Music Education Research

ISSN: 1461-3808 (Print) 1469-9893 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmue20

De-sacralizing the European: music appreciation

(then) and music listening (now)

Rebecca M. Rinsema

To cite this article: Rebecca M. Rinsema (2018) De-sacralizing the European: music
appreciation (then) and music listening (now), Music Education Research, 20:4, 480-489, DOI:
10.1080/14613808.2018.1433146

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2018.1433146

Published online: 09 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 222

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmue20
MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 20, NO. 4, 480–489
https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2018.1433146

De-sacralizing the European: music appreciation (then) and music

listening (now)
Rebecca M. Rinsema
School of Music, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Common approaches to teaching music listening emphasise ‘attentive Received 17 October 2016
listening’ and ‘active listening’ (Campbell, Patricia Shehan. 2005. “Deep Accepted 28 December 2017
Listening to the Musical World.” Music Educators Journal 92 (1): 30–36.
KEYWORDS
doi:10.2307/3400224) and minimise explorations of everyday music Music education; music
listening practices (Madsen, Clifford, and John Geringer. 2001. “A Focus listening; music appreciation;
of Attention Model for Meaningful Listening.” Bulletin of the Council for praxialism
Research in Music Education 1 (147): 103–108) The US music appreciation
movement of the early twentieth century provides a window into the
development of this state of affairs. Early on, movement advocates
sacralized the music of the European classical tradition, hailing it
intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to other types of music –
call this the ‘stylistic hierarchy.’ Later, textbook authors began sacralizing
listener engagements instead of the music itself, e.g. ‘concert/attentive
listening’ was deemed superior to ‘everyday/background listening.’ The
rhetoric of the new ‘engagement hierarchy’ allowed authors to abandon
explicit claims of European classical music’s superiority. However, I argue
that the engagement hierarchy actually maintains the superiority of the
tradition and enables unwitting music educators to maintain its
superiority even today. A complete de-sacralization of the European
tradition thus requires music education professionals to dismantle both
the ‘stylistic hierarchy’ and the ‘engagement hierarchy.’ I propose the
incorporation of musical hermeneutics into the music classroom as one
way to do so.

Introduction
In this paper, I point out ways in which music educators in the US have sacralized the European
tradition not only in terms of musical style, but also in terms of the ways in which people engage
with music as listeners. I reveal how vestiges of the music appreciation movement, i.e. college-
level music appreciation textbooks published in the 1960’s and 70’s, take an ‘artistic’ turn when
describing music listening. Such a turn signals the beginnings of the de-sacralization of the European
classical music on stylistic merits alone, but continues to reify the sacralization of the European tra-
dition as a whole by sacralizing its music listening practices. On a theoretical level, I argue that the
acceptance and promotion of contemporary treatments of music listening in formal music education
contexts, including attentive listening, structural listening, active listening, and deep listening, rep-
resent the continued sacralization of the European tradition’s music listening practices. Practically,
my thesis is that if music educators are interested in continuing to de-sacralize the European classical

CONTACT Rebecca M. Rinsema rebecca.rinsema@nau.edu, rebeccarinsema@gmail.com School of Music, Northern Arizona

University, 1455 W. University Heights Dr. N., Flagstaff, AZ 86005, USA
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 481

music tradition, they must also de-sacralize the listening practices that are associated with it; I pro-
pose musical hermeneutics as one way to begin doing so.
The Eurocentricism of formal music education in the US has been discussed at length since the
1970’s (Regelski 2006, 281–310). This investigation of the rhetoric used within music appreciation
textbooks adds some new evidence in support of that thesis. However, its main contribution lies else-
where – in how it might expand our notions of how everyday music listening experiences can inform
music pedagogy. Taking an even broader view, the arguments herein develop a view of music listen-
ing for music educators and music education scholars that (1) takes into account twenty-first century
music listening practices (2) responds to the lingering Eurocentrisms within current music pedago-
gies and (3) extends from the praxialist positions proposed by music scholars since the ‘90s: Kramer
(1990), Alperson (1991), Cook (1992), Subtonik (1995), Elliott (1995), Regelski (1996), and Small
(1998), among others.
To date, music listening has been relatively under-explored by praxialists in the area of music edu-
cation. This is due, at least in part, to the place of music listening in the polemical debates among
praxialists and aestheticists during the mid ‘90’s and early aughts.1 For many, this debate hinged
on the value or lack thereof granted to music listening. For example, Thomas Regelski writes, ‘ …
praxial theory redresses the imbalance the aesthetic orthodoxy has promulgated on behalf of listen-
ing, and reasserts the importance of musical agency through various kinds of performance’ (Regelski
2009, 234). Research in music education extending from the praxialist view has thus tended to focus
on music making. However, there is no contradiction in providing a praxialist account of music lis-
tening or in viewing music listening as an equally legitimate form of musical engagement from
within a praxialist framework. This investigation of music listening within formal music education
settings from within a praxialist framework is thus a worth while contribution.

