A Study of Community Band Participants: Implications for Music Education

Council for Research in Music Education

A Study of Community Band Participants: Implications for Music EducationAuthor(s): Roger MantieReviewed work(s):Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 191 (WINTER 2012), pp.21-43Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.191.0021 .Accessed: 03/05/2012 20:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=crme

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.191.0021?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

21

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education © 2012 Board of Trustees Winter 2012 No. 191 University of Illinois

A Study of Community Band Participants: Implications for Music EducationRoger Mantie Boston University Boston, Massachusetts

ABSTR ACTAs viewed through the theoretical frameworks of Lave and Wenger’s situated learning, leisure theory, and quality-of-life theory, the purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics, attitudes and perceptions of adult community band musicians (N = 275) in nine randomly selected ensembles in order to glean insights into how music education might facilitate (a) more meaningful connections between school and community, and (b) greater lifespan engagement with participatory music making. The “typical” survey respondent was over 45, physically healthy, white, nonsmoker, nondrinker, churchgoer, well-educated, upper-middle class, married with children, active in the community, studied piano and sung in a choir at some point, learned their instrument in school, enjoyed classical music, and chose to play in the band for both musical and social reasons. Significant differences between those who learned to play their instrument in school and those who did not were minimal. Implications for music educators concerned about the “car-ryover” of school music to music making later in life are discussed.

The contrast between the world of school music and actual musical conditions in the world outside is startling. (Gordon, Zanzig, & Tilton, 1933, p. 17)

Former MENC president June Hinckley called it a tragedy that some people fail to make music a vital component of life beyond the school years and she encouraged educators to become as concerned about community music programs as they are about school music (Hinckley, 2000, p. 11). Arguably, music educators would need to advocate less for music’s place in the school curriculum if the long-term benefits of school music were more explicit (Regelski, 2005, 2006). Fostering such things as music appreciation or cultivating well-roundedness too often do not translate into overt “value added” and contribute to “music education’s distantiation from society” (Regelski, 2006, p. 4)—something Bennett Reimer has similarly called, in a slightly different con-text, music education’s “potential crisis of irrelevancy” (as cited in Myers, 2008, p. 5). The importance of connecting school learning with adult life, sometimes called transfer, and what Jellison (2000) has called transition, is hardly a novel concern, coming to prominence notably in the work of John Dewey (Tanner & Tanner, 2007). For sev-

BCRME_191_text.indd 21 3/26/12 11:18 AM

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Winter 2012 No. 191

22

eral decades in the twentieth century, the issue of connecting that done in school music with musical activity later in life was referred to as carryover. The term can be found in the pages of the Music Educators Journal in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s (Brandenburg, 1946; Funchess, 1939, 1953; Haas, 1954; Tallmadge, 1941) and in research studies from the 1940s through the 1970s (Lawrence & Dachinger, 1967; Lonnberg, 1960; Neal, 1949; Ordway, 1964; Stein, 1970; Waggoner, 1972). Although the term car-ryover has fallen out of favor, many authors continue to emphasize the importance of music participation beyond the school years and its potential implications for the field of music education. Mark (1996) writes, for example, that by studying adult music activities “we could well learn something about teaching and learning that the study of music instruction in schools can’t teach us. And we might be able to apply some of this knowledge to school music” (p. 119). Adult music making has been examined in a variety of ways in the literature. Researchers have explored issues of adults’ perceptions about their previous music experiences (Arasi, 2006; Chiodo, 1997; Flowers & Murphy, 2001; Holmquist, 1995; Royse, 1990; Thornton, 2010; Turton & Durrant, 2002), music making for “older” adults (Coffman, 2002b; Coffman & Levy, 1997; Darrough & Boswell, 1992; Ernst, 2001; Larson, 1983), the specific curricular and instructional needs of the adult learner (Boswell, 1992; Bowles, 1988, 2010; Kruse, 2007; McCullough, 1981; Olseng & Burley, 1987; Rohwer, 2009), adult music participation as an example of lifelong learning (Boswell, 1992; Dabback, 2007; Wilhjelm, 1998), music’s benefits/quality-of-life enhancement for adults (Coffman, 2002a, 2002b; Darrough, 1992; Ernst, 2001), and specific characteristics of community music ensembles and their members (Bell, 2000; Bowen, 1995; Busch, 2005; Cavitt, 2005; Coffin, 2005; Coffman, 2007; Faivre-Ransom, 2001; Griffith, 2006; Heintzelman, 1988; Hosler, 1992; Martin, 1983; Patterson, 1985; Spencer, 1996; Thaller, 1999; Vincent, 1997). Adult populations in this research are treated either intrinsically, as ends in themselves, or instrumentally, from which “implications for music education” are sometimes drawn. In this latter literature there is a tendency to draw normative conclusions for school music practices based on descriptive evidence at the adult level rather than problematize school music practices based on how adults use music later in life. If music educators are concerned with issues of carryover (transfer, transition), it behooves researchers to more thoroughly examine the connections that can or should exist between music making during and beyond the school years. This is not to imply that playing and singing are the only legitimate forms of “musicking” (Small, 1998). As DeNora (2000) has demonstrated, there are multiple modes of engagement with music in “everyday life.” However, if lifespan engagement with music (Mantie & Tucker, 2008; Myers, 2008) in an active, or making, sense is indeed a desired outcome for school music, then more research is needed that examines the ways in which school music practices may be better informed by how people use music beyond high school graduation (e.g., Arwine, 1996; Thornton, 2010). In particular, research is needed that


23

considers the possible effects or impact of school music on those who continue to be musically active, something that requires an examination of active music makers who did and did not partake of school music offerings.1

The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics, attitudes, and percep-tions of adult community band musicians in nine randomly selected ensembles in order to glean insights into how music education might facilitate (a) more meaningful con-nections between school and community, and (b) greater lifespan engagement with par-ticipatory music making. The specific research questions were: What are the attitudes, perceptions, and demographic characteristics of adult community band musicians? What are the differences (if any) in attitudes, perceptions, and demographic character-istics between those who learned to make music in school and those who did not? How might the results of these two questions better inform music education practices?

