlocking relationship between music making and listening has been a given
experience. and Ansdell (I995) reemphasizes this experience by pointing out
listening-in-playing or the social listening (pp.156-161). which was discussed in chapter
two. The music maker modifies, adj usts, and creates one’s playing in response to what
he/she hears in one’s ovm music or that of others. Elliott’s concept of music
encompasses our music therapy activities, which are ignored in traditional aesthetics. In

addition, there is no hierarchical distinction between singing and playing instruments in

68

the praxial view, although traditional aesthetics would place instrumental music or
absolute music in a higher status. In general, a praxial view of music experience
includes mostly that which the music therapist uses in sessions and values equally
instrumental and vocal activities.

Aesthetic versus nonaesthetic values.

Traditional aesthetic philosophers, especially the formalists, believe and
emphasize aesthetic values of music. Elliott (1995) admits on one hand that music has
its value as a product involving musical designs, including pitch, duration, timbre, texture,
tempo. articulation. and loudness. These qualities are valued in traditional music
education as aesthetic qualities. On the other hand. praxial philosophy holds that these
qualities would not determine the whole value of music. Elliott proposes various values,
including those understood as the functions of music. Music has been practiced
functionally for the purpose of social. religious and cultural practice from the very early
ages of human history. Music therapists utilize those functional aspects of music
effectively in therapeutic settings.

In addition. praxial philosophy of music education essentially illuminates the
value of “doing for the doing itself. meaning ‘for the sake of the self”(Elliott, 1995,

p.121 ). Elliott sees that music making is valuable for human beings because the music
learning process provides students with self-growth, self-knowledge, and enjoyment at

each level of musicianship. Elliott believes that these are basic, satisfactory experiences,

69

innate in human beings. Self-growth, self-knowledge, and enjoyment are undoubtedly
important as music therapy goals. This aspect of Elliott’s position supports and
encourages our music therapy practice.

Musical training.

Aesthetic education is likely to hold the view that certain musical training is
necessary in order to appreciate music aesthetically. Perceiving aesthetic qualities of
musical works is a key point for aesthetic education. This idea may suggest that
untrained people find it difficult to appreciate music. For Elliott, however, the value of
music does not lie in its aesthetic qualities alone, but it lies in one’s experiences through
learning. Elliott believes that students at each level would have those valuable music
experiences by engaging in challenging musical tasks and solving musical problems.
Therefore. music educators should be deliberate in providing appropriate tasks and
challenges according to each student’s musicianship. This can be related to music
therapy. Tailoring individual goals and objectives to the client’s ability is what music
therapists have been doing in treatment.

Limitation

The theories that Elliott has developed in his praxial philosophy are designed for
music education; therefore, his discussions are not always applicable to music therapy
practice. We should clarify those limitations in applying praxial philosophy to music

therapy.

70

Artistic standard.

First of all, Elliott argues that the purpose of education is to help students to
develop procedural knowledge, in which understanding of music should be reflected in
their musical action. The knowledge should be based on an artistic standard and
tradition in context. The students are expected to understand them. On the other hand,
in music therapy, understanding an artistic standard or tradition is not essentially
important for the client. Who will decide good or bad music is not always in the hands
of the music therapist, and sometimes the client is the one who would make such
decisions. Based on his music therapy writings, Gaston (1964) might consider a
traditional artistic standard as being important for helping music therapy clients to learn
how to adapt in their own culture and society. Achieving and meeting artistic standards
of the society may enable clients to communicate with others and share experiences with
others in the society. However, as discussed, our concept of the individual is changing.
Clients are also considered to have a power to make changes in society. Therefore,
traditional artistic standards may sometimes yield to those of the client.

Purpose.

The purpose of music education is obviously different from that of music therapy.
Music education serves the purpose of helping students achieve better musicianship that
in turn brings positive experiences to them, such as self-growth, through learning music.

In music therapy, achieving musicianship is a secondary goal compared to other

71

therapeutic goals. The primary concern for music therapists is to help clients recover
from illness. and improve and maintain their health and wellness. We help the client to
achieve those goals through music experiences, but we also find that clients sometimes
achieve them without direct music experiences.

Bruscia (1998, pp. 1 09-1 12) points out four levels of music experiences in music
therapy as premusical. musical, extramusical, and paramusical. When the client
responds to sound stimuli, such as vibrations, which are not organized as a form of music,
the experience is called premusical. Musical experiences are achieved through making
or listening to controlled and organized sounds. The relationships of sounds are
inherently meaningful in musical experiences. The client may respond to images, ideas,
feelings. stories. or any other non-musical messages elicited by music. That experience
is called extramusical. When music is used as a background that influences the client’s
experiences. the music functions as paramusical. Premusical and paramusical
experiences are not direct music input. but they are within the borders of music therapy.

Creativity.

The distinctive difference between music therapy and praxial philosophy of music
education lies in the understanding of creativity. Elliott (1995) defines creative as “a
congratulatory term that singles out a concrete accomplishment that knowledgeable
people judge to be especially important in relation to a specific context of doing and

making” (p.216). A sense of originality and novelty in relation to pre-existing works is

72

counted as being creative. Elliott strictly differentiates creativity and spontaneous
originality. While spontaneous originality involves reacting aimlessly to the
environment. creativity is more intentional and requires effort. For example, in
composing. creating is a goal-directed activity where a composer works until he or she
meets or fails to meet the “intended result” (p.222). Although he acknowledges the
importance of music as process. Elliott strongly emphasizes the results of a music product
in his discussion of creativity.

This understanding of creativity makes us think deeply about what is creativity
music therapy. In fact. creativity is the key that explains why music is therapeutic from
the qualitative standpoint. In music therapy, creativity is not always related to novelty
or originality. We expect an indication of healing in the process and the product of
creative music. For example. Salas (1990) and Aldridge (1996, 2003) may find that
musical organization and patterns that the client is attempting to create are strongly
related to one’s health. Aldridge (1996) and Ruud (I 998) believe that the quality of
flexibility in music is important because it shows one’s ability to cope with changes and
to reorganize oneself in an environment. Ruud (1998) and Stige (2002) state that the
creative process enables clients to construct meaning in relation to their environments
through symbolic expressions of music. Creativity in music therapy does not have to be
original and novel.

Intention is the key that makes a difference in the understanding of creativity

73

between music therapy and music education. Elliott emphasizes that intended and
goal-directed action is necessary in creativity. However, in music therapy, it is often
observed that a client’s spontaneous and unplanned action turns out to be a
therapeutically meaningful experience. For example, the client may cry out instead of
singing, or may bang a drum instead of playing it. The therapist will play along with
those unorganized sounds (crying or banging drum) in an artistic fashion, and transform
those sounds into a component of an artistic form of expression. That experience may
bring the client into awareness of their internal struggles or tensions, and it may help
him/her feel that those internal emotions are acknowledged and also are encouraged to be
expressed by the therapist. who is someone in the outer world. This dynamic
transformation from spontaneous sounds to therapeutically meaningful “music” is ofien
observed in the reports of music therapists oriented to Nordoff-Robbins Creative Music
Therapy (Aigen, 1995a; Ansdell 1995).

Alternative value.

Regarding the value of music, Stige’s (2002) “Exemplification of polarization of
values in aesthetic discourse” (p.63) gives us a frame of reference to consider. He
contrasts “high—art value” with “alternative value” of music. From the perspective of
high-art value, music is appreciated according to a special value that is detached from
daily experiences, music requires a high quality of formality, and only gifted people are

allowed to participate in music activity. On the other hand, alternative value

74

emphasizes music experiences related to one’s everyday life; therefore, popular music is
an interest for those who ascribe to the alternative value. Accordingly, musicianship is
open to all people, regardless of their musical talent and skills. In the music making
process, spontaneous elements are often more important than an intentional effort aiming
for formal completeness. Praxial philosophy may lie between the two ends of high-art
value and alternative value. The value of music in praxial philosophy may not agree
with most high-art values. but it shares its value with high-art when praxial aesthetics
requires intentional and controlled action. Music therapy emphasizes spontaneity in
playing music, and it may sometimes even encourage clients to free themselves of a need
for musical completion.

The discussion regarding intention and conscious actions in the creative process
urges us to examine further the therapist’s role and that of the participant, in the creative
process in music therapy. This will be explored in the next chapter.

New Aesthetics in Music Therapy

As discussed in chapter three, critical questioning of experimental aesthetic
studies has been growing. as well as of the quantitative method of research. Instead of
treating aesthetic experiences as something to be quantified, aesthetic studies as a branch
of philosophy search to answer the questions, “What is the meaning of clinical music?”
“Why is music therapeutic?” “How is beauty of music described?” Reaction to the

objective method has enabled music therapy scholars to begin to validate subjective

75

experiences of both clients and therapists as they occur in music.

The studies of aesthetics in music therapy are still complicated due to the vague
meaning of “aesthetics.” Before going forward to the next chapter, it is important to
frame recent aesthetic discussions from a qualitative perspective.

Expanding the Meaning of A esthetics
Carolyn Kenny

Carolyn Kenny is one of the music therapy scholars who emphasizes aesthetic
experiences in practice. She employs the term aesthetics uniquely to express her
worldview of music therapy. and has developed a general theory called “The Field of
Play”(Kenny. 1989). In the field of play. she uses the term the aesthetic. indicating “a
field of beauty which is the human person” (p.75). She embraces the word beauty and
symbolically equates the human person with the aesthetic. She firrther states that as a
principle of the aesthetic, “An aesthetic represents that which one carries and
communicates into the world based on the screening system of choices and judgments
regarding that which one considers to be ‘beautiful’” (p.77). For Kenny, the concept of
beauty plays an important role in aesthetic judgments. However, beauty does not
connote that which is found in musical components. While the formalist states that
aesthetic value of music resides in musical structures and components, Kenny expands
the notion of beauty to the way of life and to the human person.

