Chapter 9

• •
Improvisation •n prin,ary school
settings
Discovering the play of music making

Rune Rebne and Jon Helge S~tre

Introduction
Improvisation has become an increasingly accepted part of music in primary
schools internationally, in practice as well as in the field of research. How-
ever, both schoolteachers and music education researchers are likely to
understand school music improvisation in different ways and consequently
,:vill suggest different methods and approaches for teaching improvisation.
We suggest that this particular relationship, between conceptualisations and
teaching approaches, is a fruitful starting point for discussing improvisation in
primary school settings. We argue that there is a need for such discussions
in order to explore the full potential of improvisation in primary schools,
and to avoid reducing improvisation to an oversimplified quick-fix approach
to creativity and music making. We also acknowledge that teaching
improvisation is a difficult endeavour, in particular in whole-class settings.
We do not argue that there is just one way of understanding improvisation.
Neither do we argue that there is one way of teaching and learning it.
What we aim to do in this chapter is instead to look into different ways of
conceptualising, approaching, and teaching improvisation, and the relation-
ships between these elements.
To do so, we have reviewed a selection of research studies that address fonnal,
Primary school contexts in particular. The search was done on the ERIC database,
wi~h the following search words: improvisation or improvisi~g, sch_ool. music,
an1cles, peer-reviewed. Sixty-four articles were found, and studies on Jazz ensem-
bles, instrument tuition and other non-general settings were excluded. Twenty-
one anides were left after these exclusions. There is as well a growing interest in
improvisation in informal settings, but these are not included in the pr~Sen~ chap-
ter. The included research studies focus on a number of issues conc~rmn~ ~mpro-
visation 1·n sch oo1s, w h"1ch are presen ted below • Two rese:1rch
· · ouest1011s
·1 mtonned
our analysis of the reviewed studies:

1 How is improvisation conceptualised in the studies? . . . . ·• ;

2 What kind of teaching approaches or methods do rese,uchers advocate·
134 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre

The review of the research studies indicates in the matter of both

. h . . con
ceptualisation and teachmg approaches , t ere 1s a tension bet\veen . -
. . . . tnus1ca1
stmcture and personal freedom. Improvisation is sometimes conceptualised .
accordance with· musical
· structures an d ru les m. some way or ot her. Othe . 1n
. . d .1 1 r times
improvisation is conceptualised m accor a_nc_e wit 1 persona _a nd societal free-
dom. The choice of teaching approa~hes 1s mfluenced by this tension as Well
and teaching approaches may take either structure or freedom as their .'
· d ·1
starting point. These issues are presente d m more eta1 e ow.b I lllain

In order to challenge the possible dichotomy between structure and

freedom , the authors propose, in the second half of this chapter, an
alten1ative conceptualisation of improvisation and improvisation pedagogy
in school settings. The work with this chapter has led us to focus on how
to understand musical aspects of improvisation, and on the importance of
looking upon improvisation as a relationship between the activity and the
understanding of improvisation. Therefore, examining approaches for
classroom-based improvisation include looking upon an aesthetic object as
play, in terms of a game, and considering metaphorical terminology as a
way of deciding what is musically meaningful or not in the improvisations
performed.

Research studies on school music improvisation

The reviewed research studies on improvisation in primary school settings
cover several areas and themes. A number of studies explore the outcome, or
benefits, of including improvisation in music education for children (e.g.
Koutsoupidou and Hargreaves 2009; Tomlinson 2015), how children impro-
vise (e.g. Beegle 2010, Glover 2000), or how children understand improvisa-
tion (e.g. Burnard 2000; Coulson and Burke 2013). Other studies concern the
degree of inclusion of improvisation in primary/ elementary/ general music set-
tings, and the nature of the improvisation activities in question (e.g. Koucsou-
pidou 2005; Gruenhagen and Whitcomb 2014; Sretre, Ophus, and Neby
2016). These studies reveal that improvisation is a part of many music classroolll
practices, but in many cases a rather small part. In Norway, as an exainple:
improvisation is the least reported activity of all music-related content aft'JS
(Sretre, Ophus, and Neby 2016: 11). The top areas are singing (with or \\'1t,hout
. .
bac king track) , 1istenmg, dance/movement and instrumental pe rfc0011 an ce · In
the US, Gruenhagen and Whitcomb (2014) found that 58% of ekmer~tJfY_
- . . . .
sc h oo1 teachers (N-92) mcluded improvisation b etween 0% an ·
. d t0% .ot
instructional time, and 26% between 11 % and 20% Gruenhagen 311d Whit-
. . l 111osr
comb also found that vocal call-and-response improvisation was t 1e . _
reported type of improvisation activity, followed by improvisation on unpit
· h d · · · al pattef115
ch e.d an d p1tc e percussion mst~m~nts, and improvising rhy~mtc · t that
on mstruments (385). Koutsoup1dou s study (2005) revealed m contraS al
. . . .
81 o/co o f teac h ers use d 1mprov1sat1on m their music teaching. The 010
st usu
 Improvisation in primary school settings 135

way Of using improvisation

. was responding to a visual verbal or audio stimulus
' ,
awing emotions, then1es , moods, and ideas.
an d 5h