THEORET ICAL FR A MEWORKSSituated LearningFor Lave and Wenger (1991), learning is considered contextually bound. Learning is therefore thought to suffer distortion when learners do not perceive their activities in terms of legitimate induction, something Lave and Wenger term “legitimate peripheral participation,” into real world practices (p. 29). This distortion, they claim, is endemic to institutions such as schools, where emphasis on the exchange value of learning too often results in students engaging in activities for reasons extrinsic or ancillary to the intended purpose (p. 112). School music programs that take the form of large ensemble performance but structure and rationalize learning outcomes on the basis of such things as appreciation, critical thinking, or the enhancement of other cognitive faculties exem-plify this kind of distortion. This is not to suggest that such outcomes do not or should not result from large ensemble performance, but that such outcomes should not provide the motivating force for engaging in the activity. Following Lave and Wenger’s theory of situated learning, if large performance ensembles are to be the predominant paradigm for instruction, then current practices should be about induction (legitimate peripheral participation) into the “real world” of large ensemble performance.

Leisure TheoryWork/leisure discourses, especially those of a historically Protestant nature, have often situated leisure as problematic (Stebbins, 1998). Leisure was viewed as “idle” time dur-ing which mischief might take root (Kaplan, 1955). Problem became opportunity for music teachers, however, when music was proffered as a productive use of leisure time (Dykema, 1934; National Recreation Association, 1926; Zanzig, 1930, 1932). Indeed, early utilitarian rationales for music education frequently claimed music making—or at least particular kinds of music making—as a “productive” or appropriate use of leisure time (Jorgensen, 1995; Leeder & Haynie, 1959, pp. 100–101).

Mantie Community Band Participants



24

Leisure theorization (e.g., Stebbins, 1979, 1992, 1998) emphasizes not just the quantitative, but the qualitative aspects of leisure. This qualitative focus, reminiscent of historical concerns over the proper development of “taste” in music and the arts (e.g., Martin, 1995), suggests that there are better and worse ways of occupying one’s nonwork (i.e., avocational) time. Stebbins (1998) offers a categorization of avocational activities, including amateurs, hobbyists, and volunteers, and various levels of involve-ment, from dabblers and novices to committed amateurs. Amateurs are in many ways indistinguishable from professionals, save the reasons for engagement (love, not money) and time involvement. Based on his research, Stebbins concluded that the use of one’s nonwork hours contributes to a sense of personal and collective identity in the creation of a lifestyle. In order to achieve the greatest life satisfaction, individuals should seek opti-mal forms of leisure. He presents jazz, choral singing, operatic singing, chamber music, and orchestral music as options for serious leisure, whereas rock music, folk music, and country music are described as entertainment. In adapting Stebbins’s work to music participation, Gates (1991) provided a preliminary effort in what he called “music par-ticipation research” and “music participant theory,” something he suggested should help guide policy efforts in music education. Gates’s work remains one of the few attempts in the literature to articulate, in theoretical terms, ways in which school music teaching could connect to people’s music making later in life based on how adults conceptualize their musical participation.

Quality-of-LifeQuality-of-life (QOL) research has taken the form of two primary conceptions: subjec-tive well-being and objective list (Gullone & Cummins, 2002; Rapley, 2003). In the former, objective criteria for QOL are considered inappropriate, as individual life sat-isfaction (or subjective well-being) cannot be determined empirically or by others (see Gullone & Cummins, 2002). In the latter, normative criteria for QOL (e.g., minimum standards for food, shelter, and other “necessities”) are accepted as a pragmatic imposi-tion. Among the various perspectives informing QOL research are self-actualization, happiness, absence of ill-being, opulence, “just society,” human needs fulfillment, tran-scendentalism, health, culture, goal attainment, and capabilities development (Sirgy, 2001). For the purposes of this study, subjective well-being was considered a manifesta-tion of the intersection between the public and the private. That is, personal aspects of QOL, such as happiness, human needs fulfillment, self-actualization, and capabilities development, were considered the product of participation in society as the result of formative experiences such as schooling. P–12 education, then, is directly implicated in its responsibility to foster skills and dispositions not just for vocational preparation, but also, as Noddings (2003) asserts, for one’s avocational activities:

[P]ublic schools in liberal democracies pay very little attention to preparation for personal life. Most of our attention goes to preparation for higher forms of educa-


25

tion, and thus for the world of paid work. We do give some lip service to prepara-tion for civic life, but most of our attention in this area goes to national histories, voting rights, and the like. It is preparation for civic life writ large, not for, say, neighborhood life. (pp. 29–30)

THE STUDYThe Canadian province of Ontario has a population of over 13 million people. It has a rich history of brass, wind, and military bands (see Brault, 1977; Green & Vogan, 1991; Mellor, 1988). The population for this study was defined as all Ontario com-munity wind bands (N = 140) appearing on the Graham Nasby and Canadian Band Association–Ontario websites (www.grahamnasby.com/misc/music_local-resources.shtml; www.canadianbandassociation.ca/ont-bands.shtml). Although there were likely a few community wind bands in Ontario not on one of these two lists, the intent was to be comprehensive, not exhaustive. In order to ensure geographic diversity, the pool was stratified according to three geographic regions: the Greater Toronto Area, south-western Ontario, and the rest of Ontario. Ensuring geographic diversity was intended to solicit responses from ensembles in a variety of communities, both rural and urban. Three ensembles from each geographic region were chosen randomly from names out of a hat. The conductors or ensemble representatives of the randomly selected bands were contacted. All nine selected bands agreed to participate. The questionnaire, adapted from a survey instrument by Coffman (2009), was refined in consultation with the Board of Canadian Band Association–Ontario to ensure question relevance, and piloted with a small group of community band musi-cians (N = 9) at the Royal Community of Music Community School to test question legibility and questionnaire length. On the basis of the pilot study the formatting and wording of several questions were changed in order to ensure better legibility and visual clarity. The 95-item survey had five sections: the first had 25 dichotomous variables related to present and past experience; the second contained 25 five-point Likert-scale questions about attitudes and perceptions; section 3 had 18 categorical variables related to frequency and duration (e.g., amount of personal practicing, length of time in the ensemble), and three ranking questions; the fourth contained 12 open-ended questions asking about personal experiences and perceptions; the final section asked 12 questions related to demographic and socioeconomic status. The questionnaire was administered by each ensemble conductor or representative between February and April 2008, generating 275 responses. Although there were no reported refusals to participate, it should be noted that not every question on every survey was answered, and that three ensembles reported low turnout on the survey date due to inclement weather. In one instance it appears that participants may not have been given sufficient time to complete the survey. Answers to the open-ended questions were entered into a spreadsheet and manu-ally manipulated through a three-stage thematic reduction process so that all questions