For Kenny. beauty is not a static object to be appreciated; it calls for actions and

76

attitudes for growth. Kenny (1989) says. “As one moves toward beauty. one moves
toward wholeness, or the fullest potential of what one can be in the world” (p.77).
Beauty is presented as a goal for human beings. It suggests wholeness as a person, and
a condition in which one’s potential is fully realized. This idea is based on her deep
devotion to the philosophy and wisdom of Native Americans/Canadians. Kenny (2002)
claims. “For the Navajo. beautifying the Earth is a moral obligation and the essential goal
of one’s life if one is to lead a good life. For the Navajo. beautifying the Earth means
keeping the world in balance” (p.157). Her worldviews, morals. concepts of health and
the individual are all related to beauty. By using the term “beautifying,” she suggests
that beauty is also an action. This reminds us of Elliott’s consideration of music as a
form of action.

How does Kenny then link beauty as a designated experience of wholeness and an
action to music? She has a strong interest in the relationship between music and
spirituality. She opens our eyes to address music as a mythic function and magic, as in
folk traditions. She believes in the power of music in ritual experiences. She has been
interested in bringing ancient healing practices into the modern context of music therapy.
She believes that music incorporated into such healing practices, represented by
death-rebirth experience (Kenny, 1982, 1989. 2002). would apply to modern music
therapy. In this way. while Kenny embraces the word beauty in examining aesthetics of

music therapy, she expands the meaning of beauty from a static concept of music to the

77

human person and to the action taken in the process of connecting the individual with the
Earth. Beauty is a spiritual issue for her; therefore. music is meaningful and valuable in
a clinical context when it promotes spirituality and the healing practice of birth and
rebirth.
Kenneth Aigen

Aigen (1995a) is also one of the music therapy scholars who has keenly studied
the aesthetics of music therapy. He is disappointed at the narrow concept of aesthetics
in traditional aesthetic theories. and he finds that the aesthetic standard in music
performance would not apply to clinical music. Therefore, he endeavors to expand the
notion of beauty, as Kenny does. He has developed his concept of aesthetics based on
Dewey’s philosophy. According to Aigen, Dewey considers the aesthetic as a “quality
of existence that provides unity, completion, and wholeness to our experience” (p.239).
By applying Dewey’s philosophy, Aigen expands the concept of beauty or aesthetics to
be a matter of one’s existence rather than a matter of music itself. The senses of unity,
completion. and wholeness are qualities that each individual seeks. While Aigen
expands the meaning of aesthetics to a matter of personal growth, he also acknowledges
the potential of artistic musical forms in music therapy. Aigen states, “we seek to
engender feelings of unity in therapy groups to facilitate constructive conflict and
resolution” (p.240). In order to make the transformation of conflict to resolution, Aigen

believes that supporting the client’s expression of conflicts and resolutions in an artistic

78

 

form would be important. He asserts that aesthetic experience is not peripheral to the
therapy, but is the therapy itself. Aigen applies the term aesthetics, in terms of beauty,
to wholeness and integrity and also acknowledges the importance of artistic form.
David Aldridge
Aldridge (2003) also expands the meaning of aesthetics from the aesthetic
properties of music to the way of being healthy. For him, pursuing health is not only a
physical issue. but it is a matter of self-identity and a way of life. As mentioned.
Aldridge (I996) considers that the individual is a performer who realizes one’s identity
of health in the society. He identifies a concept of the individual as a music performer.
As a music performer plays music aesthetically, the individual performs one’s identity
aesthetically. Aldridge (2003) says. “we must remember that the body too has an
aesthetic that influences our identity; how we present ourselves in the world, and how
we are recognized” (Aldridge, 2003, A performed body, 1I2). Any physical assessment
of a body, such as assessing the degree and type of disability and dysfunction of the
client. is also a matter of aesthetics. Aldridge finds a parallel relationship between
aesthetics and one’s way of living and health.
The relationship between music and health is not merely an abstract relationship
for Aldridge. Aldridge (1996, 2003) believes that music and health is physically
connected. He tries to explain this relationship in various ways. such as finding the

correlation between rhythmic movements within our body and music. As a major

79

premise, Aldridge explains that our physical bodies are a source from which we perform
music. A body is not merely a physical body of the individual, but also connotes
expansive spaces that extend from our bodies. Therefore. all performances, including
playing music with musical instruments. or using technological devises that
accommodate physical disabilities. are a part of his concept of body. He regards that
even culture is incorporated into our body. Areas that he indicates are included in his
concept of the body are extensive. Accordingly, the performance stage is extended from
the concert hall to one’s everyday life situations.
Based on these concepts, Aldridge (2003) calls his idea praxis aesthetic, that is
“the performed body located in social relationship in a culture of shared understandings”
(2003, Praxis aesthetic. setting and performance, 1l2). Aesthetics is not a theory, but it
is “an attitude that we can take to assessing health and the products and processes of
therapy” (2003. Praxis aesthetic, setting and performance, 1I2). For Aldridge, the idea
of praxis is necessary for understanding the relationship between music and health.
Aldridge (2003) also asserts that in order to understand this relationship between
musical performance and one’s way of living. hermeneutic understanding is important.
Hermeneutics as a methodology originated in the study of the bible, in which the bible is
regarded as a text that is interpreted in a meaningful way by understanding human
beings and by situating ourselves at the time when the texts were written. In this

manner, we understand the bible as it fits into our sense of common everyday life, rather

8O

 

than taking all the given information for granted. Aldridge is interested in applying a
hermeneutic view in understanding the performance of therapeutic music. He does not
use a text to make interpretation, but he interprets non—verbal actions, such as gestures.

For Aldridge. a sense of self-maintenance and organization is essential for the
aesthetics of one’s health. However, in reality, clients usually have both past and
on-going experiences of loss of health or healthy relationships with others that may
cause them disorganization in their lives. A sense of disorganization may be presented
in music: disturbance in kinesis, rhythm, hearing and other senses. Aldridge identifies
a lack of aesthetic sense in music as a lack of health. The aim of the therapy is to
restore a sense of organization in music, and achieve the aesthetics of health.
Specifically, keeping in rhythm and finding patterns in music are considered to be
important indicators of one’s health. The musical performance that shows a sense of
organization and patterns is the aim and the process of music therapy.

Health is not only individual performance, but it is also considered in relation to
others. Aldridge regards musical activity, which is experienced as a dialogue between
one another as extremely important. For Aldridge, dialogue is an existential necessity
for “the achievement of health in the sense of becoming whole.” Dialogue is also a
form of performance, usually non-verbal as in a gesture, and therefore, dialogue through
music enables even those who have speech disabilities to communicate with each other.

Aldridge states, “We perform sociality in therapy. This performing dialogue changes

81

the degenerative to the creative. and the perhaps is the healing element in music therapy”
(Aldridge. 2003. Benefits of music therapy, Il5). In this way, Aldridge develops the
idea of the individual as a performer who seeks the aesthetics of health in their life.

The above three music therapy scholars attempt to extend the concepts of
aesthetics or beauty of music to non-musical behaviors and attitudes in the living
situation. They expand the possibilities for discussing beauty of music in relation to the
wholeness of the individual (Aigen, l995a; Kenny, 1989), health (Aldridge, 1997, 2003)
and other dimensions that are important in a therapeutic context. Their views of music
do not reject traditional views of music; however. their emphasis stresses music as an
action or process.

The Meaning of Music

There are researchers who approach aesthetics by studying the meaning of music.
Stige is one of the researchers who are interested in the meaning of music, and he
approaches aesthetic issues by examining the meaning of clinical music through the
relationship between language and music. Stige (1998, 2002) understands that general
music therapy discussions are likely to emphasize the contrast between language and
music. Music is usually considered a representation of non-verbal communication and a
tool for accessing areas that verbal communication cannot reach. However, Stige
(1998) is not content with a simple dichotomy between language and music. His

understanding of language differs from conventional understanding. For Stige,

82

language is not a tool to simply name and indicate things; rather, he asserts that it should
be understood as meaning that is constructed. He attempts to apply Wittgenstein’s
philosophy. language games. According to Stige, Wittgenstein believes that a word
gains its meaning in a communicative process. and transforms its meaning according to
the actions and interactions of the participants. The participants choose to follow or not
follow certain rules. and such decision-making in the communication process facilitates
the word’s gaining its meaning. This is understandable when one finds that the meaning
indicated in the dictionary is sometimes not helpful for understanding the meaning of the
word in a specific context. The meaning of the word is not static as we are likely to
think. but it is more like a living thing. Therefore, Wittgenstein emphasizes that word
meaning is social in nature. and in use. The meaning is created by at least two people.

Stige (2002) applies this dynamic of verbal communication to music
communication. He believes music meaning occurs in the process of communication
between two people or more, the therapist and the client(s). Ruud (1998) also agrees
with this process of constructing meaning in improvisation. He emphasizes liminal
states or processes. which are characterized by “confusion, ambiguity, and the dissolution
of conventional meanings and fixed points in life” (p. l 21). In music therapy, the
meaning of music is unformed and fluid at first. Through clinical improvisation, clients
will try out alternative forms of expressions, and discover their personal and musical

meanings in accordance with their self-images. Stige further develops Ruud’s idea of

83

 

constructing meaning in relation to musical communication, and discusses the cultural
issues and value conflicts that occur among people. This will be addressed again in the
next chapter.