Conceptualisations of improvisation in school settings

The research studies _we have _revie:wed p~·esent a range of conceptualisations of
itnprovisarion , that 1s,. they _differ 111 _tl~eu- views on what improvisation is. A
resentation of these views, 111 our op1mon, demonstrates quite clearly the close
~elationship between the conceptualisation and the realisation (activity and
pedagogy) of in:1-provisatio~. For example, Hickey (2009: 287) defines impro-
vis.ition as creanng something extemporaneously, which cannot be planned or
prepared in advance. Hence, Hickey argues that improvisation is in fact
unteachable. After surveying both the history of improvisation and a selection
of method textbooks, Hickey concludes that many improvisation practices in
schools reduce improvisation to rudimentary, teacher-led exercises that has
nothing to do with improvisation in a creative, free sense. These 'unwanted'
activities are often question-and-answer exercises that must be completed
according to predefined rules concerning rhythm, harmony and melody, an
argument also found in Wiggins (1999). We may assume that these kinds of
activities, the ones that Hickey attacks rather heavily, are among the most
widespread in school practices (see Koutsoupidou 2005; Gruenhagen and
Whitcomb 2014; Whitcomb 2013). To Hickey, the solution is free improvi-
sation, to which we will return shortly.
A second example is Monk (2013), who distinguishes between idiomatic
improvisation (the process of gaining skills to spontaneously perform within the
conventions of a style) and free improvisation (to explore sound as it happens in
free improvisation). Monk's position has several parallels to Hickey's, but Monk
proposes a third alternative based on ideas from improvisational theatre. He
conceptualises improvisation as a form of interaction, and presents a set of
strategies for interactional improvisation.
Higgins and Mantie (2013: 39) conceptualise improvisation in an even
larger context, and end up relating improvisation to distinct ways of being.
They argue that improvisation can be thought of in at least three ways. First,
1
~ can be viewed as an ability, as an element of a holistic vie,v of musicianship.
Seco ~ d , 1mprov1sat1on
· . . can be thought of as cu Iture, an aspect ot, mus1ca · l
~:~~ce,_ and. third, as experience, a distin c_t . way of bei~g in th~. w~rld,
dym g n sk- taking spontaneity refl ex1v1ty, exploranon, parnc1panon,
and la ·' ' •
ed P .Y· Of these three w ays, they suggest that the last provides the greatest
uc~tiona] potential. hn provisa tion then ceases to be a skill or a cultural
Practice , accordmg
• to Higgins and M an tie, · an d b ecomes a way o f b emg · ·
1n
nd
~ through music, one whe re teachers and students embark on significant
Journey s o f musical discovery through the 1mme · d'1acy o f ma k.mg one ' s own
sounds (41 ).
136 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre

Finally, \Villox. Heble , Jackson, \Va Iker, and Wate rm_an (2011) suggest th
'musiciJ improvisation needs to be understood as a crucial model for politic at
cultural, and ethical dialogue and action' (114). ~urth e1> the authors suhnut th~•
improvisation c rn 'dismantle teacher- stu~ient h1erarch1es. f~ster self-expressior:
and personal grcl\Yth. enhance coopcr;:it1011 a1_1d colbborat1o_n, and encoura e
deep listening through call - and-re~po~1se exernses, all the while contributing ~o
the social equity of the group settm~f ( 1 l 4- 1 l 5).
These examples of conceptualisatious seern to identify a tension betwee
.. . . . . n
stmcture and _freedom. The first pos1t1011 views 1111prov1sat10n as something
dose to musical structures and rules (rhythm, harmony, melody, form
music theory. and so on) , ,vhich probably are historically tied to the logi~
of notation-based music. This position is criticised by some authors for
being too restricted (e.g. Hickey 2009), while others see this approach as
necessary in order to facilitate improvisation in school settings, that is, to
make improvisation possible and accessible for school children and teachers
(e.g. Brophy 2001; Whitcomb 2013). The second position - in many cases
a critique of the first - understands improvisation as something that is (or
should be) to a greater extent related to general human activity than to
musical structure in a na1Tow sense. In this position, improvisation seems to
leave the specialised domain of music, and enters the domain of freedom.
being, risk-taking, self-expression, and collaboration.