26

had between four and 12 categories. A peer researcher verified the thematic reduction. Numerical data were entered into SPSS. Missing responses were accounted for in statis-tical calculations. Descriptive data were generated for all questions. Next, factor analysis was employed to reduce 25 questions pertaining to learning and enjoyment in and through participants’ involvement with community bands. Initial principle component analysis required eight iterations to produce an eight-factor solution using varimax rota-tion with Kaiser normalization. Analysis revealed 39% of the variance was explained by four factors. A subsequent four-factor solution produced by principle component analy-sis did not meet Cronbach’s alpha of .70, however, leading to additional analyses. Using principle axis factoring with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization, a four-factor solution converged in seven iterations (Table 1). Factors 2–4 did not meet Cronbach’s alpha of .70 and were rejected as unreliable. A new variable, entitled “loves band” (LB), was calculated based on eight scale variables for Factor 1. Although factor loadings were not overly high (.384 –.519), Cronbach’s alpha of .70 was met. One-way ANOVAs with post hoc tests using Bonferoni adjustment were conducted on the computed variable LB and the categorical variables. A series of independent sample t tests were then run on LB and dichotomous variables. Finally, a large number of chi-square tests were conducted on the dichotomous and categorical variables in the survey, with relevant relationships filtered by the variables of age, gender, and learn in school, and education.

RESULTSCharacteristicsThe sample comprised 45% woodwinds, 40% brass, and 4% percussion (9% no response); 59% reported they had played their instrument for over 20 years. Sixty-six percent of the participants learned to play their instrument in school, with 73% agree-ing or strongly agreeing with the statement “I feel my school music experience prepared me well for participation in this band.” Sixty percent reported taking private lessons on their instrument at some point, 64% indicated they had taken piano lessons, and 78% said they had sung in a choir but only 16% currently sang with a choir. Forty-six percent indicated they had played their instrument professionally (for monetary remunera-tion) at some point. Thirty-four percent reported playing chamber music or in small groups; 30% reported using accompaniment technologies. Fifty-two percent claimed to do regular volunteer work, and 39% reported having been a member of the band’s executive at some point. Of significance for those studying physical abilities and encum-brances, 71% of the sample indicated they needed eyeglasses to read music, a health-related issue had prevented 35% from playing their instrument at some point, 10% had to make special adaptations in order to play their instrument, and 4% employed some form of assistance to carry it. In response to a question about favorite styles of music the results were 28% classical, 16% swing/jazz, 15% pop/rock, 9% Broadway/show/film, 7% band/brass band/military, 15% other styles (with no one style totaling


27

over 2%), and 11% no response, indicating tastes somewhat different from mainstream North American society, although this may in part be reflective of the overall age of the participants, which was considerably older than the Ontario median of 39 years (2006 census figures; www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/cenhi06–4.html). Descriptive statistics indicate that the “typical” survey respondent was over 45, physically healthy, white, nonsmoker, nondrinker, churchgoer, well educated, upper-middle class, married with children, active in the community, studied piano and sung in a choir at some point, learned their instrument in school, enjoyed classical music, and chose to play in the band for both musical and social reasons. Participants tended to be older (Figure 1), and although results show a slightly higher male than female member-ship (52.5% Male, 40.5% Female, 7% no response), when broken down by age catego-ries this disparity can be attributed to the category of 65 or older, where there were 44 Males and only 9 Females. The gender distribution of other age categories tended to be

Table 1.Rotated Factor Matrix

Factor

1 2 3 4

School experience .342 .029 –.077 –.015Have to work hard .005 .218 .474 .123Abilities improved .147 .206 .419 .010Sense of improvement .405 .321 .232 .050Enjoyment—pieces .068 .322 .035 .353Enjoyment—conductor .033 .381 –.008 .224Enjoyment—tempo .029 –.025 .489 .636Enjoyment—part –.009 .125 .003 .604Ensemble proficiency .170 .265 .022 .220Rehearsals vs. performances –.025 .072 .496 .109Playing is relaxing .484 .053 –.023 .053Playing is physically challenging .011 .551 .048 .097Playing is mentally challenging –.050 .528 .166 –.026My spirit improves .494 .482 .058 –.008Band is more important .384 .260 .066 –.035I appreciate assistance .395 .111 .343 –.103Learning on my own .316 –.007 .171 –.087Give up easily –.263 .111 –.045 .170I am very satisfied with life .168 .003 .138 .047Lack of success--try harder .413 –.011 .246 .066This band is well known .519 .007 –.084 .210This band is well respected .499 .063 –.342 .216Social interaction is important .027 .211 –.392 .215




28

more or less equal. Educational attainment level and annual family income (Figures 2 and 3) were both higher than the Ontario average (www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/ .3ndic.1t.4r@-eng .jsp?iid=29), characteristics perhaps contributing to 47% of respondents reportedly owning professional model instruments. Self-reported race/ethnicity (Figure 4) shows almost no visible minority participation, save a small percentage who self-described as “Oriental.” Only 3% of the members in this study reported being regular smokers, and 54% reported consuming less than three alcoholic drinks per month or less. Given the self-report of general good health and 78% reporting getting regular exercise at least 2–3 times per week or more, it appears that overall health and well-being was very important to those surveyed. Although the majority of participants reported being married, the figure of 58% was somewhat lower than expected, hinting at the potential importance of social aspects of community bands for unmarried people. Indeed, 79% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Social interaction with other musicians is impor-tant to me.” As Table 2 shows, however, when asked to rank a given set of words (with the option to supply one of their own) in response to the question, “What are your reasons for being in this ensemble,” “people/social reasons” was ranked first by only 12% of respondents, suggesting that while social factors may be important (ranking second and third by 29% and 37% respectively), they are not a primary reason for involvement. This finding was corroborated by a question in another section of the questionnaire that asked respondents to supply at least three answers to the question, “Why did you choose to involve yourself with a community band?” Responses included the following general categories: love of music/playing (28%), maintain/improve playing (14%), hobby/recreation/use of time (10%), and enjoyment/fun (8%). While social factors were clearly important to these respondents, the music and the quality of the music-making experience were the most important reasons listed for their participation, something

Figure 1. Age distribution.


29

Figure 2. Educational attainment.

Figure 3. Annual family income (in thousands per annum).