The world is flat?

Drawing from Thomas Friedman’s bestseller, The World is Flat (2007), John Covach, pioneering
rock music historian and pedagogue, recently argued that we are living in an emergingly ‘flat’ musical
world – one where musical styles seem to exist on the same plane of privilege rather than on a hier-
archy. According to Covach, digital technologies and globalisation have contributed to, ‘ … a
reshaped cultural environment in which many listeners and scholars no longer view classical
music as more sophisticated than other styles’ (Covach 2015). This cultural reshaping represents
the unravelling of a centuries old highbrow/lowbrow cultural hierarchy in the United States that
sacralized European classical music as intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to other musi-
cal styles (Levine 1988).
It is not hard to identify examples of sacralization in our musical past. Regelski has pointed out
the phenomenon of sacralization in the area of musicology and the teaching of music history in the
US (Regelski 2013, 121). The cultivation of ‘music appreciation’ in the American middle class during
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is another instance of how European classical music was
sacralized and the highbrow/lowbrow ideology was perpetuated. Musicologist Julia Chybowski views
this cultivation as a bona fide movement, motivated by the aim of elevating the American public’s
taste as well as the geopolitical status of the US (Chybowski 2008).
Following the history of music appreciation during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries reveals
support for Covach’s argument about the gradual flattening out of the highbrow/lowbrow cultural
hierarchies in America. Following this history also reveals ways in which music teachers and scholars
should reconsider commonly held assumptions about music listening in formal contexts.

Music appreciation as a movement in the US

In the United States, music appreciation was born from music critics of the nineteenth century who
legitimised the role of the music listener (Grant and Friedheim 1998). W.S.B. Mathews, a classical
482 R. M. RINSEMA

music critic himself, publicly criticised public school music education for being deficient and private
piano instruction for being entirely too focussed on technical achievement without consideration of
the meaning of classical music on the whole (Dunham 1961). For him, listening to music encouraged
the most comprehensive understanding of classical music. Mathews’ book, How to Understand
Music, originally published in 1888, ended up having a wide sphere of influence; it was a book for
everyone who took an interest in developing music listening tastes (Dunham 1961). Hundreds of
similar texts followed Mathews’ text in the early twentieth century (Chybowski 2008).
Thomas Surette also made significant efforts to educate the layperson in music appreciation
during the earliest years. He served as a travelling music appreciation lecturer for the layperson
between 1893 and 1906. For thirteen years he lectured ‘ … to people of all sorts and conditions in
villages, towns, and cities, at universities, working mens’ centres, at schools, at convents, and
other institutions (Dunham 1961, 9)’. Surette believed that his lectures helped members of the audi-
ence cultivate their skills in aural observation through repeated illustrations of music at the piano
(Dunham 1961). Later, Surette wrote The Appreciation of Music with Daniel Gregory Mason, a pro-
fessor of music at Columbia and fellow music appreciation advocate (Surette and Mason 1907). The
book underwent fifteen editions between 1907 and 1924, which underscores the marketability of
such texts during that time.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, new technologies such as the radio and phonograph
played key roles in bolstering the music appreciation movement (Himrod 1989). Such devices
allowed the layperson to hear symphonies and other musics deemed ‘sophisticated’ over and over
without needing to travel or buy a ticket to a performance hall. In realisation of the possibilities
afforded by these new technologies, music educators, musicians, and music critics in conjunction
with radio broadcasting companies and record companies published and aired an abundance of edu-
cational materials to help people of all ages appreciate western classical music (Chybowski 2008).
At the same time, music appreciation courses were beginning to supplant or be offered alongside
the ubiquitous sight-singing course offered in the public schools. While, at first, such courses could
only be offered by accomplished pianists who could play piano music and piano reductions of sym-
phonies in the classroom, the early twentieth century saw teachers utilising the player piano and
eventually the radio and the phonograph to teach such courses (Himrod 1989). The prolific use
of the phonograph in schools came about as a result of Francis Elliott Clark’s work as an advocate
for the phonograph as an educational tool to both public school administrators and Victor Records
(Stoddard 1968).
The prevalence of music appreciation courses in the public schools was relatively short-lived. By
the 1920’s, the instrumental era of public school music education had fully established itself with the
symphonic band and the marching band ensembles coming to the fore (Mark and Gary 2007). But
this did not mean that music appreciation courses died out; rather, during the second quarter of the
twentieth century, music appreciation courses settled into post-secondary educational institutions,
where the tradition resides today (Chybowski 2008).
Chybowski claims that despite the fact that individuals from multiple facets of American society,
educators, social reformers, and business executives contributed to the movement, the discourse and
ideology behind the movement were remarkably coherent. First, there was an emphasis on music
listening over and against musical performance. Second, there was an effort made to sacralize clas-
sical music, which consisted of music appreciation enthusiasts hailing classical music as intellec-
tually, morally, and spiritually superior when compared to other types of music. And, third, as a
whole, the motivation behind the music appreciation movement was to elevate the taste of the Amer-
ican public for the purposes of social reform and securing the geopolitical status of the United States.

