IJCM 7 (1) pp. 3–9 Intellect Limited 2014 International Journal of Community Music Volume 7 Number 1 © 2014 Intellect Ltd Editorial. English language. doi: 10.1386/ijcm.7.1.3_2 EdItorIaL GiorGos Tsiris Nordoff robbins Music therapy Community music therapy: Controversies, synergies and ways forward ConTroversies: seTTinG The ConTexT The world is changing (in all sorts of directions!). An increased interest in ‘assessing’ health in terms of measurable physiological changes and in devel- oping evidence-based practices (which are often interwoven with the interests of large pharmaceutical companies) has been noticeable over the past years. At the same time, however, there is an emerging movement towards a differ- ent, somewhat opposite, direction with an emphasis on a more collaborative and sustainable practices, and practice-based evidence. Healthcare (as well as education and social care) turn towards more participatory, resource-oriented, ecological and culture-sensitive models of working. The traditional medical focus on cure and reduction of symptoms is shifting towards empowerment, prevention and health promotion. From recipients of care having things done on them, individuals are now seen as co-constructors of their health and living conditions. Likewise practitioners are working with people to promote not only individual, but also communal well-being. Within this context, a growing number of music therapists find themselves working in domains traditionally inhabited by community musicians, and 3 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 3 5/14/14 1:57:55 PM Giorgos tsiris vice versa. On one hand, by capitalizing on the social, cultural and everyday aspects of music in relation to professional music therapy practice, music ther- apists’ therapeutic remit is expanding to include practices that are more politi- cally and socioculturally sensitive. On the other hand, community musicians work towards health-related outcomes with individuals with complex illnesses and disabilities (Ansdell 2014a; Higgins 2012). At the same time, a growing number of organizations employ a mixture of music and arts practitioners – with no clear-cut distinctions of their different roles and responsibilities – to include music therapists, community musicians and other arts and health practitioners. Also, an increasing number of community musicians are enroll- ing into music therapy training programmes to gain specialist skills, and after qualifying many retain both professional identities. Unavoidably this situation has caused an element of uncertainty and questioning regarding professional boundaries and legitimation. Many prac- titioners have become over-protective of their professional ‘patch’ as they perceive such questions as a threat towards de-professionalization. Others however perceive this situation as a natural process of re-professionalization and constant negotiation of professional borders (Ansdell and Pavlicevic 2008; Barrington 2008; Procter 2008; Stige et al. 2010) that generate the space for innovative action. Tracing some of the structural patterns of this professional landscape, Kenneth Aigen (2012) refers to an expanded continuum of interrelated areas of practice that includes: traditional music therapy, community music ther- apy (CoMT), therapeutic community music and community music. Despite the diversity inherent in each of these areas of practice, CoMT and (thera- peutic) community music reflect the communal reality of making music and appear to share some common denominators. Both emphasize sociocultural and context-sensitive approaches of working musically with people. Instead of trying to develop generic theories and models of work, practitioners from the two different fields tailor their approaches each time upon a range of pragmatic questions regarding how music helps, where, and when (Ansdell 2014b). Musicking is understood as a sociocultural, participatory and perfor- mative process where the personal and the communal are interlinked. Thus the promotion of communal well-being is integral to the promotion of individual well-being, and the creation of sustainable musical communi- ties is naturally a vital aspect of practitioners’ musicking mission (Shelemay 2011). In this context, political issues including those of human rights, social justice and co-living, power and ethics are at the core of music’s function as a health promotion agent and as a force for change (Higgins 2012; Procter 2004, 2011). In addition to their similarities and crossovers however, CoMT and community music are differentiated on historical, professional and discipli- nary levels. Both their affinity and their difference need to be understood by considering their professional roots and developmental trajectories. At the current point in history – where an expansion (and mobility) of professional practices, identities and territories is observed within the wider music and health arena (Bonde 2011) – there is a major risk: ignorance of the unique practices, theoretical frameworks and indigenous evidence that musician colleagues have developed over the past decades in respective fields of prac- tice. Such ignorance can lead to unnecessary battles for professional legiti- macy with each profession and discipline becoming a misunderstood (and at times unwelcome) guest at the other’s scholarly discourses and professional 4 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 4 5/14/14 1:57:55 PM Community music therapy territories (Ansdell 2001; Tsiris 2013). Learning