The Major Scale of Technology - a keynote speech at the RESEO conference in March 2016 in Bristol
This is part of a keynote I delivered in March at Colston Hall to the RESEO conference (www.reseo.org). It is heavily plaigarised and I have tried to give credit to those whose copy and ideas I have nicked. It's more of a rant than an attempt to put forward new ideas but it sums up what I think of technology. Thanks for reading...
The Major Scale of Technology – RESEO 10/03/16 – Siggy Patchitt
Hi, I’m Siggy Patchitt. I am the Education Manager here at Colston Hall for Bristol Plays Music, the Music Education Hub for Bristol where I lead on the New Ambition for Inclusive Excellence work that we do with Children in Challenging Circumstances, including those with Special Educational Needs and Disability and Children in Care.
I’m also Vice Chair on the Board of Directors of the national membership organisation for Community Musicians in the UK, Sound Sense.
Just to fill you in about Sound Sense; it’s members work across all ages and the organisation, led by Kathryn Deane, exists to support its members but also inform policy by conducting research and writing national evaluation of the impact of music education.
One such report, The Power of Equality 2, is the latest report and is extremely comprehensive review of Inclusive Practice in music education. I’ll be paraphrasing a lot from it in this presentation.
I wanted to talk to you a bit about the role of technology in music education and how it can and hopefully will lead to a whole new way of working. I will be focusing on the impact of technology on the participants of music, rather than on audiences or venues but these are obviously very closely linked.
Of course, I don’t have to tell you why the performing arts are important. But, if you’ll allow me a moment to indulge myself, I would be most obliged.
There is nothing on this planet, no activity, no experience, nothing that provides such rich opportunities to develop creativity, confidence and communication as taking part in performing arts. The social, emotional, health and economic impact of the performing arts is the closest thing to magic that exists and everyone here should, I hope, regularly feel a sense of pride, humility and duty attached to the privilege of being able to earn a living within such an amazing universe.
For those living with impairments or chronic conditions, however, access to these experiences is far from a reality. Even for those more physio and neuro-typical people, the ambition and expectation are often completely lacking due to two things:
- The perception of these activities as elitist and exclusive,
- The often rigid nature of some of the more traditional artistic institutions (I’m thinking of instrument quotas for orchestras, the fact that most orchestras require musicians to be able to sight read, etc.)
Technology can help
But technology, as it always has done, can help.
When we think of the word “technology” I think of robots and server rooms but I don’t often think of the wheel, or the djembe. But all of these things have been invented to enable us to improve our ability to do something.
If you look at a symphony orchestra and how it is constituted, you will see instruments that have existed for thousands of years next to ones invented in the last couple of hundred years. And that’s evolution. Being open to new things has enabled music and the orchestra to develop. We’ve gone from a few blokes in wigs sitting around a harpsichord playing relatively simple arrangements on violins and wooden flutes to over a hundred people playing incredibly dynamic and complex pieces on a massive variety of instruments invented thousands of years apart.
But here’s the thing. The evolution of the orchestra has stopped. And for many, being able to participate in anything orchestral (i.e. in any group of musicians playing together) is simply not realistic, given that orchestral music and tradition is largely written/established by non disabled people, for non disabled people.
See, if you take any instrument you have three elements: (this bit is unashamedly stolen from OpenUp Music)
- The shape of the instrument
- The interface (how you make it make noise)
- The sound it makes when interfaced with.
Traditionally, these three things were inextricably intertwined. You couldn’t make a violin sound without something shaped like a violin, and you couldn’t make a violin sound like a violin by blowing it (ok, it would sound like a Violin being blown but you get my point).
This applies to all mainstream instruments.
But, here’s where it gets interesting. New technology now allows you to make a cello sound with a keyboard. Or a trumpet sound with a phone. Or a guitar sound with your eyes.
You no longer need to be able to use both hands, or even one hand, or even any specific part of your body to be able to make music.
Music Technology, as it always has done, represents a leap forward in the potential of music and the orchestra. The thing about digital music technology, in particular, is that it adds a whole new level to the accessibility of creating and performing music in groups.