The ‘artistic listening’ turn in music appreciation rhetoric

By the 1960’s music appreciation as a movement had largely burned out, but textbooks written for
college-level music appreciation courses continued in its tradition. By taking a look at the rhetoric
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 483

used in music appreciation textbooks after the movement’s most influential period, we can see the
beginnings of the unravelling of the stylistic hierarchy identified by Covach.
The early ‘60’s saw music appreciation texts emphasising listening and appreciation as ‘art’ and
‘experience.’ This trend coincides with authors opting for titles without the phrase ‘music appreci-
ation’ and continued into the 1970’s. The following textbook titles demonstrate the shift away from
music appreciation and toward art and experience: The Musical Experience; Music: The Listener’s
Art; and Art of Sound. Many authors continued this theme within the first chapter of their texts,
sometimes using ‘art’ and ‘experience’ in tandem with one another. Chapter titles from this time-
period include: ‘The Listener’s Art’ ‘The Musical Experience’ and ‘The Artistic Experience.’
Authors also tend to use the ‘art’ and ‘experience’ rhetoric to identify ideal ways to listen to and
appreciate music. Artistic listening is defined against background listening. Wink and Williams
write:
The first step in developing the art of listening is learning to concentrate on the music. Here, modern man may
be at a disadvantage. Technology offers us a mixed blessing. As an example, the electronic sound media of our
society provide us with music instantly and constantly. The city is alive with music in stores, in professional
offices, even on the street. But, background music (original emphasis) inhibits learning the art of listening
because it is meant to be ignored rather than listened to. It actually trains us to be non-listeners. (Wink and
Williams 1972, 2)

Thus, for Wink and Williams background music detracts from artistic listening, which they con-
sidered to be of greater value than background listening. Joseph Machlis holds a similar position
with respect to background listening. In his text, he writes:
Today all you have to do is flick a knob and music comes pouring in the room. On Sunday morning millions of
people flick that knob, and for the next ten hours they are surrounded by music … But the great composers did
not write music to serve as background for other activities. There is only one way to listen to their works and
that is – to listen! When you listen to an important work, make sure that you are not doing anything else, such
as talking or reading. (Machlis 1968, 4)

In Machlis’s assessment of background listening, artistic listening is associated with the great com-
posers, who, according to him, wrote music only for artistic listening.
White also considers background listening detrimental to artistic listening. In the introduction to
his text, he writes:
Hearing recorded music as background to other activities is not careful listening. In fact, it tends to inhibit our
perception of music. Only when we listen to a performance with our minds as well as our ears can we begin to
understand it. (White 1968, 45)