about and from each other through dialogue and synergies is of essence. SynergieS: The Special ediTion In this spirit of dialogue, I welcome you to this special edition on CoMT that is the fruit of team work. I am particularly grateful to the work of all the edito- rial committee members: Kenneth Aigen, Cochavit Elefant, Sarah Hoskyns, Katrina Skewes McFerran, Helen Brenda Oosthuizen, GuylaineVaillancourt and Stuart Wood. I am also indebted to Lee Higgins for inviting me to spear- head this special edition as the guest editor. This edition comes as part of the ongoing exchange and the emerging synergies between music therapists, community musicians and other music and health practitioners. Some of the beginnings of this exchange are traced back to the 10th World Congress of Music Therapy (July 2002, Oxford, UK) where community and spirituality – two marginalized (and fuzzy) aspects within ‘traditional’ music therapy (and beyond) – featured as two main themes of the congress. In the same year with the World Congress, Brynjulf Stige’s book Culture-Centered Music Therapy (2002) was published and soon became a benchmark in the CoMT discourse. Since then a wealth of CoMT practice initiatives and research projects have emerged worldwide (e.g. Stige et al. 2010), while a number of relevant publications have entered the professional discourse some of which have attempted to explore the differences between CoMT and community music (Ansdell 2002; O’Grady and McFerran 2007) and to map the wider music and health field (Aston 2011; Bonde 2011). Likewise, interdisciplinary research teams, networks and forums have been formed (such as the Nordic Network of Research in Music, Culture and Health), and an increased number of conferences nurture an interdisciplinary understand- ing of music and health. A recent example is the invited panel discussion on ‘Music, Community and Wellbeing: Community music and music therapy Perspectives’ (chaired by Higgins) that featured at the first conference of the British Association for Music Therapy (February 2014, Birmingham, UK). Carrying on this relatively short (yet!) but rich history of exchange, this special edition hopes to contribute to an emerging theoretical and practical platform upon which further interdisciplinary dialogues and synergies can be built between music therapists and other practitioners who work within the wider sphere of music and health. Through scholarly and in-depth accounts of CoMT, authors present varied perspectives on what CoMT is (and is not) and how it works. Coming from disparate disciplinary traditions, countries, and working environments, the authors portray diverse manifestations of CoMT. The edition starts with a republication of Gary Ansdell’s article ‘Community music therapy and the winds of change’; a landmark text that provides one of the first systematic documentations of CoMT as a ‘paradigm shift’ in the discipline of music therapy. Following this republication, Ansdell provides a retrospective evaluation of his article. Twelve years after the article’s origi- nal appearance (2002) on the online journal Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy (www.voices.no), Ansdell re-considers the development of CoMT and its continued dialogue with community music in the intervening years. On a similar reflective tone, Brynjulf Stige writes about the growth and ongoing change of CoMT. Drawing from his own relationship to CoMT and with a focus on three moments in history (1983, 1993 and 2003), he proposes that CoMT has gone through a process of learning about and struggling for 5 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 5 5/14/14 5:25:13 PM Giorgos Tsiris (1) a more contextual and ecological practice of music therapy, (2) a more grounded yet interdisciplinary discourse of music therapy, and (3) a more open debate about the assumptions, values and priorities that underline contemporary music therapy. Moving on from reflective accounts on CoMT’s development and its ways forward, the next article brings us to a different place, literally and meta- phorically. Mercédès Pavlicevic and Sunelle Fouché draw from their work with the Music Therapy Community Clinic in South Africa. They reflect on being music therapists in places where rich traditions of everyday musick- ing collide with poor health and education resources, and unsteady priori- ties regarding safety, currency and conventional professional structures. Collisions between musical, cultural, professional and political aspects – signalled by the ‘market place’ metaphor – are seized as opportunities where music therapists can use their skills and expand their professional practices to work with varied groups of people, in diverse ways and bring connection and humanity. The following two articles focus on the relevance and application of CoMT within specific working settings drawing from the authors’ experi- ence in Australia and New Zealand, and Canada respectively: McFerran and Daphne Rickson focus on CoMT as a framework for contemporary practice in school environments, while Amy Clements-Cortes and Sarah Pearson explore CoMT’s relevance in hospital settings. Considering the wider shifts that are noticed over the past years within the education and healthcare sectors respectively, the authors propose the need for music therapy prac- tices that engage with and promote the communal, participatory, collabo- rative and ecological aspects of health musicking. Thus, an expanded brief for music therapists’ roles emerges to