30

corroborated by the results to the question, “Please list three things that would make the community band experience better for you.” Of the write-in responses, 27% mentioned performance issues (e.g., tuning, dynamics), more rehearsal time and higher playing standards, 23% mentioned interpersonal, membership, or organizational issues, 16% listed better music/repertoire, and 11% included issues related to convenience (e.g., commuting, fees, scheduling). Thirty-one percent reported that the ensemble they play in is not the closest one to where they live, suggesting that many members were selective about the musical level of the group, the individuals in the group, or the conductor of the group. With 35% traveling under 5 kilometers (3 miles) to participate in their band, this might also sug-gest that community band options are abundant. That 11% reported traveling over 30 kilometers (20 miles) suggests that for some participants the benefits of participation

Figure 4. Self-reported race/ethnicity.

Table 2Reasons for Participating (by percentage)

People/Social Rank The Music Reasons The Conductor Convenience Other (Write In)

1 58 12 7 4 192 26 29 30 12 33 9 37 32 21 14 4 17 25 53 15 10 13 20 43 15


31

outweigh inconveniences of getting to or from rehearsals. This may also speak to how seriously community band members take their participation, something corroborated by the finding that 58% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Outside of work and family, playing with the band is more important than my other activities.”

RelationshipsOne-way ANOVA results showed no significant relationship between “loves band” (LB) and the categorical variables of age, education, marital status, exercise, how long participants had played in bands, how often they got together to make music informally, how far they traveled to be a part of the ensemble, how many other groups (musical and non-) they were part of, how many hobbies they had, or how good or bad they thought the ensemble was. Significant relationships were found between LB and social-ization outside of rehearsal (p = .004), and having close friends in the band (p = .000). Significant relationships were also found between LB and responses to the questions, “My enjoyment of playing with the band is affected by the conductor” (p = .003), and “My enjoyment of making music is affected by the pieces we play” (p = .000). Results of t tests showed only one significant relationship: LB and mentoring other band mem-bers (p = .001). There were no significant relationships found between LB and learning to play in school, taking private lessons, gender, taking piano lessons at some point, playing in chamber groups, using play-along recordings or software, helping move equipment, involvement with the band’s executive, or volunteerism in the community. For the purposes of this study, chi-square tests revealed some of the most interest-ing findings, especially those related to the variables of gender, age, income, education, marital status, private lessons, and “learning to play in school” (LS). For example, a significant difference (p = .03) was found between gender and LS. While the number of men and women who learned to play in school was nearly equal, men outnumbered women almost two to one among those who did not learn to play in school. Although no significant relationship for the entire sample was found between LS and the enjoy-ment of soloing with the band, when filtered by gender LS corresponded strongly with increased enjoyment of soloing among women (p = .02). Similarly, a significant difference was found between gender and the statement, “Social interaction with other musicians is important to me” (p = .01), with women more likely to strongly agree with this statement. Private lessons (PL) correlated significantly with playing chamber music (p = .000), playing in other music groups (p = .000), and enjoying soloing with the band (p = .037). Surprisingly, no significant relationship was found between LS and any of these items. There was a significant connection (p = .045), however, between LS and a response to the question, “My enjoyment of making music is affected by the pieces we play,” with those who learned in school more likely to strongly agree with this statement. Somewhat dis-concerting for music educators is the finding that both LS (p = .011) and PL (p = .000)




32

correlated significantly with practicing—but in opposite directions; those who learned in school tend to practice less than those who did not, whereas those that had studied privately practice more. While it may be speculated that the desire to pursue private les-sons is suggestive of a desire that helps to explain increased practicing, one might have expected that learning an instrument in school would also develop habits and/or disposi-tions toward regular practicing, even if not to the extent of those who studied privately. Other than expected findings, such as correlations between income and educa-tion, very few significant relationships were found to correspond with the variables of age, income, education, and marital status. Among the few were that were significant: those with higher levels of education were more likely to be members of the band’s executive (p = .009); almost no single people had been members of the band’s executive (p = .000); and those with bachelor’s degrees were more likely to claim that the level of the band was below their skill level (p = .037). Another unexpected finding was that those who had taken private lessons did less volunteerism (p = .013).

DISCUSS IONQuestion 1: What are the attitudes, perceptions, and demographic characteristics of adult community band musicians?The nine bands in this study represent a cross-section of geography and history. Although conducting interband comparisons was not a purpose of this study, introspective examination of the results suggests that the community bands surveyed reflect distinct ensemble cultures—a point that should be considered by those undertaking similar research. While findings regarding age, education, income, ethnic/racial membership, and gender distribution are generally consistent with previous research on community bands (Cavitt, 2005; Heintzelman, 1988; Martin, 1983; Patterson, 1985; Spencer, 1996; Thaller, 1999), there are some deviations. Bowen’s (1995) study, for example, found twice as many males than females in community bands, with half having majored in music in college.2 Band-by-band analysis in this study revealed many variations with, for example, two ensembles having slighter more females than males, and at least two with very few females, an observation consistent with Spencer’s (1996) finding of gender dif-ferences among various regions of the United States. While studies of ensemble member characteristics (including this one) can often seem revealing, the results should, as always, be interpreted judiciously. It should be noted, for example, that none of the bands in this sample were New Horizons groups, ensembles that typically appeal to and exist for a population with needs and expectations that differ from traditional community bands (see Coffman, 2009; Dabback, 2007; Kruse, 2007; Griffith, 2006).3 Generalizing the statistical results of studies of ensemble member demographic and socioeconomic characteristics to a population of “community bands” is something that should be under-taken with caution given the overt differences noted between groups.