Here, White makes the claim that artistic listening engages the mind, which supports his position
that artistic listening is of great intellectual value. The further implication is that background listen-
ing and all other forms of listening do not engage the mind.
Interestingly, the technological devices that early music appreciation enthusiasts thought would
improve American musical tastes and upon which the movement was built, actually hindered indi-
viduals from listening artistically, according to all of the above authors. Because of this, they look
back to the concert-going era as the golden-age of listening, viewing the concert as the ideal situation
to listen to music. Wink and Williams write:
The concert hall is different. There we find the most effective situation for listening to music. Instead of being
surrounded and lulled into inattention by constant and subdued Muzak, we go to the concert hall with the
express purpose of listening to a particular program. All other distractions are minimized; and there is even
a suspenseful moment of silence before the conductor or performer enters which further heighten our antici-
pation and interest. (Wink and Williams 1972, 1)

Machlis writes:
A generation ago it was not easy to hear a symphony. You had to go the concert hall and buy a ticket. When you
finally got to the concert, you were likely to listen (original emphasis). (Machlis 1968, 4)
484 R. M. RINSEMA

To demonstrate the importance of the concert experience, White spends the majority of his intro-
duction leading his readers through the experience of attending a symphony orchestra concert, deli-
neating what the ideal listener should be hearing and focussing on throughout the concert and
encouraging his readers to recreate that experience at home (White 1968).

The engagement hierarchy replaces the stylistic hierarchy

The ‘art’ and ‘experience’ rhetoric reveals more than just an ironically conservative perspective on
the part of textbook authors. The ‘art’ and ‘experience’ rhetoric is the basis for the strong difference
authors argue exists between background listening and artistic listening. This is a new development
in the music appreciation rhetoric. After all, the original music appreciation enthusiasts, instead,
valued western classical music over popular music, focussing on the music itself. I will call this
the stylistic hierarchy. Western classical music was considered capable of developing intellectually,
morally, and spiritually superior citizens, where popular and folk musics were not – which reified
the highbrow/lowbrow cultural divide.
Few of the authors writing in the 60’s and 70’s make these claims about classical music’s super-
iority explicitly. In fact, many of the authors go to fairly great lengths to explicitly debunk the stylistic
hierarchy. For example, John Gillespie writes:
Music in different manifestations exists all over the world, and each type has its special value … The adjectives
“classical,” “serious,” “concert,” or “art” music attest to the inadequacy of present-day musical terminology. If
one type of music is serious, are all other types frivolous? And do we not have jazz concerts as well as chamber
music concerts? The term “art” cannot be applied to just one type of music, for there are several kinds of music
that qualify as art music. (Gillespie 1968, 3)

Wink and Williams also debunk the stylistic hierarchy, bemoaning the fact that classical music lis-
teners are unwilling to explore popular music and vice versa. They write:
Nearly everyone likes music. Some prefer Bach, some the Beatles. Unhappily, an imaginary dividing line sep-
arates “popular” from “serious” music, and too often those acquainted with one world are unwilling to cross
over into the other. (Wink and Williams 1972, 1)

Here, Wink and Williams make the progressive claim that the hierarchical distinction between clas-
sical and popular music was, in fact, imaginary.
Machlis uses folk musics and popular musics to demonstrate the meaning that music gives to
human life. He writes:
Music is not an art that is separate from life. On the contrary, it reflects every side of human existence. Among
Savage tribes, music has a part in all important events. Love courtship, marriage sowing and reaping … So too
the folk music of Europe and America has produced songs that reflect all phases of life. (Machlis 1968, 3)

It can be deduced from what Machlis writes that he considers the music of ‘Savage tribes’ and folk
music to be art, despite his use of derogatory language to identify them.
These passages affirm all types of music as valid forms of musical expression. But as we have seen,
there remains an intent to elevate listeners. Rather than trying to ‘convert’ listeners to a certain style
of music, they try to ‘convert’ them to a certain way of listening to music. The stylistic hierarchy is
thus replaced with an engagement hierarchy of music listening, which essentially hails European con-
cert-hall listening as superior to all other forms of listening.
I should say that not all of the more recent texts exhibit such progressive attitudes toward the
distinction between classical and popular music. Some uphold the distinction. For example,
Arthur Komar contends in his 1979 book that ‘ … folk and popular styles demand little of the
listener, but classical music (original emphasis) is something else again’ (Komar 1979, xxiii).
And, even the texts that debunked the hierarchy between genres of music dedicate nearly all
of their time to western classical music, thus implicitly reinforcing the stylistic hierarchy.
Many such texts point to world musics and popular musics to demonstrate the widespread
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 485