Here’s where I start nicking stuff form the Power of Equality 2. This next bit is pretty much all Phil Mullen:
Music technology is instantly engaging
There are no difficult physical hurdles to overcome as there can be with many traditional instruments.
While the entry-point may be highly accessible, technology work can be challenging and of high quality
It is essentially a creative form. It establishes a level playing field. Some children have different levels of playing skill on non digital instruments and different levels of support in developing musical knowledge but they are all highly imaginative. Encouraging them to use their imaginations creatively gives them that sense of achievement. They are developing skills; they are good creative learners. And this builds a positive sense of self-identity.
Music Technology is flexible. It supports personal endeavour, so a musician can be in control of the outcome of a piece. It also develops group working skills.
Music Technology supports self-evaluation. It requires less didactic teaching (i.e. a set list of tasks) and more Socratic direction (i.e. questioning of choices and rationale while allowing participants to stay in full control of the creative output).
And finally, music technology enables ready access to progression: after all, most homes have a computer/tablet/smartphone, many fewer would have a non-digital musical instrument.
So, for all those who are unable to engage with music because of a disability or otherwise, technology, just like it always has, is providing ways for this to change.
If we go back to the evolution of the symphony orchestra, you have the Harp (est. Circa 3000 BC) sharing a stage with the Saxophone (Est. 1846 AD). So, if a gap of over 5 millennia is ok, why aren’t we able to add newer instruments into the traditional orchestral set up? Why can’t we continue to evolve the orchestra, and the art form of music and make playing in orchestras something that everyone can enjoy at all levels?
I’ll tell you why. It’s us. Our attitudes are the only thing stopping this happening. If you disagree with this then it just proves the point. We, who have control over the programmes of work that are set up and sustained, are responsible.
But once we change our attitudes, someone like Bradley can play in a regional youth orchestra because of his eye gaze instrument. This is the future of the orchestra. This is what those blokes in wigs should have become.
But you can’t just throw this orchestra together. You need seriously good directors and composers and conductors and seriously accessible and flexible spaces. And if you get all that in place (and this is the bit that gets me really fired up and excited) and you take instruments which are only just being invented and repertoire that has yet to be written and musicians who have never been given a voice, put them together and provide them with the opportunity to create and perform music together, what do you get?
You get a massive unknown.….something we just cannot predict: A new form of music. And once the repertoire, conductors, musicians, instruments are used to working in this new, flexible, non restricted, inclusive way, what’s to stop adding in a violin player, or 4 violin players. Or 16 bassoons? Or a DJ?
Nothing…absolutely nothing.
This isn’t really about disabled orchestras or even digital technology. This is about getting to a point where music is no longer disabling, in any way, to anyone. Setting up an orchestra or band or choir so that it is built around it’s members and allows anyone with a passion and desire to perform and create to do so means that the door can be open to anyone and everyone and that each orchestra is unique.
So we’re beginning to sew the seeds for a new generation of creative musicians who know nothing different than “anything is possible.”
Technology has always helped us to overcome obstacles. Now the only obstacle is our attitude. Only we can open the way to real evolution and that only happens when we create environments within which kaleidoscopic art can flourish.
Here’s an email I wrote a while ago:
“What is music technology? It's what we invent to help us do music in new ways. It should not even exist as a term. Distinguishing it from other music helps maintain the gap between what is considered traditional and what is considered new. The fact that the saxophone and the synthesiser were invented within 36 years of each other yet the sax sits in an orchestra alongside instruments invented 3 or 400 years before it is as bad as the Kennel Club saying that a Golden Retriever ('invented' in 1865) is a 'pure breed' just like the Samoyed ('invented' at least 3000 years ago) but that the Cockapoo ('invented' in the 1950s, only 85 years after the Golden Retriever) is a mongrel.
Tradition represents both a strength and weakness of our race. We create tradition to make ourselves feel less insignificant but, by doing so, make loads of people feel more insignificant. At it’s best, it produces some of the finest examples of human achievement: at it’s worst it causes genocide.
We just need to get over ourselves.”