33

Generalizability issues notwithstanding, the overall picture of member attitudes and characteristics that emerges from the research gives rise to questions. Consistent with Spencer’s (1996) study of members from 74 ensembles affiliated with the Association of Concert Bands, this study found above-average levels of educational attainment and fam-ily income, as well as predominantly white membership. Approximately 27% of Ontario residents have attained a university degree, compared with 81% reported by participants in this study. Data for 2007 show the median family income for Ontario as $69,190 per annum (www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/ famil108a-eng.htm). Although Figure 3 shows approximately 46% above and 37% below (17% nonreporting) the $75,000 per annum cut point, it does appear that community band participants have higher-than-average incomes for the geographic region. Previous research has suggested high levels of socio-economic status among community band members, but has not explicitly engaged nor-mative comparisons. That the community wind bands in this sample comprise primarily older adults is not necessarily problematic, but it does raise questions about why those under 45 are less likely to participate. Although “stage of life” theories, where younger adults are assumed to be too busy with family and early career responsibilities to engage with leisure activities, might provide a possible explanation, this does not account for why previous studies (Bowen, 1995; Heintzelman, 1988; Spencer, 1996) have found a more dispersed, if not younger, age distribution among community bands. One possible explanation for the lack of younger members in this sample is that community bands are no longer viewed as an attractive leisure activity by younger adults in this particular geographic region. Racial/ethnic participation levels more reflective of the diverse racial/ethnic make-up of Ontario would seem to be problematic from an equity and diversity perspective. Again, while all previous studies have found overwhelmingly white participation levels, these studies have not provided normative geographic comparisons. However, recently reported research by Elpus and Abril (2011) using data from the National Center for Educational Statistics demonstrates that whites and those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds (often one and the same) are consistently overrepresented in school music programs. Given the overwhelming predominance of older, white participants with levels of educational attainment and income considerably above the Ontario average, it must be asked if community wind-band activity has become, or perhaps has always been, the domain of more privileged members of society. Although conceptually grounded in theories of participation, the questionnaire did not make direct use of Stebbins’s categorization (adapted by Gates, 1991) of participa-tion as amateurs, hobbyists, volunteers, and so on. As shown (Table 3), there is far from uniformity of participation conceptualization among respondents. Deliberately, no defi-nitions of the terms “lifelong learning,” “hobby,” “recreation,” or “leisure” were provided in the questionnaire, so results should be interpreted only as how the respondents choose to self-describe. The write-in alternatives supplied by respondents included, in order: fun/enjoyment, profession/professional/semi-pro,4 passion, work/challenge, relaxation/




34

stress release, beauty/spiritual, service/giving, and “a calling.” Although “lifelong learn-ing” and “hobby” predominated, suggesting that most survey participants conceptualize their activity more in active than passive terms—similar, perhaps, to what Stebbins calls “serious leisure”—it is interesting to note the polarized response for lifelong learning, something not found in other choices. Researchers studying New Horizons ensembles (e.g., Dabback, 2007; Kruse, 2007; Griffith, 2006) have suggested that adult wind-band participation is or can be conceptualized as lifelong learning. The polarized response to the term “lifelong learning” in this study should serve as a caution that, irrespective of any learning that may or may not be occurring in community bands, lifelong learning should not be prematurely privileged over other possible reasons for, or theories of, engagement. Given that 59% of the participants in this study reported playing their instrument for over 20 years may indicate, for example, that, unlike New Horizons members, long-time community band members conceptualize their involvement as something akin to serious leisure rather than learning per se. The factor analysis-derived construct of “loves band” (LB) provides speculation on issues related to quality-of-life (QOL). For example, the significant relationship found between LB and responses to the question, “My enjoyment of making music is affected by the pieces we play,” suggests a greater concern for individually derived rather than socially or collectively derived satisfaction. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Bowles, 1988), one might have expected to find a greater sense of familial tradition among community band members, but a full 32% of those with children reported that their children did not play an instrument, suggesting that participation is thought of more in terms of subjective well-being rather than as an objective-collectivist notion of societal well-being. The lack of relationships found between LB and variables such as learning to play in school, playing in chamber groups, utilizing play-along technolo-gies, or even participating in the band’s executive was surprising, as one might have expected to find connections between enjoyment and learning, playing in individual or small-group settings, or involvement with the organization’s governance. This could be due to the weakness of the factor, however. Although LB proved reliable, it did not account for a majority of the variance. As indicated, this was a broadly based survey;

Table 3Self-Described Activity (by percentage)

Lifelong Rank Learning Hobby Recreation Leisure Other (Write In)

1 34 23 21 11 112 25 23 32 17 33 10 25 27 37 14 30 23 15 32 15 21 21 16 11 32


35

future research may benefit from a more tightly focused battery of questions aimed at developing constructs such as musical enjoyment, social enjoyment, and other concepts related to QOL, lifespan engagement, and modes of musical induction. Although LB did not reveal many significant relationships, those found are sugges-tive. For example, significant relationships found between LB and socialization, friends, and mentoring all point to the importance of the social aspects of community band par-ticipation. The results should be interpreted cautiously, however. Given that 36% of par-ticipants report not socializing with band members outside of rehearsal, and 32% report doing so one time per month or less, it would appear that socialization is not a primary factor motivating participation in community bands. Nevertheless, post hoc analysis sug-gests that band members who socialize with each other outside of rehearsal tend to have a higher LB score. As well, the more friends one had in the ensemble, the higher the LB score. Friendships within the ensemble, then, can be speculated as connected with partici-patory enjoyment, but should not be assumed to be a primary motivating factor.

Question 2: What are the differences (if any) in attitudes, perceptions, and demographic characteristics between those who learned to make music in school and those who did not?Previous research examining ensembles other than New Horizons groups has found that almost all members played their instruments in school, and sizable numbers also played while in college. In contrast, a full third of participants in this study did not play in school ensembles, a finding that may reflect the geographic context, where school bands may not have been and may not be as prevalent. Although the participants who did not play in school were concentrated in the older age brackets, the nature of this sample should hypothetically hold insights into possible longer-term effects of school music. Differences found between those who learned their instruments in school and those who did not were minimal, however. An area of future research for those interested in adult education would be to conduct studies that compare adult community band participants who learned in school and those who learned outside of school with, for example, New Horizons ensem-bles where many participants learn to play their instruments as adults. Although not great in number, the differences between the school learners and the nonschool learners raise questions. For example, those who learned to play their instruments in school reportedly practice less often. From the perspectives of leisure and QOL, it may be that those who learned to play in school think of participation and involvement in more of a collective than individualistic sense. That is, some may con-ceive the lifestyle of wind-band participation to be about ensemble rehearsals and perfor-mances rather than individual practicing/playing. The sense of identity and enjoyment, in other words, may derive from group membership, not from individual performance abilities. From the perspective of serious leisure, however, this raises the possibility for tensions between group members. As Stebbins observes:




36

some (marginal) participants want to play or perform without going through the “drudgery” of preparation (learning, practicing, conditioning and so on). Their inadequate preparation not only drags down the overall quality of the perfor-mance, but also spoils the fun of the more devoted enthusiasts, because they are forced to work with undermotivated and inferior participants. (1998, pp. 90–91)

It is a matter for future research to examine the nature and degree to which the tensions suggested by Stebbins are present among community band members with varying levels of ability and practice habits.5

An intriguing finding was the significant correlation found between learning in school and responses to the question, “My enjoyment of making music is affected by the pieces we play.” That those who learned in school were more likely to strongly agree with this statement seems to indicate a greater emphasis on the importance of the repertoire rather than on other possible sources of enjoyment (e.g., friends or social interaction). This finding would seem to support the efforts of school music educators to teach greater sensitivity to musical elements. On the other hand, no significant relationship was found between learning in school and playing chamber music or playing in other music groups—a finding that does not reflect well for those who believe that school music promotes or should promote a broader range of musical engagement (see Jones, 2009). That learning in school was found to correlate positively with increased enjoy-ment of soloing in women could be an anomaly, or could suggest some ameliorating effects of school music against gender discrimination in society.