importance music has to human life, and, yet, never mention them again or mention them very
briefly in a final chapter or two.
So, we see that there is a gradual transitioning away from the stylistic hierarchy toward the
engagement hierarchy. In that the engagement hierarchy is a step away from the explicit hailing
of classical music over other types of music, we thus, find evidence for Covach’s emergingly ‘flat’
musical world, where listeners increasingly encounter all styles of music as being on the same
plane of privilege. We find that, in the music appreciation tradition, there is evidence for this emer-
gingly ‘flat’ musical world staring in the early 1960’s.

Why do we care?
For music educators, there is more to say here. While the engagement hierarchy represents a step a
way from the bald claims of classical music’s superiority, it also sacralizes the listening practices of
the European classical tradition in a way that surreptitiously keeps the stylistic hierarchy largely in
tact. Concert listening was built for and evolved with European classical music. For this reason, it
may not be as suited to other types of music; thus, we stack the deck against other types of music
if we encourage students to listen to them in this way exclusively.
Practically speaking, some praxialists who have articulated many of the same ideas that I have
articulated here seem to still be under the spell of the engagement hierarchy. For example, Regelski
writes that:
Audience listening (in concerts or to recordings) is treated as its own, unique musical praxis. Thus it is possible
to become a devoted ‘music lover’, even a kind of expert, despite little or no formal performance experience or
‘background knowledge’ just as most devotees of ballet have never studied dance or taken ‘dance appreciation’
courses. To promote and improve audience listening as its own practice (even or especially among students who
have studied or are studying an instrument), aural acuity is enhanced via ‘directed listening lessons’. Students
are thus enabled to hear more (or otherwise) than they would without this development of their selective aural
attention. (Regelski 2006, 281–310)

Regelski’s promotion of ‘aural acuity’ seems to be in line with other types of music listening in formal
music education settings that many music education practitioners are familiar with, including: atten-
tive listening, active listening, and structural listening. They all have a common, singular focus of
attention on the music and the music alone, albeit many of them with an eye to making listeners
into music makers. This kind of singular focus, interestingly enough, seems to better fit the moder-
nist conception of works of music as autonomous objects than praxialist conceptions of music as
something people do within a context and for a certain purpose.
It is important to note that several times Regelski provides general descriptions of music listening
in everyday life, which clearly indicates that he values listening beyond the concert-hall. He mostly
draws from Tia DeNora and John Sloboda for these descriptions. However, I have yet to find a
Regelski account of how teachers should link their lessons to these practices or address these experi-
ences in the classroom. When he talks about ‘just listening’ in the classroom, by his own account, he
is talking about a practice of listening that extends from concert-hall listening (Regelski 2003, 1–28).
What I propose, actually stems from what Regelski says earlier:
… musical value and meaning do not reside ‘in’ the physical features of constellations of sound; rather, they are
a function assigned to such configurations according to certain potentials such sounds are understood to be
‘good for.’ (Regelski 2002, 50–51)

If, as Regelski says, musical value and musical meaning do not reside exclusively in the sound, why
does he exclusively promote ‘aural acuity’ and ‘selective aural attention’ when it comes to music lis-
tening in the classroom? I’m not sure. However, I am certain that if progressive music education
scholars and educators aspire to a stylistically ‘flat’ musical world, then they must work to flatten
both the stylistic hierarchy and this lingering engagement hierarchy when it comes to music
listening.
486 R. M. RINSEMA

To me, this means exploring the multitude of other ways humans engage with music through lis-
tening. It means moving beyond concert-hall listening and its various permutations, even those per-
mutations that have an end goal of making music. Indeed, praxialists in music education have tended
to focus on music listening as valuable only when it is ‘good for’ or ‘at the service of’ the music maker.
Unfortunately, this deeply undermines praxialists’ abilities to theorise contemporary music listening
practices, Spotify and all, and what their relationship might be to the classroom today.
This means that we take seriously how people incorporate music into their everyday lives by look-
ing at how they listen to music and do other things at the same time. This means that we address such
issues in the classroom, exploring with students how music is integrated into music videos, video
games, bar mitzvahs, and yoga classes. Naturally, this also means investigating how artists and lis-
teners create musical meanings in and through all music listening activities, providing students
with the tools to interpret those meanings on their own. As Regelski says, ‘ … “meaning” of
music is not found simply “in” the sounds or their arrangement into “works” but is constituted
by the use of those sounds and “works” as various social practices’ (Regelski 2006, 294). In my
view, it is this kind of hermeneutic posture toward the meanings of all music listening practices
and activities that we should take when thinking about music listening in the classroom today. It
is a posture that promises to even further realise Covach’s stylistically flat musical world.