Wittgenstein’s concept of language games has attracted attention in the study of
the meaning of music in Japan as well. Yako (2002), a Japanese music philosopher,
applies this concept to aesthetics. He defines aesthetics as beauty, but the content of
beauty should remain to be open. He calls beauty as a black box, indicating that there is
no static definition for beauty. and that each can attach one’s own meaning of beauty.
He conceives of beauty in music as essentially a form of social activity; conversely,
beauty in music that is only approved by an individual will not last in the society.
Beauty that is approved by more than a single person will last. Approval and
disapproval are expressed by musical and non-musical gestures. The continuation of
approval and disapproval is the purpose of this game. More than two persons will
participate in this game regarding beauty of music.

The application of language games described by Stige leads us to think that the
meaning of music is directly related to actions of the participants. especially when it
occurs as musical communication.
ll/Iusic as a Product

Music therapy scholars are proceeding to expand the concept of music from one

of a static condition to that of a dynamic action occurring in each context. Their efforts

84

allow us to include the music that we encounter in our practice in our discussions of
aesthetics. and they provide us with language for these discussions. However, a slight
concern or dilemma regarding this position has emerged: we may be less likely to discuss
music itself. Lee and Khare (2001) disagree that the essence of music and its analysis
should take a secondary role to psychological, psychotherapeutic, educational, and
medical research as it has in recent years. Colin Lee expresses a strong reaction. Lee
calls for music therapists to hear and describe formal properties of music, such as “chords
and their inversions. modulations. melodic lines, rhythmic structures. textures, and
intensities of playing. because these aesthetic qualities impact the therapeutic/musical
dialogues” (p.248). As a composer as well as a music therapist, he cannot ignore these
music qualities. He believes in the importance of music-centered interpretation. He
calls those properties musical infrastructures, and claims that they have both musical and
therapeutic meanings. Ansdell (I997) agrees with Colin Lee’s approach of reducing the
distance between music therapy practice and traditional musicology. However, Ansdell
basically criticizes Colin Lee’s recent work because Lee’s position creates tension
between structuralism and real world musical experience by ignoring the contexts behind
the musical work.

In summary. the fourth aesthetic philosophy, praxial philosophy of music
education proposed by Elliott (1995), supports our music therapy practice in many ways

except in the understanding of creativity. Philosophical music therapy scholars

85

 

 

approach aesthetic issues by expanding the concept of beauty and aesthetics to
non-musical issues. by seeking for the therapeutic meaning of music. or by paying
attention to music qualities. While their approaches differ, they all are trying to discuss

aesthetics of music therapy in a new perspective.

 

86

 

CHAPTER FIVE
AESTHETICS OF MUSIC THERAPY IN A PRAXIAL FRAMEWORK
Elliott’s praxial philosophy of music education does not perfectly fit our practice
of music therapy. However. his discussions suggest many enlightening perspectives.
What I will attempt to do in this chapter is to synthesize concepts and ideas that relate
music therapy to aesthetics with a praxial perspective. I suggest the following

paragraph in “Defining Music Therapy” by Bruscia (1998a) as a springboard to explore

 

aesthetics of music therapy:
Every music experience minimally involves a person, a specific musical
process (i.e., composing, improvising, performing, or listening), a musical
product (i.e., a composition. improvisation. performance, or perception),
and a context (e.g.. the physical. emotional, interpersonal
environment). . . .in fact, the very point of music therapy is finding the
relationships between them. (p.101)
These four elements fit well with what Elliott has proposed: a doer, music as product,
music as process. and context. It seems appropriate to develop music therapy aesthetic
discussions based on these four elements as constituents of a praxial framework.
What is Aesthetics of Music Therapy in a Praxial Framework?
Aesthetics of music therapy in a praxial framework can illuminate existing ideas

and discussions from a new perspective. In other words, this chapter is not a process

87

which presents new concepts and beliefs or produces new results, but rather, it is an
attempt at organizing. restating, emphasizing, illuminating, relating, integrating, and
inspiring a look at aesthetic discussions presented in the past. The aesthetics of music
therapy in a praxial framework has three features: context-oriented thinking, being
sensitive to the therapist’s value of music, and an attempt to dissolve dualistic views.
Features

C ontext-oriented thinking.

Aesthetics of music therapy in a praxial framework is context-oriented. There is
no place for these discussions without consideration of context. According to Elliott
(1995). context would determine “knowing how to make musical judgments depends on
an understanding of the musical situation or context” (p.63). His statement seems to be
applicable to music therapy practice. In music therapy, various types of contexts that
surround the music therapy session allow varieties of meaning and beauty of music to
happen.

Sensitive to therapist '5 value.

This aesthetic view is sensitive to the therapist’s own value of music. The
general assumption regarding the therapist’s role implies that therapists should respect
the client’s music non-judgmentally. I respect this basic premise; however, I also would
like to consider the situation in which the meaning and beauty of music are not congruent

between the client and the therapist. It may even cause a value conflict between them.

88

Does the music therapist consider it a threatening situation? Should the therapist ignore
one’s own value of music in order to avoid the conflict with the client? I do not intend
to propose a therapist-value-centered music therapy. but I would like to stimulate the
discussion regarding this value conflict issue.

Attempt to dissolve dualism.

Aesthetics of music therapy in a praxial framework aims to dissolve the dualistic
views that traditional aesthetics held throughout its history, such as universalism versus
relativism. While universalism holds that the concept of beauty is universal across
cultures. those who favor relativism assert that the meanings and the notion of beauty is
different between individuals. and it is likely to be conditioned by cultural groups and
historical periods (Radocy & Boyle, 1997).

The importance of dissolving the dualistic ideas is shown through the example of
multicultural issues. In the twentieth century. growing attention to non-Westem values
and the deconstruction of the hierarchy in which Western European values were placed at
the top allow us to appreciate and embrace differences and diversities in each culture.
Multicultural issues may also be related to postmodernism. Bowman (1998) describes
postmodernism as follows:

Because it rejects modemity’s totalizing (universalizing) discourse and
colonizing attitudes. because it prefers heterogeneity and locality to

homogeneity, uniformity. and universality, the postmodern is a discourse

89

 

of periphery and margins. not of center. The postmodern thus rejects
modemity’s unwavering confidence in the superiority and universal
applicability of Western rationality, morality, and aesthetic values. (p.396)

This multicultural climate well suits the relativistic View, and it has denied the
unity that is likely to maintain the old hierarchical values. However, multicultural
movements create a dilemma between unity and diversity of values. On one hand,
multicultural movements allow peripheral values to show their presence; on the other
hand. it is likely to deprive the sense of mutuality and unity and the common ground
necessary for dialogue. This dilemma is caused by the dualistic thinking: universalism
versus relativism. I believe that a mutual sense of unity and a respect for diversity are
necessary and not incompatible with each other. This is the ultimate goal for
multicultural movements.

I found what Reimer (2003) calls “a synergistic position” (p.30) resonating with
what I attempt here. According to Reimer, the synergistic position assumes the
following principle:

Many or most beliefs or “isms” (doctrine, theories. systems. or practices),
rather than being conceived as fixed. dogmatic, self-sufficient, axiomatic,
and unable to be adjusted to take account of alternatives, are likely to be
more valid and useful if understood as being open to variations,

modifications. and adaptations to a variety of positions ranging from those

90

similar to those seemingly oppositional. (p.30)
What I would like to avoid is “an ‘either-or’ mentality that forecloses helpful
accommodations” (Reimer. 2003, p.30). so that I can present aesthetic discussions that
are flexibly applicable to various cases.
Implications

There are three implications that I would like to propose. First of all, aesthetic in
a praxial view will provide the therapist with alternative perspectives about the meaning
and beauty of the client’s music experience. Bruscia (1998a) proposes that a) skills
should not be compared with those of trained musicians, b) the therapist should be
non-judgmental of the client’s music. and c) the client’s preferences and tastes should be
accepted. Salas (1990) asserts that she has lower aesthetic standards when she is
leading a therapy session or a workshop. She is listening with a generous receptivity,
and she is not looking for accomplishment. I understand that Bruscia and Salas are
trying to modify the aesthetic standard for musically untrained clients; instead, we can
articulate alternative and multiple values for clinical music.

Secondly, a praxial framework will help the therapist to implement more
purposeful musical actions in relation to therapeutic contexts. Elliott stresses the
importance of conscious musical actions and behaviors for music students to develop
their musicianship. His discussion makes us consider where consciousness of action is

important in music therapy practice. Consciousness must be one of the qualities of the

91.

therapist’s work. because music therapy is not simply an accumulation of random
treatments. It consists of designated processes which allow music therapy practice to be
called a profession. The therapist should be conscious of how the person, music, and
context relate to one other. The role of the therapist is enormous. The therapist should
take responsibility for being conscious of musical implementations as much as possible.

Thirdly. a praxial framework will help the therapist to conduct assessment,
treatment. and evaluation within various contexts. It helps the therapist to be more
aware of the meaning and value of music in different therapeutic contexts. By
understanding various meanings. the therapist will be able to make more insightful
aesthetic judgments. Salas (1990) believes that aesthetic judgment is a subjective
experience of the therapist. and she values the therapist’s own experience as a means to
recognize the healing responses of the client.

The Person: Music Maker and Listener in Context

This is the most complex part of applying praxial philosophy of music education
to music therapy practice. While music maker or listener is most often a music student
in the practice of music education, in music therapy it might be the therapist and/or the
client(s). The client(s) and the therapist are sharing musical spaces as a listener and/or a
music maker.
Musical Spaces

In music therapy. three musical spaces are possible, as follows: the space where a)

92

 

 

 

the client and the therapist play together, b) the client and the therapist listen to music
together. and c) while the client plays music, the therapist listens to it, or vice versa. In
each space, both intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships involving the therapist and
the client are possible. While an intrapersonal relationship occurs between the client
and his/her music. an interpersonal relationship occurs between the client and the
therapist. through. in. or by music experiences. The following descriptions are
examples of each space. Some descriptions are based on my experiences.