Teaching approaches for primary school settings

The reviewed research studies propose several approaches to teaching
improvisation, and the tension between musical structure and personal
freedom is evident in this matter as well. Several approaches take structure
as the starting point, and they are often teacher-led, theory-based, idio-
matic, and notation-based. Other approaches take artistic freedom as the
starting point, and tend to emphasise student-led, free, open-ended, an_d
most often aural-based activities. Teachers in schools also seem to expen-
ence the dilemma of choosing, or balancing, the relationship between
structure and freedom (see S~tre 2011, for a qualitative account of thr~
teachers' approaches). This issue is addressed in Gruenhagen and W_ h~c-
comb's study (2014) of the inclusion and nature of improvisation acciviues
. . . SJ)
m US elementary schools. In this study, most teachers (65 out ot . ·
reponed using specified guidelines, while 18 used a combination of ~lud~-
lines and free improvisation (Gruenhagen and Whitcomb 2014: J~~).

.
So me t eac hers reporte d t l1ey used specified . . . (llllch
gmdelmes because to 0 ..
1
·
fr ee dom gtv~ h. om·bl e result\ ... They don't know what to thin
· k' or
' ,. · lt ~
r
easy to feel like you have lost the situation if kids are oiven free cune fo .
improvisation,' and while admitting 'that free improvis;~ion can be roo~
difficult because most students need specific guidelines about what co do,
 lmprov· · ·

- ---- - ------- - - - - - - - . . : . .___,s:.,:a.::.t'o::n~m'.Jp~r~im~a~ry~sc~h~o~o!_Is~e~tt~in~gcs~ 1!!__37

thest· teachers realized that 'guidelines provid ,
} .
dents who may b e appre 1ens1ve at first. '
f . _
e a sense o secunty tor stu-

(ibid. , 388)

Most• teachers.
inr-. the• study .believed
.
that structure
.
is import an t m
• bu1. d.mg a
1
strong foundation ror imp~o~tsation , and specific guidelines and teacher mod-
elling are ways of accomphsl~mg such a foundation.
As a first example of teachmg approaches
. , Whitcomb (2013)
. .
presents a series
ot- tasks that are based on musical structures· · A niai·n , reco,n men datton
• .m
Whitcomb's aiticl~ is t_o co~1bine improvisation with other skills and activities
(e.g. singing and l~stenmg), . mstead of treating improvisation separately. This is
also an argument m Gudenan (2012), and Hickey and Webster (2001). ln this
way. Whitcomb argues, teachers do not need to create a new set of activities.
They can link improvisation to existing lesson content. The first example in the
article links improvisation to singing and learning the song 'Hot Cross Buns' on
the recorder. The teacher eventually leaves an empty bar for the students to
improvise on the notes B, A and G. Brophy (2001) presents a similar approach.
His methods and task recommendation suggest a classroom context that is tea-
cher-led and that links improvisation activities and the rules of music explicitly
(although not entirely). Brophy (2001: 39) also suggests that this must be done
for the sake of the child herself:

Whereas the primary child will create for the mere joy of creating, the
older child will improvise music only if it occurs within a well-defined and
structured event. Improvisation must be embedded within meaningful
contexts, such as instrumental rondos, story arrangements, or within spe-
cific harmonic sequences that are both challenging and appealing.