Summarising the hermeneutic posture

In assuming a hermeneutic posture, or a meaning-oriented posture, we, as music educators, take
Regelski’s lead. However, hermeneutics has a long tradition outside of music education, in the larger
discipline of music and beyond; I provide an example of how music educators might draw from that
tradition below.
Hermeneutics is defined as the branch of knowledge dealing with interpretations and meanings,
specifically of Biblical and literary texts. Through the work of such phenomenologists as Dilthy,
Heidegger, and Gadamer, among others, it has become widely accepted that hermeneutic texts
come in a variety of forms; contemporary scholars interpret nonverbal communications, multime-
dia, and even social interactions as hermeneutic texts. Thus hermeneutics has been applied to a
whole range of areas beyond theology and literary criticism. Such disciplines include sociology,
psychology, media studies, international relations, as well as music studies.
Lawrence Kramer was one of the pioneers in applying hermeneutics to music. Kramer developed
three hermeneutic windows for scholars to use for hermeneutic investigations in music.3 The follow-
ing are my adaptations of Kramer’s hermeneutic windows; I intend them to guide teachers in their
own preliminary hermeneutic explorations.4 Each window provides a purview by which teachers can
explore how musical sounds and their contexts contribute to sets of possible meanings for music lis-
teners and music creators. When we engage in musical hermeneutics, we explore what music means
in and through its contexts.
Hermeneutic Window 1: Media integrations. Media integrations are explicit links between music
and other types of media – for example, when music and video are explicitly linked in a music video.
Text is also considered a form of media here. Song lyrics, as well as something as simple as a song
title, provide us a hermeneutic window through media integration. An album cover, which typically
includes text and visual art, is another example of media integration.
This window invites us to explore how the music and the other media forms relate with one
another explicitly. For example, in a music video, how do the structural moments of the music
and the video relate? Do the narratives and themes expressed through the sounds of the music,
the text (lyrics or other associated texts), and the visuals of a music video seem congruent or
conflicting?
Hermeneutic Window 2: Allusions. Allusions are more implicit than media integrations. The gen-
eral definition of an allusion is helpful here. Allusions are expressions designed to call things to mind
without mentioning them explicitly; they are an indirect or passing reference. This window
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 487

‘includes titles that link a work of music with a literary work, visual image, place, or historical moment; musical
allusions to other compositions; allusions to texts through the quotation of associated music; allusions to the
styles of other composers or of earlier periods; and the inclusion (or parody) of other characteristic styles
not predominant in the work at hand’ (Kramer 1990, 3).