include generating and maintaining musical well-being throughout organizational settings, including school and hospital communities. Pushing interdisciplinary dialogue and synergies a step further, the last two articles explore CoMT’s links with other movements, disciplines and professional territories. On one hand, C. J. Shiloh and Blythe LaGasse write about Sensory Friendly Concerts (SFCs); a CoMT initiative that promotes a safe and understanding environment where people’s diverse sensory needs and responses to music are respected and accommodated. This inclusive concert environment is strongly linked to the Neurodiversity movement which advocates for the social rights of autistic individuals. Thus, SFCs function as a self-advocacy platform for people who are usually excluded from typical music-making venues. On the other hand, Jeffrey Jones presents an ethno- graphic study of music and health promotion in a Skiffle Steel Orchestra, a community music group located in San Fernando, Trinidad. This study is used as a platform upon which Jeffrey explores how the theoretical and methodo- logical perspectives that emerge from CoMT can contribute to the develop- ment of medical ethnomusicology. These last two articles point out some new directions and avenues for the interdisciplinary study of music and health promotion not only in specialist, but also in everyday contexts. Ways forWard The diverse content of this edition demonstrates the plurality of CoMT prac- tices and uncovers some common misunderstandings. First of all, CoMT has no unified theoretical framework or a set of practice guidelines. To complexify 6 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 6 5/16/14 9:38:21 AM Community music therapy things further, while for some CoMT is a music therapy ‘model’, others counter-suggest that it is a ‘broad perspective’ or an ‘approach’ to working musically with people in context (Aigen 2012; Ansdell 2002; Stige and Aarø 2012). In every case however, practitioners appropriate their CoMT practices according to the cultural context within which they work each time, while drawing on the music therapy approach in which they have been trained. Is CoMT ‘old wine in a new bottle’? The answer is ‘no’. As portrayed through this edition, CoMT is not a mere theoretical rationale which aims to defend expanded (for some, heretic!) practices. On the contrary, CoMT has emerged as a practice-led framework and is an example of on-the-ground theorizing. Community oriented approaches to music therapy have changed not only the vocabulary or language of doing music therapy, but also the actual practice (O’Grady and McFerran 2007). At the same time however, CoMT is not the only new music therapy model or perspective. As a contem- porary discipline and profession, music therapy grows in diverse and, at times, conflicting directions. Recent advances in neurological music therapy, for example, focus on the mechanics of music perception and production, and their effects on the individual’s brain and behavioral functions. The focus of such approaches appears to be at odds with community oriented practices and present a greater affinity to the field of music and medicine. Finally, the diverse geographical perspectives represented in this edition (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States) shake down the assumption that CoMT practices are specific to the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries. Although major part of the CoMT literature has originated from these countries, a number of CoMT initiatives – many of which remain anecdotal to date – are taking place in disparate places, including Greece, Japan, Turkey and Uganda. While challenging the aforementioned misunderstandings, this special edition does not envisage providing a unified perspective on CoMT. It does not attempt to give simplified answers to complex questions, to provide neat definitions of fuzzy terms (including the very notions of ‘community’, ‘music’ and ‘therapy’), or to stabilize bespoke and at time ‘messy’ practices. This edition rather focuses on how CoMT works in particular contexts and describe what it does to people and places. It allows multiple voices to be heard even when these may be conflicting, and points towards the kinds of questions that can move the discourse forward. references Aigen, K. (2012), ‘Community music therapy’, in G. McPherson and G. Welch (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, vol. 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–54. Ansdell, G. (2001), ‘Musicology: Misunderstood guest at the music therapy feast?’, in D. Aldridge, G. di Franco, E. Ruud and T. Wigram (eds), Music Therapy in Europe: Proceedings of the 5th European Music Therapy Congress, Roma: ISMEZ/Onlus, pp. 1–34. —— (2002), ‘Community music therapy and the winds of change: A discussion paper’, Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy, 2: 2, https://normt.uib.no/ index.php/voices/article/viewArticle/83/65. Accessed 10 March 2014. —— (2014a), ‘Foreword: To music’s health’, in L. O. Bonde, E. Ruud, M. S. Skånlandand and G. Trondalen (eds), Musical Life Stories: Narratives on Health Musicking, Oslo: Norwegian Academy of Music, pp. 3–10. 