same choirs there were negative correlations between both a school’s enrollment and socioeconomic status and program- ing of pop music; in other words, there is a tendency for larger schools and higher socioeconomic schools to present fewer pop selections.
Another concern of the Forbes study was to determine dif- ferences in repertoire selection based on the perceived ex- cellence of the conductor. Conductors who were identified as excellent (nominated by university music teacher educa- tors) prepared and presented more classical, folk and non- western music than their “non-excellent” (not nominated) counterparts with their advanced ensembles. Similar analy- ses revealed that both excellent and non-excellent conduc- tors selected less classical music for their beginning or train- ing ensembles. Interestingly, directors deemed outstanding were more likely to choose music based on attendance at choral reading sessions, live performances and ACDA ma- terials while their counterparts relied more on catalogs and publisher-provided recordings.
As to the actual criteria used in evaluating repertoire, Forbes noted that directors in the study seem to employ a two-tiered system (Table 1). Initially directors identify potential reper- toire by considering criteria such as the appeal to the director and the needs of the ensemble. A second tier revealed the following additional criteria for selecting classical music, such as quality and vocal development potential. Demon- strating that there is no set standard for selecting all types of music, another set of criteria was identified for popular mu- sic, including student and public appeal and variety within a concert. With regards to the construct “quality” directors identified four sub-criteria: 1) independent musical elements, 2) musical elements as related to needs and abilities of the ensembles, 3) director appeal and 4) nonmusical elements.
Tier 1: Initial Identification Criteria Appeal to director
Ability of choir to perform music Needs of the ensemble Programming needs Degree of quality
Student appeal
Classical Genres Quality
Vocal development potential Technical demands
Vocal maturity Artistic demands
Tier 2: Final Selection Criteria Popular Genres Student appeal Programming
Public appeal
Potential for aesthetic experience Musical elements
Provision of variety Vocal maturity
Potential for aesthetic experience Appeal to director
Table 1: Ranked criteria in a two-tiered repertoire selection process (Forbes, 2001).
In general, these first two studies collectively identify sourc- es from which repertoire is sought, what types of music we tend to choose and the criteria we employ in the selection process. In both studies there are slight references to the musical content as a selection criterion but there is scant guidance as to specific types of musical content. In the next study, the aforementioned criterion and others become quite clear in their application to selection of suitable repertoire.
In his doctoral dissertation, Dean (2011) effectively contin- ued the work on repertoire selection by developing a sophis-
ticated rubric that facilitates selection of choral repertoire in two distinct domains: the aesthetic and the pedagogical. In the aesthetic realm, Dean identifies six dimensions, each described in detail at four levels of distinction, ranging from undesirable to desirable: 1) textual integrity, 2) craftsman- ship, 3) predictability, 4) consistency, 5) originality and 6) validity. Dean also provides a guide for each dimension, providing questions for consideration as a music educator assesses potential repertoire selections. For example, in tex- tual integrity the concern of textual stress is addressed in the following manner (p. 136):
“Are the syllables of the words given appropriate strong and week functions?” and “Do significant words receive important of interesting treatment?”
The choral music educator can find great assistance in both the rubric and the guiding questions, which are quite appro- priate for assessing aesthetic merit of any choral composi- tion.
In the pedagogical domain, Dean develops six additional criteria (also described in four increasingly levels of desir- ability) for repertoire selection: 1) breath control, 2) tone quality, 3) intonation, 4) rhythmic integrity, 5) diction and 6) literacy. Although the aesthetic is critical to selection of materials and instruction, the pedagogical was particularly interesting in the types of questions Dean asks for three of the six dimensions.
For intonation these questions are posed (p. 138): “Does the work contain passages that will facilitate the development of audiation?” and
“Does the work meet and/or slightly exceed the current audiation level of the ensemble?”
For rhythmic integrity, we are assisted by these queries (p. 138):
“Does the work provide an adequate context for the implementation of count-singing?” For music literacy, we are prompted to ponder (p. 139): “Given the current literacy of the ensemble, does the work present an optimal context for further develop- ment of literacy?” and “Does the construction of the work provide opportuni- ties to develop exercises related to music literacy?”
This study and subsequent development of the rubric com- pels music educators to consider the musical content of the pieces they select and this is the impetus for a need to iden- tify choral compositions that clearly reflect any number of rhythmic and tonal patterns.
In a very plainspoken fashion one might pose a question such as “what compositions embody stepwise motion in the key of C major?” One would certainly agree that a list
26
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40