Play together—interpersonal.

In ensemble playing. we often experience that our own music is influenced by that
of others. and our music influences the performance of others. I felt awkward in
expressing the liveliness of the song when I was playing “Jingle Bells” alone. When I
was playing the piano with my students singing along with my accompaniment, I felt my
playing sounded differently. I felt more liveliness in my piano playing, which also
drove the students to sing it with more animation.

Listen together—interpersonal.

This type of listening reminds me of one of my clients. He always asked me to
let him listen to blues in the beginning of the session. He said, “I need to get into the
music.” I joined him. As he continued listening to the music, I noticed that he was
getting more and more deeply involved in the music. I did not have any personal

attachment to the blues. because it was too far from my cultural and musical background.

93

 

While I was listening to the blues with him. I felt that his enthusiastic listening started to
appeal to me. This musical space helped me to immerse myself in his world and also
helped me to know more about him. If I were listening alone, I would not get such
meaning from the blues. He always talked about his story associated with the blues as
we listened to it. I suppose that my presence must have been important for him to reach
his past experiences that might not be found without the music and to strengthen his
self-concept by telling his story to me.

Listen to a client's music—interpersonal.

There is a type of session where the therapist only listens to intensively to the
client’s music. Colin Lee (1996) related his experiences in which he just listened to the
client’s playing. His client preferred to play music alone. Lee confessed that at first he
did not know how he should react. Actually, the attitude of his client confused him,
because he assumed his role was to support the client’s improvisation through his own
musical input. After a while. Lee understood that it is not just passive listening that
occurs. but that active listening can have a great impact on the client.

Intrapersonal space.

The client is sometimes self-involved in his or her own music. The client may or
may not respond and relate to the therapist’s musical actions. He/she might be creating
one’s own safe space or exploring connections between self and music. This space is

also important in music therapy.

94

Three Sources for Musical Meaning

Along with the discussion of intrapersonal and interpersonal spaces, there are
three possible sources from which musical meaning can occur. Bruscia (2000)
discusses the sources for meaning in a dialogue with Stige. Bruscia states that there are
three sources for meaning. as follows: a) meaning as implicate order of the universe itself,
b) meaning as experienced. and c) meaning as constructed (pp.85-87). He says that
meaning as implicate order is “the universal template or foundation for all
meaningfulness, both individual and collective” (p.85), and it is “fundamental order
which holds the universe together in myriad relationships” (p.85). Meaning as
experienced is “our own personal encounters with the implicate order” (p.85), and that
gives us “small glimpses into the meaningful nature of what is from our own personal
positions” (p.85). Bruscia explains meaning as constructed to be that which “we make
through thought. language, the arts, or any expressive modality. both alone and with
others” (p.87), and it is based on “reflections on our experiences of the implicate order as
well as anything in our lives or immediate experience that needs further insight” (p.87).

The idea of these three sources for musical meaning correlates with Reimer’s
comprehension of three levels in which music is understood. Reimer (2003) states, “For
humans. also, have both universal and cultural dimensions, as well as a third dimension
that also needs to be acknowledged—the individuality of each human being” (p.170).

The universal, cultural. and the individual dimensions discussed by Reimer seem to be

95

parallel in meaning to implicate order of the universe itself, meaning as constructed, and
meaning as experienced, as presented by Bruscia (2000). Their acknowledgments of
different levels of meaning and dimensions of music are helpful in organizing musical
experiences at various levels. Their understanding also suggests to us that we avoid
dualistic aesthetic judgments. as was our tendency before: universal versus personal.
Bruscia ( 2000) further discusses how three sources of meaning are related. He
states that it is a matter of consciousness: how much you are aware of the relationships
of the three. and how much you are flexible to shift from one to another meaning.
Bruscia calls this state of awareness modes of consciousness. He regards it as highly
important. because “it implies that the therapist is not tied to a particular ‘perspective’
while maintaining the same focus, but rather is able to move around in relation to the
phenomenon until a more meaningful construction is possible” (p.90). I noted earlier
that aesthetics in a praxial framework aims for dissolving dualistic thinking. I consider
the idea of modes of consciousness as one of the keys in this situation. The idea of
modes of consciousness suggests that the person maintains flexibility in shifting from
one source of meaning to another source of meaning. He/she is not bound to a single
meaning. It seems that Bruscia’s idea of modes of consciousness will free us from the
dualistic views that limit our understanding of the meaning. value and beauty of music.
Condition of the Client

I consider conditions of the participants as one of the contexts that affect the

96

meaning and beauty of music. It is important to look at four conditions in the following
sections.
Identity.
The client’s identity is multidimensional. In a multicultural study, Hays (2001 ,
p.75) proposed the ADDRESSING framework. The ADDRESSING framework
provides holistic ideas of identity regarding the following areas: age and generational
influence. developmental and acquired disabilities, religion and spiritual orientation,
ethnicity. socioeconomic status. sexual orientation. indigenous heritage, national origin,
and gender. This framework reminds us that individuals have various identities that
may be considered as either minority or majority. According to Hays, identities in all
areas are not equally important for an individual. One area usually is more significant
than the others. Determining the important areas for the client and examining how they
are reflected in music experiences are necessary processes for the therapist.
Kinetic. cognitive. and perceptualfunctions.
Sometimes kinetic and cognitive disabilities may inhibit the client from reflecting
his/her intentions in music. The client may claim, “I cannot express my feelings

'99

through this drum It may be partly related to the client’s level of cognitive and kinetic
ability.

Pavlicevic (1997) points out the discrepancy between the intended and the actual

form of music that occurs in music therapy practice. According to her hypothesis, the

97

level of musical skill and training and the complexity of the music produced plays a
crucial role in determining the character of this discrepancy. She says that the more
trained. or the higher the level of musical skill, the smaller the gap between the intended
and actual performance. It is also true that the more complex the music, the wider the
gap between actual and intended form, or vice versa, for naive musicians. Therefore,
the client may sometimes feel that he/she knows what one wants to play, but does not
know how to do it. The client may feel a narrow difference between actual and intended
form when one’s cognitive ability is limited in the capacity to process complicated
musical forms. Pavlicevic asserts that it is important for the therapist to accommodate
the client’s musical playing to his or her personality in the musical experiences. This
consideration is different in music education. Music students are supposed to work
toward reducing the gap between one’s intention and one’s actual playing by learning and
practicing music skills. As Pavlicevic points out. the music therapist should
accommodate the gap between actual and intended playing in the client’s music.

Level of investment of self-investigation.

In music experiences. I believe that the ability to invest oneself in music might be
important as a condition that influences aesthetic experience. The client may not be as
used to investing oneself in music as musicians are.

Some clients may not have the level of trust in music to allow it to serve as a

vehicle to invest and explore oneself. If they do not have an active relationship with

98

music. the meaning and beauty of music might be affected. They may also need
patience for searching for their sound. They may not be used to making music
themselves. I was shocked when I was trying to create a song by myself for the first
time. My ears tried to follow something that I heard before, regardless of my feeling,
“This is not the sound I want.” I felt that my ears were more influenced by music that I
heard before and were seeking for musical vocabulary that was familiar. I learned that I
needed patience to reach the sounds that fit me. My own experience leads me to think
that the relationship between the client and his/her music might have an incongruency.
This discrepancy between the client and his/her music could be therapeutically
meaningful when it is considered to be the musical representation of the struggles that
arise when the individual is trying to search for his/her own identity. The point is that
the client may have one of a whole spectrum of relationships with music in terms of trust
and self-investigation. and that the therapist can dynamically make any revealed
discrepancy a therapeutic focus.

Interpersonal availability.

Interpersonal availability is the client’s ability to explore musical experiences in
interpersonal spaces with the therapist or other clients. Relating oneself to music in
both intrapersonal and interpersonal spaces is valuable experience. Neither is superior
to the other. but each may provide different aesthetic experiences for the client. Ansdell

(1995) calls interpersonal experience in music “musical meeting” (p.74). For some

99

clients. this experience of intimacy in the musical meeting is odd compared to their usual
experiences because they often find themselves isolated due to lack of tools for
communication and “the feeling of ”missing” (p.74). Ansdell believes that musical
meeting is the key that strengthens the therapeutic relationship between the client and the
therapist. and that eventually allows them to explore creativity.
Music as Product in Context

In reaction to the traditional view of music as a product, music therapists,
especially those who approach music therapy with qualitative methods, are likely to
de-emphasize the view of music as a product. Instead, they emphasize the aspects of
process and action in music making and music listening experiences. However, we still
cannot ignore music as a product. In praxial philosophy of music education, Elliott
(1995) proposes a more integrated view of musical works or products that is applicable to
music therapy practice. He accounts for the following dimensions in music as a
product: a) performance—interpretation of, b) a musical design, c) standards and
traditions of practice, d) expressions of emotion. e) musical representations, and f)
cultural-ideological information (p.199). Praxial philosophy encompasses the main
ideas of traditional aesthetics. He includes ideas of three traditional aesthetics, the
formalist, the expressionist, and the referentialist, in b), d), and e), but each idea is only a
part of the whole concept of music. Elliott asserts that we need to consider all of the

above dimensions when we discuss music as a product. but (I) and e) may not be always

100

applicable to some music. These dimensions are also applicable to music therapy
practice.
Application of Elliott 's View

Performance—interpretation.

Elliott (1995) stresses the perforrner’s action and its influence on the meaning of
music. He regards music not as a still product like a painting, but rather, as a series of
“physical events of a special kind” (p.199). For the music therapist this idea is familiar.
The music therapist always considers music in relation to the client’s behavior. There is
no disagreement with regard to this notion. In terms of musical interpretation made by
the performer. the music therapist does not consider how well the client interprets music
or reflects his/her interpretation in the performance. Rather, we may consider how the
client reflects oneself in the music.