In our view, Higgins and Mantie (2013) represents the second position.
insofar as they base their task recommendations on student-led, freedom-
based principles. In their first example (2013: 40), a group of students sits in
a circle, get accustomed to a pentatonic scale, and are eventually asked to
make a riff of their own choice. The teacher informs the students of 'the
task of creating a musical mosaic or tapestry of sound'. 'As a collection of
musical cells, the group can generate an interesting mosaic of_ riffpoi~us that
reflect upon the collaborative nature of a working group. ' This task is m~re
open-ended, and not linked too closely to existing mies and theoretu:~tl
logics (even though the pentatonic material .is set)·. Higgins ·~nd M,m:~~
propose that the central questions in this activity are What does th e mush.
need?' and 'How can I contribute?' . .
The most evident example of the second position is provided hy HK~ey
(2009) who . . . . reating music extemporant'ouslv, w1th-
o , sees unprov1sat1on as c . . .. . . ·, d'
Ut plann. d . F l 'te·1ch111g u11p,'l1v1.~,1tll>n' ltl t11t' tm i-
tio mg an preparation. or 1er, '. . . . ·k , .
nal sense, is not possible' (286, emphasis m ongmal). Hll: ey s view, m
138 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre
~~~~~~:::...!.-=-~~~------ - - - - -- ---
o th er words, differs from th e teac h e r-l ed , nota tion- and rule-ba5ed exercise,
that are described abo ve. For Hick ey (~ OO~: 294), th ~ w ay forward for
school music improvisati o n is free impro v1sat1on. Accordmg to Hickey, free
improvisation

is ultimately the most open , non-rules boL~nd, most lea~er directed, and.
consequently, the least (if ever) approache~ _m s~hoo~s. It ts not a free-for-all
approach, as it requires attentive and ~ensltlv~ li~tenmg to the environment
and others involved. How ever, it is an 1mproV1sat1on that cannot be taught in
the traditional sense, but experienced, facilitated, coached and stimulated.

Moreover, free improvisation is in line with what she calls 'the practices of
''real improvisation" outside of school' (Hickey 2009: 292). In a later study of
free-improvisation university pedagogues, Hickey (2015) investigates this issue
further, and presents a number of recommendations. Schoolteachers should
practise free improvisation, learn from expert teachers and their teaching tools
(e.g. exercises, prompts, expanded vocabulary), encourage discussion and input
from ensembles, practice providing constructive, non-judgemental feedback,
and stimulate rich discussion among ensemble members. These features are nor
always present in teacher education. For example, Wright and Kanellopoulos
(2010: 79) tell a contrasting story about music teacher preparation, in which the
participants reported a focus on score reading, lack of freedom and even fear.
Monk (2013) represents perhaps a middle stance, since he proposes an alter-
native to the idiomatic and the freedom position, although his article is written
for high school settings. He collects his foundation and method ideas from
improvisational theatre, and presents strategies for collective improvisation: (1)
copying, (2) adapting, (3) contrasting, (4) punctuating, (5) highlighting, (6)
supporting, (7) signposting, and (8) allowing. Central to all are listening and
reacting to fellow musicians, rather than restricting improvisation to either
idiomatic guidelines or complete freedom.
There seems to be a significant difference between the two main teac hing
approaches, the structure-based and the freedom-based, although a rnore
detailed investigation is needed in order to identify the differences. Tht'
structure-~ased teaching approaches seem to be quite detailed and concrc'Cc.>.
~nd co~tai_ns to a gr~ater extent step-by-step descriptions of how to teach
improv1sat1on for children. Nevertheless, the examples are often not d ear
on the matter. of progression,
· an d t h e task examples are more otten ·'." sin"k
r-
tasks .than senes of tasks m· an exp 11c1t ~ d om- bast>J
· · order. In contrast, the tree
teac~ng approaches are more general and it see m s to be more ditlicult co
descnbe the details of ho . . . . _ Another
. . w to teac 11 1mprov1sat1on in this sense:. .
important difference is th t 1 . ...1c 111
h a anguage seem s to be much more unport~ _
t e 1atter than th~ . first: This has probably to do with the fact chat ch~
fr_eedo.m-based posi~ion ts emphasising other objectives than th e mere ce~h
meal issues of music theory and st ructure, an d t h e .c:ract t h at t h e posioon
 __I rY1provis..,.t· · primary
-" ton in · school settings 139

.. •Jfl l11H'' th e hum ~n · in tcrpnson ,1I, ,111cl so cicta I issues or pote nti al
· 1..._.ljdr,d in th e Jct
c tHl ''- .
o f improvi
_
s.nion.
1ht' researc h srud1•es that torm th e b::lsis of this re view have identified a ten-
.
qo 11
between
· .
djffere nt conceptualisa tions· and
·
realisations of 1mprov1sa
· . · t.10n m•
~hoo) setnngs. The s~ructure-based approaches are common, and advocated
mJinJy because they gJV~ teachers the tools to implement improvisation activ-
ities in their dassrooms m a \vay that fies national curricula, in the US in par-