Question 3: How might the results of these two questions better inform music education practices?As discussed previously, caution should be exercised about overgeneralizing the demo-graphic and socioeconomic characteristics of community band participants. Age, gen-der, educational attainment, and family income level varied considerably from group to group. This said, the overall picture gives rise to questions requiring further exami-nation, perhaps not the least of which is why the ethnic/racial makeup of community wind bands is not more adequately reflective of society at large. More research is needed to ascertain if there is an ethnic/racial connection between school wind-band partici-pation and similar participation later in life. The higher-than-average family income level in this sample also raises the class issue of whether community band participation is limited to those who can afford such things as better instruments, private lessons, and ensemble fees. While this study found a positive connection between community band participation and generally good health, such a finding is always subject to the causal-correlational issue of whether community band activity contributes to well-being or whether members who enjoy good health and well-being choose to participate in community bands. Although based entirely on a New Horizons population, Coffman’s (2009) baseline data for an intended longitudinal study of the issue of health should hopefully provide additional insight into this important area for theorizing music


37

participation. Even if a causal connection between health and community band par-ticipation is found, however, it should give pause that, given the opportunity to write in a reason for participation in response to questions about reasons for participating or describing the nature of their participation, only five people in this study wrote “relaxation” or “stress relief,” the only two words related in any way to issues of health. It would appear that even if health and well-being are possible outcomes, these are not primary factors driving community wind-band participation. Few differences were found between those learning music in and out of school. This could be read as suggesting that school music does not provide “value added” (Regelski, 2005, 2006). An alternative reading is that school music helps to provide what others attain privately. That is, school music provides an egalitarian mechanism embodied in Karl Gehrkens’s famous MENC mantra, “Music for every child, every child for music.” However, it must be asked if the provision of music classes during the school years is sufficient. Due to the number of students who graduate from school band programs each year, one might have expected that the number of respondents who learned to play their instrument in school would be higher than 66%, especially given that none of the ensembles were New Horizons groups. Viewed through the lens of situated learning, anecdotal observations about the number of active music makers among school music graduates together with the results of this study raise the question of whether students view their school music involvement as legitimate peripheral participation; that is, as induction into a “real” musical practice, or rather as just another school subject taken on the path toward high school graduation. According to situated learning theory, if eventual participation in wind bands is not the intended outcome of instruction, then the context/form of music learning suffers from distortion. This might help explain why only 73% agreed or strongly agreed that their school music experience prepared them well for participating in their community band. That over a quarter of participants did not feel their school music experience was good preparation for lifelong participation in a large ensemble should certainly raise questions among music educators. It should be noted, however, that it is possible some respondents may have participated in a school music program but not a school band program, resulting in ambiguity in the question. Regardless, the results of this study should raise concerns among those who believe that carryover (transfer, transition, and so on) is important (see Jellison, 2000; Jones, 2009; Myers, 1983, 2008; Mantie & Tucker, 2008). It may be, of course, that school music graduates are participating in music-making activities other than community wind bands, but if school wind-band instruction is being taught as legitimate peripheral participation into the world of wind-band music making one should expect to find the number of community wind-band participants commensurate, at least to some degree, with the number of school music wind-band graduates. A potentially disturbing corollary to this is that if carryover is considered unimportant by music educators, then perhaps school music offerings should not take the form of large ensemble wind bands.




38

The issue of situated learning is especially vexing given the significant relationship found between “learning in school” (LS) and reduced practicing, as well as the lack of significant relationships found between LS and playing chamber music, playing in other music groups, and enjoying soloing with the band. School music programs obvi-ously develop musical skills and knowledge. The question that arises, however, concerns the nature of the dispositions imparted by school music if learning to play in school does not lead to the desire to practice, play chamber music, play in a variety of musi-cal groups, or to solo with the band. An alternate explanation for this finding is that, as demonstrated by the finding that participants self-described their activity as lifelong learning more often than recreation or leisure, learning to play in school orients people to view the purpose of music making as a learning activity rather than a participatory or avocational one. This would suggest that the form of legitimate peripheral participa-tion undertaken by school wind bands is into the world of schooling, not the world of avocational music making. Although adult education research in music and music education to date has helped furnish a picture of demographic characteristics, attitudes, and motivations of community band and community choir participants, it would seem that more research is needed into the kinds of long-term dispositions fostered by large ensemble school music programs, especially as these dispositions are exemplified in claims made by and for music education. For example, the lack of significant rela-tionships found between “loves band” and taking private lessons, playing in chamber groups, using play-along recordings or software, helping move equipment, involvement with the band’s executive, or volunteerism in the community would seem to imply that school music programs may not be engendering the kinds of dispositions (both musical and non) that are so often claimed as benefits of music study in school.