Musical design.

According to Elliott (1995), music design should be considered from two
parameters (p.199): syntactic (i. e., melody. harmony, and rhythm), and nonsyntactic
musical patterns (i. e., timbre, texture, tempo, articulation, and dynamics). In music
education, students learn how to organize and interpret these parameters not only as an
intellectual activity but also as practice-based training. In music therapy, these
parameters are often understood as indicators of perceptual, cognitive. and motor

functions. Traditional music therapy, which is mostly based on experimental aesthetics

101

and behavioral theory. holds many theories as to the relationship between the aspect of
musical design and the therapeutic outcome. For example, playing in correct pitch,
correct tempo. and appropriate volume shows that the client has functional motor,
cognitive. and perceptual skills.

However. those who approach aesthetics with qualitative methods are less likely
to discuss the musical design. except for musical patterns, rhythmic organization, or a

sense of musical order. Aldridge (I996) sees that being healthy is indicated by a sense

 

of organization; therefore. metaphorically speaking, if one’s music is organized
rhythmically. he/she is considered to have an ability to organize oneself. Similarly,
Salas (1990) relates unity and pattern of musical expression with the matter of the
integration of personality. She asserts, “in experiencing the intricate, ordered, and
beautiful patterns of music, we are attuned, acoustically and spiritually, to our universe”
(p.5). Elliott (1995) also finds that identifying musical patterns brings about positive
results for students. He states. “Self-growth and musical enjoyment arise from a
listener’s conscious generation and comprehension of relations among successive and
simultaneous musical events in awareness of practice-specific rules of musical
organization” (p.142). His statements seem to be related to those of Aldridge and Salas.
Standards and traditions of practice.
Standards and traditions of musical practice are knowledge that music students

should learn and show through their performance. They are basically related to musical

102

designs but are understood in context. Elliott says. “Melody. harmonic. rhythmic,
timbral. textural. and formal musical designs embody their musical style-context
affiliations” (p.200). For example. triple meter should be performed according to the
style of music; the triple meter of a waltz, and one in taiko-drumming should sound
differently. though the difference is hardly reflected in the written music score. Music
therapy clients usually do not have to learn different musical styles. However,
understanding the unwritten rules relating to each style is important for the music
therapist. In an experience with one of my clients, I felt it difficult to understand what
she intended to express musically. Her musical skill was apparently not sufficient to
play the keyboard. so I tried to help her by first teaching her how to play a C major triad
at first. However, she ignored my suggestions and kept making notes that sounded
non-tonal. At first I wondered if she had the ability to recognize dissonance in a chord.
Later I understood that her playing was an attempt to express her favorite vocal style,
which emphasized subtle inflections. Therefore, it could not be expressed exactly in the
Western tonal system. The style was not familiar to me, as one who came from a
different country. therefore I could not make an accurate aesthetic judgment.

Ansdell (I997) introduces musicological studies that would be applicable to
music therapy. According to Ansdell, Jean-Jaques Nattiez has been the principal
exponent of musical semiology. Nattiez proposed a communication model in music in

which he calls the sender the one who produces musical sounds, and the receiver the one

103

who listens to the music. In his communication model, Nattiez puts a material trace
between the sender and receiver. A trace is at the center of a system of communication,
and it has independent productional and receptional processes. The independent nature
of the trace accounts for some experiences of discrepancy between the sender and the
receiver. The receiver can make sense of the sender’s message according to his/her own
perception and interprets according to his/ her own framework of understanding. The

receiver may not necessarily receive any of the meaning which is intended by the sender.

 

Nattiez calls this idea "'Tripartition’ of symbolic forms” (Ansdell, 1997, p.41). This
model of musical communication leads us to think about how we are likely to hear the
client’s music based on our own perception and interpretation. Therefore, the more the
therapist understands the standards and traditions of practice in each style, the more
appropriate aesthetic judgment the therapist makes.

Expressions of emotions. and musical representations.

Expressing emotions and representing non-musical events through music making
are common experiences in music therapy. In musical listening, clients may experience
emotions by perceiving certain musical characteristics designed to arouse specific
emotions. They may also associate music with non-musical events, such as personal
experiences. feelings. and images while listening.

The meaning of music has been discussed in music therapy in reference to the

philosophy of music. We reviewed that there are three traditional aesthetic theories. the

104

formalist, the referentialist or the contextualist, as well as the absolute expressionist.
Music therapists have found that there are some ideas that are applicable to our practice
from the referentialist or the contextualist, and the expressionist theories. Rather than
relying on one theory, we utilize these theories flexibly according to the purpose of
therapy. These aesthetic theories are often discussed in music therapy practice along
with the issue of interpreting client’s music. Referential versus nonreferential music are
the terms that music therapists use.

Bruscia (1998b, pp.7-9) introduces this paradigm as a variable used in designing
music improvisation experiences. Bruscia describes improvisational music as either
referential or nonreferential. A referential improvisation indicates, represents, or
portrays nonmusical things. such as an idea, feeling, image, identity, or story. The
meaning of improvisational music is derived from relationships between the sounds and
whatever they represent. On the other hand, a nonreferential improvisation is organized
and created strictly according to musical considerations; the meaning of the music is
derived from only the relationships within the music itself.

Bruscia (l998b) considers that referential and nonreferential improvisations
provide different opportunities for psychological projection. When the client
improvises with reference to feelings that the client usually cannot identify or feels that it
is difficult to express in words, the referential improvisation helps the client to

re-experience the feelings and unfold them so that the client can subsequently express

105

and identify them verbally. In a nonreferential improvisation, music is content-free. It
allows a client to explore music freely according to his or her own preferences and needs
without reference to specific feelings. By examining on-going experiences through the
improvisation. the client will consolidate feelings in more manageable forms. Bruscia
states that the referential improvisation is likely to be an insight-oriented therapy, while
the nonreferential improvisation is likely to be a transformative therapy.

Bruscia (l998b) proposes similar concepts by discussing either music in
psychotherapy or music as psychotherapy. In the original sense, these terms indicated
the extent of the music therapist’s involvement in the client’s treatment plan as a part of
the clinical team (Bruscia, 1987). Later, he uses these terms are used in discussing the
role and importance of verbal discourse in music therapy. Bruscia (1998b) says that in
music as psychotherapy, “the therapeutic issue is assessed, worked through, and resolved
through creating or listening to music, with no need for or use of verbal discourse” (p.2).
The weight of verbal discourse is light in music as psychotherapy. In music in
psychotherapy. “the therapeutic issue is accessed, worked through, and resolved through
both musical and verbal experiences, occurring either alternately or simultaneously.
Music is used for its specific and unique qualities and is germane to the therapeutic issue
and its treatment; words are used to identify and consolidate insights gained during the
process” (p.3). In this type of music therapy. music is used in therapy sessions, but its

role is supported by verbal experiences. The weight of verbal discourse is heavier here.

106

This nonreferential-versus-referential. or music-as-versus-in—psychotherapy is not
an abstract discussion. but it relates to issues of the theory and practice in music therapy.
One of the issues involves an interpretation of improvisational music. In some schools
of improvisational music therapy. improvisation is regarded as referential music, and the
musical sounds are interpreted to represent specific psychoanalytical meanings (Stige,
1998). For example. in Mary Priestley’s Analytical Music Therapy, the meaning of the
music is usually connected with the psychosexual development of the client, such as “the
power struggle of the anal phase” (Priestley. as cited in Stige. 1998, p.21).

Cultural-ideological information.

Music cannot be discussed without the influence of culture and society. Elliott
says. “Musical works both constitute and are constituted by cultural knowing, beliefs, and
values” (p.200). This idea relates to Ruud’s (1998a) claims that music forms one’s own
identity in relation to one’s own social and cultural environment. This reminds me of
one of my clients who liked rap music. Rap music is symbolically anti-social in the
United States. not only due to its aggressive lyrics. but also due to its musical design that
is different from traditional art music. He might not have cognitively understood its
untraditional music style. but he knew that his taste in music might create tension
between himself and others. In music therapy. the focus was placed on his experience
of tension with others. His self-image as an anti-social man was reflected in the rap

music. Music is not an aesthetic object which is independent from the society. It has a

107

substantial message in relation to the social context.
Music as Product in Music Therapy
Considering the scant attention given to musical design in music therapy literature,

Lee’s ambitious works (2001. 2003) that aim to establish Aesthetic Music Therapy
(AeMT) serves to enhance discussions regarding the relationship between musical
designs and therapeutic meanings from a qualitative perspective. Colin Lee suggests
that we notate music played by the client and/or the therapist and proposes the way of
interpreting and analyzing it in relation to clinical meanings. Lee and Khare (2001)
discuss what and how the music therapist should listen to in the client’s music as follows:

0 Listening to the client. their music. our music, and the musical

relationship

0 Listening behind and beyond the music

0 Listening to silence

0 Listening to the client as personhood and musichood

0 Listening as musicians and therapists

0 Listening as sound and community. (p.268)
This list shows that listening sometimes goes beyond a matter of music. Lee (2003) also
says, “Listening to the concluding silence. its quality and intent. can reveal the
significance of the session itself. Listening is not bound by the music and extends

throughout every second the client is in contact with the therapist” (p.89). His

108

 

 

discussion reminds us to refine our ability to listen to the client’s music.
Lee (2003) also identifies six levels of listening according to the intensity of
listening as follows:
1. Surface listening
2. Instinctive listening
3. Critical listening
4. Complex listening
5. Integrated listening
6. Listening beyond. (p.90)
From his descriptions of each level it seems that the differences between these levels of
listening are extremely subtle and complex; however, his effort to use musical terms to
explain what is going on in the client’s music experiences is impressive.