ticular. The fi-eedom-?ase_d ap_pro_aches seem to be a critique of the first, and
seem to have two m~Jo_r 1mphcat1ons. First, it contextualises iniprovisation (in
part) outside the_ s~ec1ahse~ area ~f 1~usic, and second, it makes the possibility
of detailed descnpttons of unprov1sat1on pedagogy less apparent.

Musical structure, freedom, and play

Instead of choosing between musical structure and personal freedom as
starting points for improvisation in schools , improvisation can be viewed as
p/4y (a game). A gan1e has participants and rules. In improvisation, the rules
could be musical rules or other sets of rules. In this way, improvisation
becomes a more open activity, compared to the version that links impro-
visation to musical rules and structures alone. A precondition for play to
happen is in fact that there exist rules, and evaluation of the game will call
for some understanding of the rules. Hence, improvisation as play is less
open and more concrete than improvisational activity that is based on per-
sonal freedom, since improvisation as play has a clear aspect of direction.
Importantly, improvisation as play is neither conflicting with musical struc-
tures nor with freedom. Musical structures can be defined as rules (but not
by necessity) and the players of the improvisational game has a certain
freedom to how they choose to play. In othe.r words, improvisation as play
is an understanding that makes possible an experience-based, aesthetic view
of improvisation that links to music and musical structure, as well as to
personal and artistic freedom.
Moreover, regarding in1provisation as play both opens up and expands the
role of the teacher. Central elements becomes ruscussing and deciding the rules
of the game, guiding the play of the game, ruscussing how the game was
played, and even helping the players understand what kind of play was actually
played. The e>..-pansion of the possibilities of improvisation offers both teachers
1
: d students_ the ability to eval~ate the improvis~tion t~ough ~ot~ sound and
ordc;, creatmg a synergeric effect of these two sides of unproVJsat1on.

ltnprov1sot1on as play
In his book Tmth and Aicthod, Gadamer (2004) points out that the concept of
play has had an imponant role in the experience c?f art over the. years. Aesthet_ic
ohJt~n, Jdined as play is not a new idea, and Gadamer 1s not alone u1
 140 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre

discussing the topic. We choose, however, to focus on Gadam er in .

• 1 · . · · . Pan1cu)
in order to examme what emerges w 1en 1mprov1sat1on 1s concept . ar,
. fi . . f 1 . . 1. ua 1tsed
play. Gadamer clanfies the de 1111t1on o . t 1e term m t 11s way: as

When we speak of play in reference to the experience of art, th·

. . I f . ts mea
neither the onentat1on nor even t 1e state o mmd of the creat ns
those en1oying the work of art, nor the freedom of a subjectivity or or of
. :., ~ . . engaged
in play, but the mode of bemg of the work of art itself.
(102)

This brings to the foreground t~at im~r?:isation, also in sch_ools, can be viewed
as works of art, not only leammg act1v1t1es but also aesthetic objects. Gadamer
brings to us plaJ' as the mode of being of the work of art itself. Awareness of this fact
could be seen as a precondition for understanding the production of knowl-
edge through improvisation.

In analyzing aesthetic consciousness we recognized that conceiving aes-

thetic consciousness as something that confronts an object does not do
justice to the real situation. This is why the concept of play is important ...
(102)

In this way Gadamer also points out the difference between an object and an
aesthetic object, and that looking upon play as something that constitutes an aes-
thetic object is useful. 'We have seen that it is not aesthetic consciousness but the
experience (Erfahrung) of art and thus the question of the mode of being of the
work of art that must be the object of our examination' (103). The crucial point
here is how to enhance the experience of improvisation. Here the notion of
regarding improvisation as play is an important extension of the improvisati~nal
act. It is not only a matter of improvising but also of understanding the improvised
music as a presentation of itself and of how improvisation is a mode of being:

My thesis, then, is that the being of art cannot be defined as an object ~f

15
an aesthetic consciousness because on the contrary the aesthetic attitude .
· ' ' . h
more than it knows of itself. It is a part of the event of bemg t at oc
curs Ill
presentation, and belongs essentially to play as play. (I t5)

M · J 1· · · •. f nns. :iu<l
usica mprov1sat1on can be seen as play with musical obJectS. 0 . re-
l G da · scruttll
e ements. a mer alleges that the play becomes art by turning into . bY
In th e construction
·
phase of play, we can constantly changt' c
ht' rulesd S{)
. . .h h I . ents an
expenmentmg wit t e order of the elements, changing the t' ~ 111 f the plaY
on. In the end, however, we have to decide when the constnicoon
· fi · h d an d no longer subject to alteration. At this pomt,· 1 y beco