CONCLUS IONMuch of the research literature surveyed for this study focuses on adult music makers as an intrinsic population of interest or as an instrumental population of interest from which normative practices might be deduced. Although most of the studies reviewed include an “implications for music education section” (including three with this explic-itly in the title), they employ a variety of theoretical frameworks and operate from very different normative positions. For example, Bowles (1988) was interested in the music and music education interests of concert attendees, something suggestive of a provi-sion of service model where adult interests might better inform school music practices, whereas Bell (2000) was interested in how preservice music teacher training might be improved based on the rehearsal practices of community choir directors. Moreover, many studies, especially but not limited to those examining New Horizons groups, begin with a priori assumptions of “lifelong learning,” assumptions that presuppose that the motivations and benefits of participation are and should be conceptualized primar-ily in terms of learning. This forecloses or overshadows alternative explanations, such as


39

the recreational perspectives put forth by, for example, Farrell (1973), Kaplan (1955), Leonhard (1952), and Zanzig (1930, 1932). Although perhaps self-evident, it must be also stressed that differences in the nature of participation exist between and among choral and instrumental activities—differences that are rarely explicitly addressed in the literature, a point future researchers interested in school-community intersections may wish to examine more fully. Whether considered intrinsically or instrumentally, researchers of adult music makers would do well to clarify descriptive and normative purposes. Although adult music makers were the subjects of this study, the intent was to generate findings to serve as the basis of discussion, not prescription, for school music practices—especially as they potentially intersect with notions of community. Education is inherently nor-mative; one cannot logically deduce prescriptive action based on descriptive findings of any given population. The purpose of this study was to examine the characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions of adult community band musicians in nine randomly selected ensembles in order to glean insights into how music education might facilitate more meaningful connections between school and community and greater lifespan engagement with participatory music making. Toward this end, analysis sought to identify, through the lenses of situated learning, leisure, and quality-of-life, charac-teristics and relationships that might bear on the practices of school music teachers and those involved with music teacher education. If carryover is to be valued in music education, better theories of avocational music participation are needed. This investi-gation into the characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions of those presently involved in community wind bands has contributed to this effort. Additional research examining potential differences in approaches to avocational music making between those who learned in school and those who did not, as well as differences between various modes of engagement (e.g., choral, instrumental, and so on) could be a valuable next step in developing music-participation theory aimed at increasing the carryover that results from school music programs.

NOTES 1. For the purposes of this study, “school music” refers to playing or singing in ensembles at the secondary level. 2. Bowen’s demographic findings seem atypical. It appears as though the bands in his sample were disproportionately made up of members who were current or former music teachers. 3. The formal name is New Horizons International Music Association. 4. Patterson’s (1985) study found that most of his participants considered themselves “amateurs” and that the majority were paid for their performances, a finding inconsistent with all other reviewed studies. The write-in responses listing “professional” or “semi-pro” in this study are a reminder that some community bands contain a range of abilities and interests. 5. My anecdotal observations of the Yahoo community band-orchestra listserve over the past 5 years suggests that this is indeed a very important issue among those in the community band world.




40

REFERENCESArasi, M. (2006). Adult reflections on a high school choral music program: Perceptions of meaning and

lifelong influence. (Unpublished dissertation). Georgia State University.Arwine, J. (1996). The relationship of high school music instruction in band classes with continuing inter-

est in music. (Unpublished dissertation/thesis). University of Southern California.Bell, C. L. (2000). An examination of adult amateur community chorus and choral conductor rehearsal

behavior, with implications for music education. (Unpublished dissertation). Columbia University Teachers College.

Boswell, J. (1992). Human potential and lifelong learning. Music Educators Journal, 79(4), 38.Bowen, C. K. (1995). Adult community bands in the southeastern United States: An investigation of cur-

rent activity and background profiles of the participants. (Unpublished dissertation). Florida State University.

Bowles, C. L. (1988). An assessment of self-expressed music education interests and music experiences by adult music audiences: Implications for music education. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Texas at Austin.

Bowles, C. L. (2010). Teachers of adult music learners: An assessment of characteristics and instruc-tional practices, preparation, and needs. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 50–59.

Brandenburg, A. (1946). Music education need not stop at graduation. Music Educators Journal, 32(6), 26–28.

Brault, D. (1977). A history of the Ontario Music Educators’ Association (1919–1974). (Unpublished dissertation). University of Rochester.

Busch, M. (2005). Predictors of lifelong learning in music: A survey of individuals participating in ensembles at community colleges in Illinois. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Cavitt, M. E. (2005). Factors influencing participation in community bands. Journal of Band Research, 41(1), 42–57.

Chiodo, P. (1997). The development of lifelong commitment: A qualitative study of adult instrumental music participation (adult learners). (Unpublished dissertation). State University of New York at Buffalo.

Coffin, J. (2005). Why did we join? Why have we stayed? Membership in a women’s barbershop cho-rus: A narrative inquiry into leadership, learning, and the development of voice through singing. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Prince Edward Island.

Coffman, D. (2002a). Banding together: New horizons in lifelong music making. Journal of Aging and Identity, 7(2), 133–143.

Coffman, D. (2002b). Music and quality of life in older adults. Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition, 18, 76–88.

Coffman, D. (2007). An exploration of personality traits in older adult amateur musicians. Research and Issues in Music Education, 5(1). Retrieved from www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol5/ coffman.htm.

Coffman, D. (2009). Survey of New Horizons International Music Association musicians. International Journal of Community Music, 1(3), 375–390.

Coffman, D., & Levy, K. (1997). Senior adult bands: Music’s new horizon. Music Educators Journal, 84(3), 17–22.

Dabback, W. (2007). Toward a model of adult music learning as a socially embedded phenomenon. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Rochester.


41

Darrough, G. (1992). Making choral music with older adults: Older adults come from rich music traditions. Music Educators Journal, 79(4), 27.

Darrough, G., & Boswell, J. (1992). Older adult participation: A review of the related literature. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 111, 25–34.

DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Dykema, P. (1934). Music in community life. Music Educators Journal, 20(4), 34–35, 74–75.Elpus, K., & Abril, C. R. (2011). High school music ensemble students in the United States: A

demographic profile. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 128–145.Ernst, R. (2001). Music for life. Music Educators Journal, 88(1), 47–51.Faivre-Ransom, J. (2001). An investigation of factors that influence adult participation in music ensem-

bles based on various behavioral theories: A case study of the Norfolk Chorale. (Unpublished disser-tation). Shenandoah Conservatory.

Farrell, P. (1973). The meaning of the recreation experience in music as it is defined by urban adults who determined typal singer profiles through Q-technique. (Unpublished dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Flowers, P., & Murphy, J. (2001). Talking about music: Interviews with older adults about their music education, preferences, activities, and reflections. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 20, 26–32.