For an example of allusion, consider Jimi Hendrix’s performance of the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ the
US national anthem, at Woodstock in 1969. In the middle of the performance, Hendrix plays inter-
vals and rhythms recognisable as ‘Taps,’ a simple melody often played at American military funerals.
Through his allusion to ‘Taps,’ Hendrix links patriotism (or lack thereof?) to death and warfare.5
Hermeneutic Window 3: Actions. This last hermeneutic window concerns itself with the human
activities and actions that are associated with the music. Using this window, we ask the following
questions: When, where, and how do listeners engage with the music? Who are the listeners?
When, where, and how is the music created? Who are the creators? In what ways do these actions
influence the meaning of the music for listeners as well as the creators themselves?
This window invites us to explore how the music might have different meanings when it is associ-
ated with different kinds of human activities and actions. For example, do the meanings differ when a
person listens to a film soundtrack while studying as opposed to while watching the film and, if so,
how do they change? Do musical meanings change when audiences have an influence on the sounds/
creation of the music through social media or other technological means?
This third hermeneutic window is not included in Kramer’s original discussion of the hermeneu-
tic windows but seems consistent with his other work. He writes, ‘In its modern form, the problem of
meaning arose with the development of European music as something to be listened to ‘for itself’ as
art or entertainment rather than as something mixed in with social occasion … or ritual’ (Kramer
2002, 1). Kramer thus insinuates that outside that modern context, music is mixed up with all
kinds of activities, like social occasions and rituals, among a panoply of other individual activities.6
And, just like the interaction among music and other media can serve as a hermeneutic window, so
the interaction between music and activity can serve as a hermeneutic window.7
As a whole, these adaptations of Kramer’s hermeneutic windows provide a broad framework (per-
haps the broadest possible) for music educators to explore music hermeneutically. Music scholars
and music educators invariably must utilise a whole variety of subsidiary frameworks to further sup-
port their interpretive explorations including, but not limited to: gender, race, political, media, econ-
omic, and aesthetic theories. As a result, the hermeneutic posture is not one that music educators can
adopt without some prior preparation. To my knowledge, few music teacher education programmes,
if any, aspire to provide students understandings of such frameworks or skills in applying them to
music.
Despite this barrier, some music teachers have begun bringing hermeneutic type explorations into
the classroom. Eric Sheih provides an example of how he has done so in a recent issue of Action,
Theory, and Criticism (2016). Sheih calls it ‘Listening for a Revolution,’ bringing to our attention
his student Aaron’s essay, which discusses Beyonce’s performance of jazz standards ‘Ornithology’
and ‘It Don’t Mean a Thing.’ Aaron’s essay highlights the swagger, attitude, and call for revolution
or lack thereof in the performance. Sheih says this about Aaron’s essay:
Aaron’s four-paged analysis … makes no mention at all of melody, of harmony, of improvisation, of the call and
response figure that initiates Beyoncé’s set. Has he failed to listen to the music, or has he heard something (or
begun to hear something, which is what we are all hearing whether we are high school sophomore or not)? And
what is it he has begun to hear? What is the question, the revolution? Has he heard or misheard Beyoncé? (Shieh
2016, 131)

Later, Sheih writes:

What if, as a classroom or collective, we share and learn who we are in this world? What if we understand our
development as musicians to be a development in musical multimodalities, a politicized and contextual music?
(Shieh 2016, 140)

Sheih is rhetorically pointing out another way to listen, one that that is rooted in meaning.
488 R. M. RINSEMA

I caution, however: Sheih’s ‘Listening for a Revolution’ is not the only way for Beyoncé’s versions
of these songs to be heard. Their meanings might of course be quite different for a person with other
background experiences or for someone listening to the songs while working out at the gym or as a
background to a film – context makes all the difference. This is why we need a robust, pluralistic
theory of music listening and music meaning for the classroom, one that does not focus on just
one way to listen and one that does not rely on or reinforce universal hierarchies.

Notes
1. See Westerlund (2002) and Rinsema (2017) for more on the place of music listening in these polemics.
2. See for example Newman and Scholes (1950) who argue that music appreciation in the United States can be
traced to the writings of Englishman James Burney of the eighteenth century who sought to provide the lay
person with the means to understand music works.
3. For more on Kramer’s hermeneutic windows and his theory more generally see Kramer (1990), Kramer (2011),
and Kramer (2002).
4. See Rinsema (2017) for an example of what hermeneutic exploration can look like in a classroom context.
5. Hendrix’s Woodstock performance of the ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ is a rich site for hermeneutic exploration.
Here I use it to simply convey the concept of allusion in music without going into the full complexities of
the possible meanings of the use of ‘Taps’ or the other allusions within this performance.
6. Empirical support for this particular adaptation comes from Rinsema (2017).
7. Also see Miller (2012, 10–11) for more on the importance of rooting musical interpretations in performance
and practice.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Rebecca Rinsema, PhD, is author of the book Listening in Action: Teaching Music in the Digital Age (Ashgate/Routle-
dge, 2017) and forthcoming chapter on hermeneutics and popular music education in Coming of Age: Popular Music in
Academia (Maize, 2017). Her research relates to music listening technology and experience, enactive perception, pop-
ular music, and pedagogy. As a singer, she specialises in performing early music. Rinsema is Lecturer of Music in Gen-
eral Studies at Northern Arizona University.