In summary. music therapists are not inclined to discuss music as a product,
especially in terms of the musical design. Elliott’s concept of music as a product would
enhances our understanding of this dimension of music aesthetics. Colin Lee’s
therapeutic analysis of notated music performed by the client is a worthwhile endeavor to
be acknowledged.

Music as Process in Context
Music Making and Music Listening in Music Education

The core of praxial philosophy of music education (Elliott. 1995) is located in its

109

concept of music as process in response to traditional aesthetics, which did not include
this aspect at all. Elliott says that music as process consists of music making and
listening. Music making includes the following five activities: performing, improvising,
composing, arranging. and conducting. In music making. students learn and acquire
various types of knowledge and deliberately utilize them in action. The essential type of
knowledge is procedural knowledge that enables the student to perform purposefully in
relation to context. In addition. the following other types of knowledge are considered
to contribute to the development of procedural knowledge: formal knowledge, informal
knowledge. impressionistic musical knowledge, and supervisory musical knowledge.
Formal knowledge is based on verbal facts, concepts, or theories. such as how to play
staccato. Informal knowledge is specific knowledge that is needed for solving practical
problems in each situation. Impressionistic musical knowledge is considered intuition.
It cannot be gained through concepts. but through critical musical problem solving
experiences. Supervisory knowledge is related to the abilities to monitor, adjust,
manage, and oversee in the immediate moment of performance as well as in the long span
of one’s musical growth.

Elliott (1995) states that through listening as a process, music students will learn
of the multidimensional influences on music, looking for any information that may
suggest those influences. Therefore. the act of listening is not a passive hearing but an

“active listening-for” (p.80). This is also an important listening skill for music

110

therapists. Lee (2003) articulates that the therapist’s listening is not passive hearing, but
rather it is an intended activity to find therapeutic meaning. What the therapist and
music students look for may be different, but their intensive listening attitude is important
for both practices.

As Ansdell (I995) illuminates listening-in-playing in music therapy. listening and
music making are not separate activities; rather, they interlock with each other. In
music education. the student learns how to monitor one’s musical action by listening to
one’s music making. Conscious music listening enhances the music making processes
at a higher level.

In music therapy. both the client and the therapist are usually regarded as
participants while in music education only the students are regarded as participants.
Music making and music listening experiences are different for each the client and the
therapist. Thus the following sections examine those experiences for each separately.
Music Making and Music Listening by the Client

Bruscia (I998a) identifies four types of musical experiences in which the client
participates: a) improvisatory experiences. in which “the client makes up music while
playing or singing” (p.116), b) re-creative experiences, in which “the client learns or
performs precomposed vocal or instrumental music” (p.117), c) composition experiences,
in which the client writes “songs, lyrics or instrumental pieces, or to create any kind of

musical product” (p.119), and d) receptive experiences, in which “the client listens to

111

music and responds to the experience silently, verbally. musically, or in another
modality” (p.120). As Bruscia describes, the client will participate in various music
activities; however. the client is not expected to engage in deliberate and controlled
actions as the music student is expected to do. Instead, the music therapy client is
simply expected to engage in music activities with self-involvement.

Deliberate and controlled actions might be an ability that therapists are expected
to improve in their own skills. Lee (2003) acknowledges that there is a difference
between the therapist and the client in terms of intensity of consciousness. He says.
“For a client the act of listening-in-playing should be natural whereas for the therapist it
requires insight and sensitivity” (p.89).

Music Making and Music Listening by the Therapist
Music making by the therapist.

Elliott’s concepts of procedural and other types of knowledge might be helpful for
the music therapist in thinking about their music making skills. The music therapist is
also expected to have unique music skills, integrating formal, informal, impressionistic,
and supervisory knowledge. Smeltekop (2003) lists the following music skills for the
therapist as “essential musical performance abilities”:

o Sing/perform on pitch
0 Perform in rhythm

o Improvise

112

o Harmonize

o Transpose

o Create arrangements

0 Create musical environments

0 Lead others

0 Accompany/support others

0 Express oneself through music

0 Maintain musicality despite cacophony (discordant sound)

0 Perform musically while attending to both music and client(s)

0 Demonstrate fundamental knowledge of all music therapy media

0 Demonstrate advanced competency on one instrument/voice. (p.18)
Let us examine the various types of knowledge proposed by Elliott (1995) by taking the
example of “create musical environments.” The therapist should know what kind of
music is suitable in the situation (impressionistic) and how to play instruments or sing in
a certain style (formal) while adding arrangements that enhance the participation of
clients (informal). Additionally. the therapist Should monitor how his/her music
influences the client(s) (supervisory); thereby, creating a musical environment in a
therapeutically appropriate way (procedural). In this way, five types of knowledge
proposed by Elliott are applicable to music making skills in music therapy practice.

Music listening by the therapist.

113

When the therapist listens to a client’s music making, he/ she is looking for
information about various contexts of music as product as well as the client’s attitude.
When we stress the process of music. we are primarily searching for not musical
achievement. but often the client’s attitude revealed through musical activities. It is
unquestionably inspiring when we find that the client is investing oneself in music
experiences as he/she is attempting to make changes in or through music. Sometimes
we feel beauty not only in the music, but also in the client’s attitude itself. Lee (2003)
says. “To listen clinically means to focus on the client’s revelations as a precise
manifestation of their [sic] inner world” (p.99). Ansdell (I995) articulates, “A music
therapist is trained to give this quality of listening both to the precise details of the music
and to the person playing. She listens not to each in isolation but to both together — to
the person-in-the-music” (p. 1 57).

Amir (1992. 1993) studied meaningful moments in therapeutic sessions by
interviewing both clients and therapists. Based on their descriptions, Amir illuminated
meaningful moments that they identified as therapeutically significant. I consider what
Amir calls a meaningful moment to be that which equates to an aesthetic moment in
which the therapist finds value and beauty in the client’s music. The following
moments, described by Amir, are not described in music terms, but they were mostly
identified through music experiences: moments of awareness and insight, acceptance,

freedom. wholeness and integration, completion and accomplishment, beauty and

114

inspiration, spirituality, intimacy with self, joy and ecstasy, anger/fear/pain, surprise,
inner transformation. physical closeness between the therapist and the client, musical
intimacy between the therapist and the client, and close contact between the client and a
significant person in his/her life.

Ai gen (1995a) acknowledges as meaningful the moment of emotional discharge
that is expressed musically. Ansdell (1995) finds the musical meeting to be significant
when the therapist and the client connect musically. Bruscia (1998a) finds “beauty”
(p.102) in the client’s effort to overcome disabilities through musical experiences.

In this way, the therapist is listening to or listening for therapeutic meanings. It
is important to think about how differently we listen to music in a therapeutic context
from other types of listening, such as listening as enjoyment. F urthermore, clinical
listening is usually dependent on intuitive and subjective knowledge on the part of the
therapist. Therefore. it is not easy to validate what the therapist listens to regarding the
client’s inner state of mind. In response to this validation issue, Colin Lee (2003) tries
to show that a specific design of client’s music would indicate the client’s specific state
of being. On the other hand, researchers who apply a phenomenological method (e.g.,
Aigen, 1995a) tend to emphasize intuitive and subjective knowledge as valid sources of
information for research. The matter of validation is an on-going discussion.
Therapeutic Process and Music Process

Music process is not always equal to therapeutic process. It depends on the

115

therapist’s theoretical and philosophical orientation. Bruscia (l998a) lists six
therapeutic processes as follows: a) developmental, b) educational, c) interpersonal, d)
artistic, e) creative, and f) scientific (pp.34-36). In a developmental process, the
sequence of change or intervention is parallel to organic stages of growth, maturation, or
development. In an educational process. the sequence of change or intervention is
connected to the curricular subject matter of skill acquisition. Interpersonal process is
based on stages of developing a relationship between the client and the therapist or other
clients. In artistic situations. the focus is on the sequences involved with performing,
composing. and improvising music. In creative music therapy, the process is involved
in identifying. exploring. testing, selecting alternatives, solving problems, and meeting
one’s own needs in creative ways. Scientific process is concerned with the sequential
steps of defining and controlling variables. collecting and analyzing data. and interpreting
the results. Bruscia says that the above therapeutic processes are not mutually exclusive.
Considering the theoretical orientation of the therapist is important in defining the
meaning and beauty of music. I regard the therapist’s theoretical background as also
one of the contexts that influences the aesthetics of music therapy.
Music Process as Constructing Meanings

Music therapy that stresses the relationship between the therapist and the client
defines clinical events as central to the process of creating meaning. Many music

therapists consider that the improvisatory music experience by the therapist and the client

116

provides a space in which to search for or construct meaning (Ansdell, 1995; Lee, 2003;
Pavlicevic. 1997; Stige. 2002). This represents a type of creative therapy. and most
music therapists who espouse this therapeutic process are largely influenced by
Nordoff-Robbins Creative Music Therapy.

Therapist as co-creator.

In the process of this type of creative music therapy, the therapist and the client
create the meaning together musically. The meaning is usually shared interpersonally
by the client and the therapist. The meaning in this type of music therapy seems not to
be representational. but seems to be the intramusical logic or rules which are shared and
created by the client and the therapist. Their focus on “shared meaning” leads us to
think about the role of the therapist. In clinical psychology, the role of the therapist is
changing and is different according to the various schools of psychological thought.