7 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 7 5/16/14 9:38:21 AM Giorgos tsiris —— (2014b), How Music Helps in Music Therapy and Everyday Life, Farnham: Ashgate. Ansdell, G. and Pavlicevic, M. (2008), ‘Responding to the challenge: Between boundaries and borders’, British Journal of Music Therapy, 22: 2, pp. 73–76. Aston, J. (2011), Mapping Music and Health: A Nordoff Robbins Consultation, London: Nordoff Robbins, www.nordoff-robbins.org.uk/content/what- we-do/research-and-resources/resources#IIMTO. Accessed 10 March 2014. Barrington, A. (2008), ‘Challenging the profession’, British Journal of Music Therapy, 22: 2, pp. 65–72. Bonde, L. O. (2011), ‘Health musicing – music therapy or music and health? A model, empirical examples and personal reflections’, Music & Arts in Action, 3: 2, pp. 120–40, www.musicandartsinaction.net/index.php/maia/ article/view/healthmusicingmodel. Accessed 10 March 2014. Higgins, L. (2012), Community Music: In Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Grady, L. and McFerran, K. (2007), ‘Community music therapy and its rela- tionship to community music: Where does it end?’, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 16: 1, pp. 14–26. Procter, S. (2004), ‘Playing politics: Community music therapy and the thera- peutic redistribution of musical capital for mental health’, in M. Pavlicevic and G. Ansdell (eds), Community Music Therapy, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 214−30. —— (2008), ‘Premising the challenge’, British Journal of Music Therapy, 22: 2, pp. 77–82. —— (2011), ‘Reparative musicing: Thinking on the usefulness of social capital theory within music therapy’, Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 20: 3, pp. 242–62. Shelemay, K. K. (2011), ‘Musical communities: Rethinking the collective in music’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 64: 2, pp. 349–90. Stige, B. (2002), Culture-Centered Music Therapy, Gilsum, NH: Barcelona Publishers. Stige, B. and Aarø, L. (2012), Invitation to Community Music Therapy, New York: Routledge. Stige, B., Ansdell, G., Elefant, C. and Pavlicevic, M. (2010), Where Music Helps: Community Music Therapy in Action and Reflection, Farnham: Ashgate. Tsiris, G. (2013), ‘Voices from the “ghetto”: Music therapy perspectives on disability and music (A response to Joseph Straus’s book Extraordinary Measures: Disability in Music)’, International Journal of Community Music, 6: 3, pp. 333–43. suGGesTed CiTaTion Tsiris, G. (2014), ‘Community music therapy: Controversies, synergies and ways forward’, International Journal of Community Music 7: 1, pp. 3–9, doi: 10.1386/ ijcm.7.1.3_2 ConTriBuTor deTails Giorgos Tsiris is the founding editor of the open-access journal Approaches: Music Therapy & Special Music Education. He works as a research assistant at Nordoff Robbins Music Therapy and as a music therapist at St Christopher’s 8 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 8 5/14/14 1:57:55 PM Community music therapy Hospice, while he serves as the Research Network coordinator of the British Association for Music Therapy. Currently he is conducting his doctoral research on music therapy and spirituality at Nordoff Robbins / City University London. He is the co-author (together with Mercédès Pavlicevic and Camilla Farrant) of the books A Guide to Evaluation for Arts Therapists and Arts & Health Practitioners and A Guide to Research Ethics for Arts Therapists and Arts & Health Practitioners. Contact: Nordoff Robbins Music Therapy, 2 Lissenden Gardens, London NW5 1PQ, UK. E-mail: giorgos.tsiris@nordoff-robbins.org.uk Giorgos Tsiris has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd. 9 IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 9 5/14/14 1:57:55 PM intellect www.intellectbooks.com publishers of original thinking Applied Theatre Research ISSN 20493010 | Online 20493029 2 issues per volume | Volume 1, 2013 Applied Theatre Research is the worldwide journal for theatre and drama in non-tradi- Editors tional contexts. It focuses on drama, theatre and performance with specific audiences Penny Bundy or participants in a range of social contexts and locations. Contexts include education, Griffith University developing countries, business and industry, political debate and social action, with p.bundy@griffith.edu.au children and young people, and in the past, present or future; locations include thea- tre which happens in places such as streets, conferences, war zones, refugee camps, John O’Toole prisons, hospitals and village squares as well as on purpose-built stages. Melbourne University j.otoole@unimelb.edu.au The primary audience consists of practitioners and scholars of drama, theatre and allied arts, as well as educationists, teachers, social workers and community leaders Reviews Editor with an awareness of the significance of theatre and drama, and an interest in inno- Michael Balfour vative and holistic approaches to theatrical and dramatic production, learning and m.balfour@griffith.edu.au community development. Contributors include eminent and experienced workers and scholars in the field, but cutting-edge contemporary and experimental work from new or little-known practitioners is also encouraged. The journal has a global focus and representation, with an explicit policy of ensuring that the best and most exciting work in all continents and as many countries as pos- sible is represented and featured. Cultural, geographical, gender and socio-economic equity are recognised where possible, including in the Review Board. Intellect is an independent academic publisher of books and journals, to view our catalogue or order our titles visit www.intellectbooks.com or E-mail: journals@intellectbooks.com. Intellect, The Mill, Parnall Road, Fishponds, Bristol, UK, BS16 3JG. IJCM_7.1_Editorial_3-9.indd 10 5/14/14 1:57:56 PM