° 016
IS mis e ~ a f laY·
structure. It can be played, but not altered beyond the interpretauon o p
 ---------~-------~~~===-=~~~
~ Is this rt"Jll)'
Improvisation in primary school settings 141

the ' ~st' in improvis;-i tion too? Pi eces of art, whether they are
~~inti n{(S, . texts. music,. or theatre,. cou ld be seen as more or less fixed in a
I ·rure. We ca n on]y interpret a piece of art, but not alter it. Hence, there is a
: ;~ strt1cture with nut~ erous p~ssi~ilities of interpretatio~. But is not impro-
. .
v1sauo 11
the . total. opposite, free
.
m .Its fom1 . and.
presentation? M aybe but an
,
_1 ,ative view 1s that even unprovised music 1s based on an agreement of how
a.iten h If . .
and to a certain extent, w _at. so, It 1s po~s ibl_e to claim, with Gadamer, that
. o,risarion becomes art m the tranifon11allo11 mto structure.
nnpr

I call this change, in which human play comes to its tme consummation in
being art, transformation into stmcture. Only through this change does
play achieve ideality, so that it can be intended and understood as play.
Only now does it emerge as detached from the representing activity of the
players and consist in the pure appearance (Erscheinung) of what they are
playing. As such, the play--even the unforeseen elements of improvisa-
tion-is in principle repeatable and hence permanent. It has the character
of a work, of an ergon and not only of energeia. 15 In this sense I call it a
structure (Gebilde).
(110)

The transformation from play into structure makes the improvisation itself
possible to evaluate and re-do. Not as a copy of the original improvisation,
but as a remake of the structure. Making the improvisation into a structure
is done by decoding the improvisational play. Decoding means establishing
an understanding of the constitutive process of the improvisation. This is
done by a verbalisation of the rules of the improvisational play, hence, the
structure emerges and defines the meaningfulness of the improvisation.
Musical structure is therefore a precondition for what we can perceive as
meaningful. In many cases, musical improvisation was founded in structures
such as form, rhythm, melody, or harmony. The structure becomes the
foundation from which the player and listener can base their evaluation of
the improvisational play. The structure gives the musical elements value
through the interaction between the elements. For example, a long note has
a. different value to a short note, and a dynamically stronger note holds a
different value to a weaker one. Similarly, a high pitch has a distinct value
to a low pitch, and so on. So, the meaningfulness of play is constituted by
the pl ay itself
· by structuring the musical. elements m · t h e 1mprovisat1on.
· · ·
Gaciam · er also supports this view: 'But masmuc
. h as 1t
. 1s. a structure, It. .Is, so
~ speak, its own measure and measures itself by nothing outside it' (111).
d furthermore:

~lay is structure-this means chat despite its dependence on being played it

~ a meaningful whole which can be repeatedly presented as such and the
significance of which can be understood. But structure is also play,
14 2 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre

hec.rn se- despitc this th eo re ti ca l uni ty- it achi eve, its full b ~
time it is pla ye d. · each

This postulate is valid also for improvisation. If we cannot detect

c. il 1
· · ·
·11 the iniprov1sat1on b d t hat 1t
· 1s
· an activity
· · there . What 1·1
·
meanmg1t . . evon
: . .' ts no
sibility of expanding the 1mprov1sat1onal play. The verbahsatton of the . P~
· · · 1 llnpro_
visation is also play, a lmgu1st1c pay.

Language and terms as play

Music shares some of the amibutes. of spoken langu~ge as_ it is a way of conunu-
11jcating something. Exactly what tt does commumcate 1s not easy to establish
Even though the creators of an improvisation intend to communicate somethin ·
special, there will be a translation involved. Intention of a kind is translated int~
sound in the improvisation , but what we find meaningful will also be translated
into spoken language. Gadamer (2004) speaks about hermeneutics in Tmth and
A1etlwd, and evaluating an aesthetic object such as an improvisation is a henne-
neutical process. To share the experience of the improvisation, we have to tum to
our spoken language: ·Language is the medium in which substantive under-
standing and agreement take place between two people' (386).
Still there will be a translation in action. The improvisation is gone when it stops
sounding, and only the memories of the improvisation are left - memories we
translate into words to share. The only way to share the impression and experience
of the improvisation is to use words. We apply words as signs of our experience:
'We emphasized that the experience (Erfahrung) of meaning that takes place in
understanding always includes application' (385). Therefore we can tum to
Gadamer's concept of play for aesthetic objects and also apply this concept to
language. The language conducts play when imitating the content of the impro-
visation. It is an interpretation of the improvisation, but not a reproduction. The