The therapist traditionally takes an objective and distant attitude from the client in
psychoanalytical therapy; the therapist shows generous and unconditional acceptance to
the client in humanistic therapy. In behavioral therapy. the therapist regards oneself as a
co-worker to help the client to achieve therapeutic goals. In creative music therapy, the
therapist is more of a co-creator whose value is a part of the therapeutic process. The
therapist expresses his or her musical ideas. makes aesthetic judgments, and contributes
actively to the process of music making. The client is also an authorized co-creator who

makes aesthetic judgments about music created by oneself, the therapist. or both. Here

117

 

 

 

the values of the therapist are emphasized more than in any other type of music therapy,
as are the values of the client.
Value conflicts.

When the music therapist takes a role as a co-creator in this type of music therapy,
the therapist sometimes faces value conflicts between her/himself and the client. The
therapist’s own values are not always congruent with those of the client. That
experience is sometimes threatening to both the therapist and the client. Pavlicevic
(1997) described an experience of value conflicts that occurred in a group therapy setting
in which she was the only one who had a different cultural background. Pavlicevic felt
uncomfortable in this situation to a degree that she could not share music experiences
with the clients. but the rest of the group connected with each other.

Power.

The above episode reminds us of the importance of power issues between the
therapist and the client. Power is the ability to influence each other as musicians and as
human beings. The client is usually thought to have less power than the therapist. The
therapist may have more authority as a specialist in the therapeutic setting, and the
therapist may have more advanced musicianship. Kenny (1989) says that the therapist
usually has a greater aesthetic world; therefore, the therapist should invite the client into
his or her aesthetic world in the process of forming a therapeutic relationship. Kenny

does not say that it is a power issue, but it suggests to me that the therapist has influential

118

aesthetic power over the client.

However. we often face situations. as Pavlicevic (1997) describes above, in which
the therapist feels that the client has more power than the therapist. The ideal power
balance between the therapist and the client should be equal. When this mutual
relationship is not established, Pavlicevic experiences this as being colonized or
culturally alienated. She describes her experience with her client. Frank, who seemed
to impose his aesthetic value: “I remained ‘culturally alienated’: we were only together
when I entered his world—he imposed his world on to me, and I was in the position of
being 'colonized’, so to speak” (p.43).

Negotiation.

Stige (2002) expresses a positive aspect of value conflicts, and he believes that
they could be dynamic forces for creating new dimensions in the relationship between
the therapist and the client. Stige states, “A clash in values at times may open a space
for communication instead of closing it” (p.60). Pavlicevic (1997) believes that she can
solve this conflict by negotiation. Pavlicevic says, “One of the basic clinical features of
playing together is that of jointly defining and establishing a mutually comfortable beat.
This means that the beat is not imposed by either one or the other player, but is
negotiated mutually by both players” (p.41).

I believe the concept of “negotiation” is important in considering multicultural

issues. addressed earlier as important for aesthetics of music therapy in a praxial

119

framework. I discussed how the multicultural considerations bring us to an awareness

of diversities in values, but at the same time. it deprives us a sense of mutuality and unity.

I assume that the act of negotiation in a therapeutic setting seems to be a positive action
for seeking shared meaning. for showing interest in others, and for creating mutuality.
Negotiation in context.

I consider the action of musical negotiation to be of significance; however, this is
not an easy task for an immature relationship between the therapist and the client.
Mutual trust between them based on a feeling of safety is necessary before negotiation
can occur. The stages of forming, maintaining, and activating in the processural model
(Merrill & Smeltekop, 2002) helps us to conceptualize how the therapeutic relationship
between the therapist and the client is built. In forming, the therapist stresses the
therapeutic space as a meeting place musically or non-musically. with the following
focuses: welcoming, aesthetic, motivating and stimulating, culturally congruent and
sensitive, compassionate, understanding, and relevant/related. In maintaining the
relationship. it is considered to be a resting place as well; the therapist creates a place for
being constant, safe. accepting. genuine, nurturing, integrating, familiar, consistent,
secure, and predictable. As an activating phase, the relationship between the therapist
and the client grows through catalyzing, transforming. encountering conflict, being
dynamic. being creative, supporting risk, requiring trust, being respectful, and being

honest. The three stages. forming, maintaining, and activating are not sequential.

120

 

They go back and forth among each other. but it seems to be appropriate to start with
forming the relationship in the course of therapy.

Some qualities arising in an activating space are related to multicultural issues, as
Bowman (1998) describes. “It [music] is cultural, and culture is constantly being created,
recreated. modified. contested. and negotiated” (p.305). According to this model
(Merrill & Smeltekop. 2002). negotiation seems to fall under the activating phase.

When the therapist judges that the client needs to form an initial relationship with the
therapist. negotiation is not an appropriate approach in that context. The relationship on
the initial stage might not be firm enough for the therapist and the client to move toward
a dynamic relationship. In this way. bringing negotiation into the therapeutic
relationship should be based on deliberate clinical decision by the music therapist.

In summary. music therapy scholars are inclined to emphasize music as process.
Sometimes the aesthetic of music as process cannot be described in musical terms, but it
is found in the attitude of the client which the therapist looks for in the client’s music.
The skill of finding aesthetic meanings is often dependent on the intuition of the therapist.
The music therapy practices that stress the therapeutic relationship identify the
therapeutic space as a dynamic place for creating meaning through mutual work by the
therapist and the client. In this place, the therapist brings one’s own values to the front
rather than holding them back. This perspective provides us a key to address

multicultural issues. such as creating a space for negotiating musical values. However,

121

 

 

the therapist should exercise fine therapeutic judgment to identify the appropriate timing
for introducing the various phases in therapeutic relationships.
Context

Praxial philosophy of music education refers to context as music related matters,
such as music styles. musical practice. and standards of performance. Context in music
therapy needs to broaden its references. including both musical and non-musical matters.
A context could be a situation, condition, or a space in which music therapy occurs.
Various levels of context have already been discussed in relation to each category: the
person. music as product, and music as process. Context could be the client’s physical
and emotional conditions, such as the client’s physical and cognitive ability to put
intended ideas to action or the client’s readiness to explore the interpersonal relationship.
A context also can include musical standards of the society and culture or the cultural
ideology of music. A praxial framework includes the therapist him/herself inside the
context of music therapy. The therapist’s values regarding music, and his/her theory
and philosophy are parts of the clinical context.

In addition to these contexts. Aldridge (2003) also includes physical spaces in
which music therapy takes place. Aldridge (2003, A performed body, 1I3) calls life
situations a context that includes “physical (space), psychological (expectations),
temporal and social (roles of participants)” Within these contexts. the performer, or the

client pursues and expresses his or her aesthetics of health through music. Some

122

therapists may consider that context includes spaces outside the session room. Stige
(2002) ponders how music therapy clients can participate in the community that they
belong to. Kenny (2002) describes the above situations in this way:
General theory challenges our notions of situated practice because it begs
us to be “inside” of our situations, and simultaneously “outside” of our
situations, or rather within multiple contexts. One might ask, how many
contexts do I have to imagine? The answer: many. (p.163)
As Kenny describes. there are many contexts that influence the therapeutic space. The
importance for the therapist is to be aware of contexts in which music experiences occur
and relate through them with the client and musical experiences. It is important to
expand and employ various contexts. At the same time, as Taboada (2002) points out, it
is necessary to clarify the boundaries of contexts in order to provide responsible health

care services.

123

CHAPTER SIX
Summary
One of the primary goals of this paper was to examine and organize aesthetic
discussions in the literature in relation to music philosophy and their applications in
music therapy. Through reviewing aesthetic studies, I found several issues that are
summarized as follows:

1. The concepts of music in traditional aesthetic philosophies are different from those of
music therapists; because of the differences, we have felt that aesthetic issues are
unrelated to our practice. The traditional aesthetic view regards music as a work of
art. and the listening experience is the activity that is conceived as central in their
aesthetic discussions. Music is valued because of its aesthetic purpose, and the
meaning of music is inherent. Traditional aesthetic philosophers are likely to be
regarded as elitist because of their emphasis on the necessity for musical training for
perceiving aesthetic qualities in musical structures.

2. The traditional approach to aesthetics in music therapy is based on empirical
scientific methods. General aesthetic studies in music therapy are experimental and
focus on affective behaviors and responses. Growing attention toward a qualitative
approach emphasizes subjective aesthetic experiences, and those who value the
qualitative approach are likely to react against experimental aesthetics. The concept

of health and the individual is shifting from a reductionist view to a holistic one.

124

This new view allows us to conceive of music therapy as a dynamic and interactive
process between the individual and the environment.

Praxial philosophy, as the fourth aesthetics in music philosophy, provides more
comprehensive ideas about music that are more compatible with music therapy
practice. We found that there are many points that we can share with praxial
philosophy. but there are some limitations that still are not applicable to music
therapy practice. Notably, Elliott’s idea of creativity is different from what we
expect of the client. Spontaneity is an important characteristic that the therapist may
desire the client to explore. rather than being primarily intentional and deliberate.
New aesthetics in music therapy is based on a philosophical approach. Kenny,
Aigen. and Aldridge are trying to expand the meaning of aesthetics or beauty to
non-musical issues. such as the way of being and of becoming healthy. They
consider music as actions or behaviors in which the therapeutic process occurs.

Stige approaches aesthetics by addressing the meaning of music. He finds a parallel
relationship between music making and creating meanings in language. By noting
that language is involved in the process of constructing meanings between two or
more persons. Stige allows music therapy spaces to be the places where the therapist
and the client mutually construct musical meanings. Colin Lee treats music as a
product and explores ways to analyze the client’s music based on traditional aesthetic

properties, such as tonality.

125

 

Findings
Practical Issues

In the introduction. two issues were addressed: how can we make sense of the
client’s music? How should we address one’s own values regarding music in the
session? There is no definite and single answer as to how to make sense out of the
client’s music. The meaning and beauty of music may be defined by the context in
which the client experiences music. A praxial framework is helpful to understanding
music experiences of the client from various angles. Instead of lowering aesthetic
standards. we could propose alternative meanings and beauty according to various
therapeutic contexts. We reviewed a number of contexts that may have influence on
music therapy. Since there are many. we need to employ two approaches toward
examining contexts: expand and limit.