References
Alperson, Philip. 1991. “What Should One Expect from a Philosophy of Music Education?” Journal of Aesthetic
Education 25 (3): 215. doi:10.2307/3333004.
Chybowski, Julia. 2008. “Developing American Taste: A Cultural History of the Early Twentieth- Century Music
Appreciation Movement.” Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin.
Cook, Nicholas. 1992. Music, Imagination, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Covach, John. 2015. “High Brow, Low Brow, Not Now, Know How: Music Curricula in a Flat World.” Paper presented
at Ann Arbor IV: Teaching and Learning Popular Music, Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 18–21.
Dunham, Richard L. 1961. “Music appreciation in the public schools of the United States, 1897–1930.” Dissertation.
University of Michigan.
Elliott, David J. 1995. Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education. New York [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press.
Friedman, Thomas L. 2007. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Picador/Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Gillespie, J. 1968. The Musical Experience. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Grant, Mark N., and Eric Friedheim. 1998. Maestros of the Pen a History of Classical Music Criticism in America.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Himrod, Gale. 1989. “The Music Appreciation Movement in the United States, 1930–1960.” D.M.A. diss., Boston
University.
Komar, A. 1979. Music and Human Experience. New York: MacMillan.
Kramer, Lawrence. 1990. Music as Cultural Practice, 1800–1900. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kramer, Lawrence. 2002. Musical Meaning: Toward a Critical History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
 MUSIC EDUCATION RESEARCH 489

Kramer, Lawrence. 2011. Interpreting Music. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Levine, Lawrence. 1988. Highbrow/Lowbrow. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Machlis, J. 1968. Music: Adventures in Listening. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mark, Michael, and Charles L. Gary. 2007. A History of American Music Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Mathews, W. S. B. 1888. How to Understand Music: A Concise Course of Musical Culture by Object Lessons and Essays
Vol. 1. New York: Theodore Presser.
Miller, Kiri. 2012. Playing Along: Digital Games, YouTube, and Virtual Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Newman, S. T. M., and Scholes P. A. 1950. “Review of The Great Dr. Burney: His Life—His Travels–His Family and
His Friends.” English Historical Review 65 (July): 396–399.
[redacted for blind review]
Regelski, Thomas A. 1996. “Prolegomenon to a Praxial Philosophy of Music and Music Education.” The Finnish
Journal of Music Education 1: 23–39.
Regelski, Thomas A. 2002. “Musical Values and the Value of Music Education.” Philosophy of Music Education Review
10 (1): 49–55.
Regelski, Thomas A. 2003. “Implications of Aesthetic versus Praxial Philosophies of Music for Curriculum Theory in
Music Education.” MayDay Group Posts: 1–28. http://www.maydaygroup.org/2003/04/implications-of-aesthetic-
versus-praxial-philosophies-of-music-for-curriculum-theory-in-music-education/#.V83dx7VSyDp.
Regelski, Thomas A. 2006. “‘Music Appreciation’ as Praxis.” Music Education Research 8 (2): 281–310.
Regelski, Thomas A. 2009. “Curriculum: Implications ofAesthetic vs. Praxialist Philosophy.” In Praxial Music
Education: Reflections and Dialogues, edited by David Elliott, 219–248. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Regelski, Thomas A. 2013. “Music and the Teaching of Music History as Praxis: A Reply to James Maiello.” Journal of
Music History Pedagogy 4 (1): 109–136.
Rinsema, R. 2017. Listening in Action: Teaching Music in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
Shieh, Eric. 2016. “After Eric Garner: Invoking the Black Radical Tradition in Practice and in Theory
#BlackLivesMatter.” Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (2): 126–145.
Small, Christopher. 1998. Musicking: The Meanings of Performing and Listening. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press.
Stoddard, E. M. 1968. “Frances Elliott Clark: Her Life and Contributions to Music Education.” Ph.D. diss., Brigham
Young University.
Subtonik, Rose. 1995. Deconstructive Variations: Music and Reason in Western Society. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minneapolis Press.
Surette, Thomas, and Daniel Gregory Mason. 1907. The Appreciation of Music. New York: Doubleday.
Westerlund, Heidi. 2002. Bridging Experience, Action, and Culture in Music Education. Helsinki: Sibelius Academy.
White, John David. 1968. Understanding and Enjoying Music. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co.
Wink, R. L., and L. G. Williams. 1972. Invitation to Listening: An Introduction to Music. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.