interpretation of the improvisation is made out of a verbalisation abou~ th~
impression and intention of the sounding improvisation. Still, the improvisa000 LS
1 .
on Ypresent m the language and the language is an agent for understan ~
di g what.
1
happened in the improvisation: 'Understanding and interpretation are inclis.solubth~
b d th '
oun to~e. er (400)- The _int~rpretation takes place through_ language decide a
and e
language mutates the 1mprovtsaoon with descriptive words that Judge and • re.
val ue O f t he diff-erent elements of the improvisation in order to emu,...
~rnuruca
al a5
1 · dge · f v ue
Wh
Y app YJ~ ments and value settings? A language without nooon °. is die
good/bad, high/low and so on, will not be able to communicate. ~re We
posnilate ofJohannessen (1984) in his book Art l..anouaoe and Aesthetir Prat_ : iit1
ak • d , 0 ~ d thiS IS
?1 rr

e JU gements through teffilS to be able to communicate, an . pro\·i·

important notion in the methodologi· cal discussion on how to evaluate JJTl ., chc
. . rd .
~anon 10 0 _ er to con~e1ve u~derstanding and knowledge. In ~rJer to
mterpretauon of the 1mprovwtion, we turn to a metapboncal tang ·
:J~l'•
,,-pr~~
-r1ic
 lmprovisatio · •
n in primary school settings 143

hnriol terms we use to sci 7c the e xperi ence of ti1 , 1. . . . .

n1et,1r . f h · . . c mp1ov1sat1on are valid as
~ rt•r re~entJ O~n o t . e nnprm,, s.rnon. In foct, Gadarner (2004) claims that th ~
ho~· cldJUSt themselves to th e sphere they cappeaI. 111.
·
r
111f t.J ·

Here as always the metaphorjcal usage has method 0 1 • 1 . .

. 1· d } . · og1ca pnonty. If a
word 1,s app 1e to a sp 1ere to which it did not O .· · . ll
. . , . . ngma y 6 e1ong, the
actual ongmal meaning. emerges. quite clearly · Lanobuage h as peuorme
_i: d
in adva nce the. abstraction
. that 1s.· as such , the task of conceptua l ana-
1),sis. Now thmkmg need onlv, make use of this advance ac h.1evement.
(103)

Also Sn~varr (2010) in_ ~i~ _b ook 1\lletaplwrs, Narratives, Emotions argues for
the importance and poss1b1ht1es of analogies and metaphors in the under-
standing of an improvisation: 'Further, metaphors (not least poetic ones) are
important tools for the understanding of the tacit sides of emotions, perhaps
because of the metaphoric structure of emotions ' (2-3). Sn~varr introduces
also the term analogic as an effective way of dealing with aesthetic objects
and the evaluation of them. So what is the logic of metaphors and analogies
called analog;c and what makes it efficient to use in a description of the
improvisation?

Ana-logic does not break with the foundations of ordinary logic, as can
be seen from the acceptance of the principle contradiction. However,
since this principle is tota11y abstract, it can only be used as an analogue
to the kind of concrete reasoning that takes place in the domain of
ana-logic . . . So in some sense, ana-logic is the tme home of the
principle of contradiction, not formal logic.
(155)

Both Sn;rvarr and Derrida talk about words becoming concepts and link
this to metaphors: 'A word becomes a concept when it no longer
expresses the unique experience that created its me~ning' (Sn~varr 2010,
91 ). Derrida (197 4, 23) states also that the metaphor ts a concept a~d s~ to
speak everything is a metaphor: 'Concept is a metaphor, foundatton 1s ,a
metaphor. theory is a metaphor; and there is no meta-metaphor for the°: .
This also points to Lakoff and Johnson's (2003) book Metap~ors _We Lwe
By· L·111 k.ing 1mprovtsanonal
• . . • to a verb a1·ise d interpretatton m order
practice
to. understand and obtain knowledge, is a valuable appro~ch to . develop
Wider ir11 pro · • al skill s. Th erecore
. v1sat1on 4 1 ,
we find it beneficial to lmk her-
• •

ll1eneutica) h10 · k. d h to improvisational practice m school.

lnterp . . t mg an t e?ry_ . supposition for developing
retan o n of the improv1sat1on is a pre . . . . ,
Unde rstand in g and knowledge through the act of improvm~g. Under-
'i ta ndin u· . d . . .. . dissolubly bound together (Gadamer
11 r'),m mte rpretanon are m
.. ll 1.1: 4flO).
144 Rune Rebne and Jon Helge Scetre

Musical and linguistic play

N ow we can link th e musical play in improvisati on to the linguistic play hap-
pening befo re and after th e improvisa ti on. T he linguistic play is a henneneu-
tical exercise in definin g what is meanin gful in th e improvisation. The linguistic
play uses metaphors to in vestigate a range of aspects of the improvisation. The
linguistic play is not the mu sical impro visation, but through metaphors it makes
play become stru cture. T he stru cture can th en be a foundation for redoing the
improvisation. In such a vny, it is possible for the students to use their own
metaphors to construct a linguistic play about the musical improvisation. The
interaction betwee n th e musical and the linguistic play will take place as an
ongoing expansion of improvisation into more and more meaningful and
understandable situations. The teacher's role in this play will be to facilitate the
investigation and to allow play to happen. This calls for a broad understanding