Aesthetics of music therapy in a praxial framework includes the therapist’s value
system as a part of the therapeutic contexts. The types of music therapy practice that
focus on the relationship between the therapist and the client actively allow the
therapist’s values of music to be engaged in the process of constructing musical meaning.
The emphasis on the therapist’s values may cause value conflicts with those of the client,
but it will also create a dynamic relationship between the therapist and the client,
necessitating negotiation.

Research Issues

126

In response to concerns for the paucity of references to music and aesthetics, this
paper attempted to bridge music therapy and music philosophy by applying to music
therapy praxial philosophy of music education by David Elliott. Regardless of some
limitations. a praxial view seems to fit our practice and enriches our concepts of music.
Although we formerly have appeared to feel alienated from aesthetic issues. I believe that
this paper may partly contribute toward restoring the relationship between music
philosophy and music therapy. I also believe that enriching our understanding, regard,
and vocabulary in music philosophy will give us deeper insight for discussing music
experiences in music therapy.

Further Studies

Discussing music in a praxial framework reminds us that we are not inclined to
discuss music as a product. with the exception of the endeavors by Colin Lee. While it
may not be necessary to apply traditional musical analysis methods, we should develop
our clinical listening skills to identify clinical significance in the client’s music as
specifically as possible.

In this study. I could not identify how the scientific approach can investigate
aesthetics in a praxial framework. Could it be incorporated within a praxial framework,
or is its nature totally different from aesthetics as philosophy? Aesthetics in a praxial
framework emphasizes the consciousness of the therapist. thereby. leading it to place

value on subjective experiences. However, I believe that while philosophy is a matter of

127

perspective. science is a matter of validation; therefore, they are not contradictory. I
assume that aesthetics in a praxial framework would incorporate science at some juncture.
I leave this question to further studies.
Closing Thoughts

As I discussed. our intensive efforts to find the meaning and beauty in music are
important; however, I also acknowledge the importance of giving up our control and
surrendering our power to music itself. I would like to conclude by emphasizing the
importance of the therapist’s conscious efforts, but at the same time, remembering to let
music grow on its own. It is important to develop our sense of trust in music as it goes

hand in hand with our intentional efforts for utilizing music therapeutically.

128

REFERENCES

129

REFERENCES

Aigen, K. (1995a). An aesthetic foundation of clinical theory: An underlying basis of
creative music therapy. In C. Kenny (Ed.), Listening, playing, creating: Essays on
the power of sound (pp. 233-257). Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.

Aigen, K. (l995b). Philosophical inquiry. In B. Wheeler (Ed.), Music therapy research:
Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (pp. 447-484). Phoenixville, PA:
Barcelona Publishers.

Aigen, K. (1995c). Principles of qualitative research. In B. Wheeler (Ed.), Music therapy
research: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (pp. 283-311). Phoenixville,
PA: Barcelona Publishers.

Aldridge, D. (1996). Music therapy research and practice in medicine: From out of the
silence. London and Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Aldridge, D. (2003). Personal communication.

Amir, D. (1992). Awakening and expanding the self: Meaningful moments in the music
therapy process as experiences and described by music therapists and music
therapy clients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University, New
York, NY.

Amir. D. (1993). Moments of insight in the music therapy experience. Music Therapy,
12(1), 85-100.

Ansdell, G. ( 1995). Music for life: Aspects of creative music therapy with adult clients.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.

Ansdell, G. (1997). Musical elaborations: What has the new musicology to say to music
therapy? British Journal of Music Therapy, 11(2), 36-44.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. NY: Meredith Corporation.

Bowman, W. D. (1998). Philosophical perspectives on music. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Bruscia, K. E. (1987). Improvisational models of music therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles
C Thomas Publisher.

Bruscia, K. E. (1998a). Defining music therapy (2nd. Ed.). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona
Publishers.

130

Bruscia, K. E. (1998b). An introduction to music psychotherapy. In K. Bruscia (Ed.), The
dynamics of music psychotherapy (pp. 1-15). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Bruscia, K. E. (1998c). Standards of integrity for qualitative music therapy research.
Journal of Music Therapy, 35(3), 176-200.

Bruscia, K. E. (2000). The nature of meaning in music therapy: Kenneth Bruscia
interviewed by Brynj ulf Stige. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 9(2), 84-96.

Elliott. D. J. (1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Gardstrom, S. C. (n.d.). Music therapy and phenomenology. Unpublished manuscript,
Michigan State University.

Gaston, E. T. (1964). The aesthetic experience and biological man. Journal of Music
Therapy, 1(1), 1-7.

Gaston, E. T. (1968). Man and music. In E. T. Gaston (Ed.), Music in therapy (pp.7-29).
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Gfeller, K. E. (1990). The function of aesthetic stimuli in the therapeutic process. In R. F.
Unkefer (Ed.), Music therapy in the treatment of adults with mental disorders:

Theoretical bases and clinical interventions (pp. 70-81). New York: Schimer
Books.

Gfeller, K. E. (2002). The function of aesthetic stimuli in the therapeutic process. In R. F.
Unkefer & M. H. Thaut (Eds), Music therapy in the treatment of adults with
mental disorders: Theoretical bases and clinical interventions (2nd. Ed.) (pp. 68-
84). New York: Schimer Books.

Hays. P. (2001). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: A framework for clinicians
and counselors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Heylighen, F ., & Joslyn, C. (1992 ). What is systems theory? In F. Heylighen, C. Joslyn
& V. Turchin (Eds), Principia Cybemetica Web (Principia Cybemetica, Brussels),
Retrieved September 9, 2003, from URL:
http://pespmcl .vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.htmI

Kenny, C. B. (1982). The mythic artery: The magic of music therapy. Atascadero, CA:
Ridgeview Publishing Company.

Kenny, C. B. (1989). T he field of play: A guide for the theory and practice of music
therapy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company.

131

Kenny, C. B. (1998). Embracing complexity: The creation of a comprehensive research
culture in music therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 35(3), 201-217.

Kenny. C. B. (2000). Setting the stage for general theory in music therapy? Reply to
Bannark and Hallin. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 9(1), 64-69.

Kenny, C. B. (2002). Keep the world in balance: Music therapy in a ritual context. In C.
Kenny, & B. Stige (Eds), Contemporary voices in music therapy:
Communication. culture, and community (pp. 157-170). Oslo, Norway: Unipub
forlag.

Kivy. P. (2002). Introduction to a philosophy ofmusic. Oxford, New York : Clarendon
Press.

Kratus. J. (2003). Personal communication.

Lee. C. (1996). Music at the edge: The music therapy experiences of a musician with
AIDS. London: Routledge.

Lee. C ., & Khare, K. (2001). The supervision of clinical improvisation in aesthetic music
therapy: A music-centered approach. In M. F orinash (Ed.), Music therapy
supervision (pp. 7-29). Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Lee, C. (2003). Architecture of aesthetic music therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona
Publishers.

Lippman, E. (1999). The philosophy and aesthetics of music. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.

Madsen. C. K., Bymes. S. R., Capperella-Sheldon, D. A., & Brittin, R. V. (1993).
Aesthetic response to music: Musicians versus nonmusicians. Journal of Music
Therapy, 3 0(3), 174-191.

Merrill, T., & Smeltekop, R. (2002). Side by side: The functions of music in the
formation, maintenance and activation of the therapeutic relationship. Session
conducted at 4th Annual AMTA Conference: Music Therapy on My Mind,
Atlanta, GA.

Meyer. L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Pavlicevic, M. (1997). Music therapy in context: Music, meaning and relationship.
London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Radocy, R. E., & Boyle, J. D. (1997). Psychological foundations of musical behavior
(3rd Ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

132

Radocy. R. E., & Boyle, J. D. (2003). Psychological foundations of musical behavior (4th
Ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher, Ltd.

Regelski, T. A. (1998). The Aristotelian bases of praxis for music and music education as
praxis. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 6(1), 22-59.

Reimer. B. (1970). A philosophy of music education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

Reimer. B. (2003). A philosophy of music education: Advancing the vision (3rd. Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ruud, E. (I998a). Music therapy: Improvisation, communication, and culture. Gilsum,
NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Ruud. E. (1998b). Science as metacritique. Journal of Music T herapy, 15(3), 218-224.
Salas, J. (1990). Aesthetic experience in music therapy. Music Therapy, 9(1), 1-15.

Smeij sters. H. (1997). Multiple perspectives: A guide to qualitative research in music
therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Smeltekop, R. (2003). Music therapy: Foundations and principles. Coursepack for Music
270. Michigan State University.

Sparshott, F. (1987). Aesthetics of music--Limits and grounds. In P. Alperson (Ed.),
What is music?: An introduction to the philosophy of music (pp. 33-129).
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Stige. B. ( l 998). Perspectives on meaning in music therapy. British Journal of Music
Therapy, 12(1), 20-27.

Stige. B. (2002). Culture-centered music therapy. Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Taboada, P. (2002). The General Systems Theory: An adequate framework for a
personalist concept of health? In H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. (Series Ed.) & P. Taboada,
K. F. Cuddeback. & P. Donohue-White (Vol. Eds.), Person, society and value:
Towards a personalist concept of health: Vol. 72. Philosophy and medicine (pp.
33-53). Norwell. MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Yako, M. (2002). Gengo gemu to shite no ongaku: Wittgenstein kara ongakubigaku e
[Music as language game: From Wittgenstein to music aesthetics]. Tokyo, Japan:
Keiso Shobo Inc.

133