Teaching Composing

During my work as a composer-educator I have faced a number of stereotypes held by teachers and students about composers and the processes of composing. An example of some of the comments I receive on introduction myself as a composer include:

“Don’t you have to have a funny name to be a composer?” and “Are composers alive?”

Although quite amusing, it highlights the otherness of the label of composer. During my PhD research I was keen to explore this further and I discovered that the majority of secondary music teachers and students did not identify as a composer due to feeling the term could only be used for:

a) Professional composers who earned money for composing

b) Those who were deemed as a creative genius

(Adapted, Devaney, 2018)

So what are these ‘myths (Burnard, 2012), stories and stereotypes that cause young people and teachers to be scared of the label of ‘composer’? My research with students and teachers identified 3 main beliefs about composing.

1. Composing ability involves a natural talent

The myth of the creative genius promotes the belief that composing is reserved for only elite few who have specific special gifts. My survey of 112 music teachers uncovered that the majority of teachers believed in the notion of “natural aptitude” for composing:

Teachers' beliefs about natural aptitude

Teachers and students also used terms such as “flair”, “natural” and “the lucky few” highlighting how the idea of the creative genius it still very present for composing (Weisberg, 2010, 1993). Researchers have warned that this myth can be damaging as it downplays the role of hard work in the creative process (Lamont and Maton, 2010; Green, 1997). The composer-educators in my own study also argued that the myth not reflect real-world composing and devalued the approach of trial and error. Research and education policy since the late 1990s and early 2000s aimed to promote creativity as universal (Craft, 2006), and something that could be taught and fostered (NACCCE, 1999: 29), however the myth of the gifted composer is still very strong.

2. Students must learn the ‘rules’ of composing before being creative.

This myth is a belief that the rules or knowledge of composing and music must be learnt in full before students can be creative. Lupton and Bruce (2010) called this method of composing teaching a ‘time-honoured approach’ (p.274), where students learn from ‘master’ composers. The relationship between knowledge and creativity is an ongoing debate and is especially relevant in the current education landscape in England with the focus on the notion of the ‘knowledge-based curriculum’ (Gibb, 2017).

We have to question what is meant by the rules? Do the rules mean western classical music theory? And how much knowledge is needed first? We also need to consider what we mean by creative. Many people think about creativity as when a person invents/creates something that has never been invented/created before. But Maslow (1967) and Boden (2004) recognised that young people can still be creative and create things that are novel and new to them.

KS3 pupils compose using their mobile phones

In my own approach to teaching composing I don’t see knowledge and creativity as separate, but as something that can be fostered together. With no opportunity for creativity, children won’t be developing important skills for composing such as reflecting, trial and error, or exploration. These creative skills are vital for all children to develop in this fast-changing world (NACCCE, 1999). Then introduction new skills, knowledge or concepts along the way can open up new doors for their music making.

3. Composing is a solitary, individual activity.

The third myth is the belief that composers compose music in isolation. Although some composers compose independently, this is not the only form of composing. The benefits of group composing have been recognised by teachers and researchers alike. Many of the composereducators in my own study commented how collaborative methods was an important part of their creative and composing processes. Burnard (2012) argues that the idea of individual creativity is a western narrative which can marginalise other forms of musical creativity:

'While some children prefer to work alone….others prefer to engage collaboratively, communally, collectively' (Burnard, 2012: 279).

I personally love the word composer, but I use it in its broadest sense and I understand that the term also comes with historical baggage. When teaching composing we must be aware that composing is incredibly varied and personal and some of the above myths can be damaging to students’ musical progression and confidence. Spruce (2013) argues that many of myths promote western classical musical methods that can disadvantage students with different musical backgrounds and cultures. As teachers, we can encourage our pupils to think of themselves as ‘composers’ every time they engage in creative music-making, to normalize both the term and the activity and make our pupils view them as achievable goals. After all, composers are just like you, and me!

Dr Kirsty Devaney

Dr Kirsty Devaney is a composer and composing in education researcher, and is a Junior Fellow at Royal Birmingham Conservatoire. She specializes in working with and writing music for young and non-professionals, and leads the ‘Young Composers’ Project’ encouraging more young people to compose.