of hO\v the interpretation and understanding of an aesthetic object, such as
musical improvisation, takes place. The foundation will be made out of curious
investigation of the play, linking both sound and words. The knowledge about
the analogic play using both metaphors and concepts, understood as a word
becoming a concept, will give the student knowledge about aesthetic experi-
ence. This experience is valid facing aesthetic objects other than musical
improvisation. The linguistic play is a useful tool in judging, value setting, and
conveying art. By developing skills in the linguistic play, the pupils are capable
of making their own piece of art whether it is a musical improvisation or
another aesthetic object. It is possible to criticise this statement by arguing that
the perception of art is bodily emotions and not the reflective rationality. This
is true, but the thought of linguistic play mirroring musical play, improvisation
does not contradict the fact that art and music deals with emotions. The pro-
blem is that art forms such as music exist in time, therefore, the emotions
connected to the music are temporal. What are left after the improvisation are
impressions. The improvisation that made the emotions is gone, and only the
memory of what made the impressions and emotions is left. We can, however,
recall the musical play through the linguistic play with metaphors and concepts:
'Both metaphors and concepts reinterpret reality, but the former does so
explicitly while the latter hides its reinterpretation' (Sn~varr 2010: 91).

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have reviewed research studies in order to find existing
conceptualisations and teaching approaches of improvisation in school settings.
A first main conceptualisation presents improvisation as something dose to
traditional structures and rules of music. The second conceptualisation presents
improvisation as. something that is to a greater extent related to personal free-
dom. The teaching approaches found in the reviewed articles seem to muror
the way improvisation is conceptualised. Some teaching approaches take
 ln1provisation in pr imary school settings 145

~nad \ll'C' ~\ tht.> _,tartinf!: pomt. ;rnd .:i re ofte n tc :1cher-led. th eo ry-ba"ed , idio -
nuttc. ind nClt.ltJOn -hase d. Other ,Jp pro;lc h es take personal and artistic freedo m
._t. t}1e ,tarting point, and e,_nph.i sise st ud ent-l ed, fre e, and ope n-ended activiti es.
fhe ~rructure-based tea chmg approa ch es see m to be quite detail ed and con-
('fttC • .1nd contain to a greater ex tent step-b y- step descriptions of ho w to teac h

101 provi~ation for childr~n. I contrast, the freedom-based teaching approaches

11

11't more general, and It seem s to be more difficult to describe the details of
how to teach improvisation in this sense. These two sets of conceptualisations
and te.aching approaches may lead to a situation in practice where improvisa-
tion is either

reduced to teacher-led, isolated act1vmes that are based on music theory

rules, but which are easily understood and grasped by schoolteachers, or
2 leads to student-led, open-ended ac ti vities that are more related to musical
experimentation, and which schoolteachers can find hard to understand.

In this chapter, we have proposed an alternative conceptualisation of improvi-

~ation and improvisation pedagogy in school settin gs using Hans-Georg Gadamer's
tem1 play as a foundation for both the musical improvisation and the linguistic
interpretation of the improvisation. Through the concept of play, both musical
structure and personal freedom find their places. as well as the musical and verbal
aspects of approaches to understanding and developing improvisation. The open-
ing-up of improvisation to include other mles than musical. will help school-
teachers of different kinds to find their way of approaching improvisation in
primary school settings in meaningful ways. The same openness may also give
schoolteachers a clearer sense of ownership in their classrooms, a sense of power of
definition. The direction of the mle-based play-approach to improvisation will
furthennore provide a feeling of direction that can complement and guide how
the participants handle their personal freedom as players. Based on the literature
reviews done in this chapter, the concept of play should be an interesting and in
the conte>..'t of teaching improvisation, a new approach to the subject worthy of
futther exploration.

References
Ue-egle, Amy C. 20 to. 'A classroom-based study of small-group planned improvisation
With fifth-grade children' . Journal ef R t.Search in Music Education 58(3): 219-239.
Brophy, Timothy. 2001. 'Developing improvisation in general music classes'. Music
Educators Journal 88( 1): 34-41.
l3umard. Pamela. 2000. 'How children ascribe meaning to improvisation and composi-
tion: R<'thinking pedagogy in music education'. Music Education Research 2(1): 7-23.
Coulson. Andrea N.. and Brigid M. Burke. 2013. •~reativity in the e_lementa~ music
cla1,sroom: A study of students' perceptions' . International Journal of Music Education 31 (4):
·128-44 t .