Funchess, L. (1939). Community music project. Music Educators Journal, 26(1), 36.Funchess, L. (1953). What does music instruction in the school do for people? Music Educators

Journal, 39(4), 22–23, 36.Gates, J. T. (1991). Music participation: Theory, research, and policy. Bulletin of the Council for

Research in Music Education, 109, 1–35.Gordon, E. B., Zanzig, A. D., & Tilton, E. R. (1933). Amateur music. Music Supervisors’ Journal,

19(3), 17–18.Green, J. P., & Vogan, N. F. (1991). Music education in Canada : A historical account. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.Griffith, M. J. (2006). Personality traits and musical interests of adult learners in an instrumental music

program. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Oklahoma.Gullone, E., & Cummins, R. (2002). The universality of subjective wellbeing indicators: A multi-disci-

plinary and multi-national perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Haas, A. (1954). Correlating school and community music. Music Educators Journal, 40(5), 71–72.Heintzelman, T. D. (1988). Adult concert band participation in the United States. (Unpublished dis-

sertation). Indiana University.Hinckley, J. (2000). Music matters: Music for a lifetime. Teaching Music, 7(5), 10–11.Holmquist, S. (1995). A study of community choir members’ school experiences. (Unpublished disserta-

tion). University of Oregon.Hosler, N. M. (1992). The brass band movement in North America: A survey of brass bands in the

United States and Canada. (Unpublished dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.Jellison, J. (2000). How can all people continue to be involved in meaningful music education? In C.

K. Madsen (Ed.), Vision 2020: The Housewright symposium on the future of music education (pp. 109–137). Reston, VA: MENC (The National Association for Music Education).

Jones, P. (2009). Lifewide as well as lifelong: Broadening primary and secondary school music edu-cation’s service to students’ musical needs. International Journal of Community Music, 2(2–3), 201–214.




42

Jorgensen, E. (1995). Justifying music instruction in American public schools: A historical perspec-tive. Arts Education Policy Review, (96)6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/docview/821018933?accountid=9676

Kaplan, M. (1955). Music in recreation, social foundations and practices. Champaign, IL: Stipes.Kruse, N. B. (2007). Andragogy and music: Canadian and American models of music learning among

adults. (Unpublished dissertation). Michigan State University.Larson, P. S. (1983). An exploratory study of lifelong musical interest and activity: Case studies of twelve

retired adults. (Unpublished dissertation). Temple University.Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York:

Cambridge University Press.Lawrence, S. J., & Dachinger, N. (1967). Factors relating to carryover of music training into adult

life. Journal of Research in Music Education, 15(1), 23–31.Leeder, J., & Haynie, W. S. (1959). Music education in the high school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Leonhard, C. (1952). Recreation through music. New York: A. S. Barnes.Lonnberg, E. D. (1960). The influence of secondary music education on adult musical participation.

(Unpublished dissertation). Ohio State University.Mantie, R., & Tucker, L. (2008). Closing the gap: Does music-making have to stop upon gradua-

tion? International Journal of Community Music, 1(2), 217–227.Mark, M. L. (1996). Informal learning and adult music activities. Bulletin of the Council for Research

in Music Education, 130, 119–122.Martin, P. (1995). Sounds and society: Themes in the sociology of music. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Martin, P. J. (1983). A status study of community bands in the United States. (Unpublished disserta-

tion). Northwestern University.McCullough, E. C. (1981). An assessment of the musical needs and preferences of individuals 65 and

over. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Arizona.Mellor, J. (1988). Music in the park: C. F. Thiele, father of Canadian band music. Waterloo, ON:

Melco History Series.Myers, D. (1983). Life after music education. Music Educators Journal, 69(8), 46–47.Myers, D. (2008). Lifespan engagement and the question of relevance: Challenges for music educa-

tion research in the twenty-first century. Music Education Research, 10(1), 1–14.National Recreation Association (1926). Community music: A practical guide for the conduct of commu-

nity music activities. Boston, MA: C. C. Birchard and Company.Neal, C. (1949). Carry-over of musical activities following graduation from high school. (Unpublished

dissertation). Indiana University.Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Olseng, I., & Burley, J. (1987). The second chance. International Journal of Music Education, 9,

27–30.Ordway, C. (1964). Music activities of high school graduates in two communities. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 12(2), 172–176.Patterson, F. C. (1985). Motivational factors contributing to participation in community bands of the

Montachusett region of North Central Massachusetts. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Connecticut.

Rapley, M. (2003). Quality of life research: A critical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Regelski, T. (2005). Music and music education: Theory and praxis for “making a difference.”

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37(1), 7–27.


43

Regelski, T. (2006). Reconnecting music education with society. Action, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 5(2). Retrieved from http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Regelski5_2.pdf

Rohwer, D. (2009). Perceived instructional needs of middle school and senior citizen band members. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(2), 62.

Royse, D. M. (1990). Significant predictors of concert band membership continuation or discontinuation by nonmusic major students at three selected universities. (Unpublished dissertation). Kent State University.

Sirgy, M. J. (2001). Handbook of quality-of-life research: An ethical marketing perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meaning of performing and listening. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Spencer, W. (1996). An attitude assessment of amateur musicians in community bands. (Unpublished dissertation). University of North Texas.

Stebbins, R. A. (1979). Amateurs: On the margin between work and leisure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals, and serious leisure. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s

University Press.Stebbins, R. A. (1998). After work: The search for an optimal leisure lifestyle. Calgary: Detselig

Enterprises.Stein, G. E. (1970). A study of the relation of music instruction during secondary school years to adult

musical status, as reflected in the activities interests and attitudes of recent high school graduates. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Michigan.

Tallmadge, J. (1941). Music for a lifetime. Music Educators Journal, 27(4), 18–19, 61.Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/Prentice-Hall.Thaller, G. P. (1999). The community contributions, recruitment, and retention practices of select adult

community bands in eastern Massachusetts. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Cincinnati.Thornton, D. (2010). Adult music engagement: Perspectives from three musically engaged cases.

(Unpublished dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Turton, A., & Durrant, C. (2002). A study of adults’ attitudes, perceptions and reflections on their

singing experience in secondary school: Some implications for music education. British Journal of Music Education, 19(1), 31–48.

Vincent, P. (1997). A study of community choruses in Kentucky and implications for music educators. (Unpublished dissertation). University of Kentucky.

Waggoner, R. (1972). Factors relating to participation and non-participation in community performance groups at the level in Atlanta, Georgia. (Unpublished dissertation). Florida State University.

Wilhjelm, C. C., Jr. (1998). A case study of the Ridgewood Concert Band, a New Jersey community band dedicated to lifelong learning. (Unpublished dissertation). Columbia University Teachers College.

Zanzig, A. (1930). Richer uses of music as recreation. Music Supervisors’ Journal, 16(4), 27–33.Zanzig, A. (1932). Music in American life, present and future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.



Documents

A Study of Community Band Participants: Implications for Music Education