Repertoire selection practices and the development of a core repertoire for the middle school concert band

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Repertoire selection practices and the development of a core repertoire for the middle school concert band
Physical Description:
xi, 135 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Howard, Ronald L., 1957-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bands (Music) -- Instruction and study   ( lcsh )
School music -- Instruction and study   ( lcsh )
Music thesis, Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Music -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 2001.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-134).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ronald L. Howard.
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028216515
oclc - 49240573
System ID:
AA00020468:00001

Full Text











REPERTOIRE SELECTION PRACTICES AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CORE REPERTOIRE
FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONCERT BAND










By

RONALD L. HOWARD


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2001




























Copyright 2002

by

Ronald L. Howard













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As the end of this academic endeavor is approached, I realize that I could never

have accomplished my goal without help from some very significant people along the

way.

I would like to thank the chair of my supervisory committee, Dr. Charles Hoffer,

for being continually patient and supportive during the dissertation process. I am forever

grateful for his guidance and inspiration, not only during the dissertation process, but also

throughout the period of my doctoral studies under his chairmanship. I would also like to

thank the members of my supervisory committee, Drs. Budd Udell, David Waybright,

Arthur Jennings, Camille Smith, and Eugene Todd, for their help, advice and support in

this research project.

There are several colleagues and friends whom I would like to acknowledge and

thank, not only for their encouragement and support throughout the degree process, but in

some cases for the very kindest inspiration that kept me pushing, pushing, pushing

toward the end of this process: David Kushner, Mark Spede, Janice Haworth, Elizabeth

Harris, Felicia Brown, Ron Biffle, Jennifer Jackson-Allen, and Peter Stellato. I am also

indebted to the many band directors who interrupted their busy teaching schedules to

complete the questionnaire, thus enabling me to write a dissertation that would help

others in the music education profession. Without their help, none of this would have

been possible.








I am deeply appreciative of the advice, counsel and assistance of Robena

Cornwell and Michele Wilbanks-Fox, of the Music Library at the University of Florida.

These two professionals operate a magnificent facieility, and the services they provided to

me were of invaluable significance during the research process.

I would especially like to thank those individuals who, at various times during the

past thirty years, have been my professional mentors, and thus the models upon which my

own day-to-day work (not the least of which is this dissertation) is predicated: Robert

Lee, who got me started in this business thirty years ago; Ed Barr and David Gregory,

who inspired and encouraged me to enter the music education profession, and Gary

Langford, who proved to be the one person on earth who is more organized than I am.

I would like to also thank my parents for their interest and encouragement,

although they did not live to see the completion of my project. I would especially like to

thank my uncle, Edward Howard, for his unending support and desire to see me achieve

my goal.

Lastly, I want to thank a very special friend. Her encouraging words in frequent

times of stress, her ability to show me how to persevere under obnoxious conditions, and

her ceaseless belief that I would eventually reach my academic goal, somehow kept me

on task and allowed me to actually achieve that goal. For all of that and more, I wish to

thank Elisa Beachy.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

ggge

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS .............................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................. ...................... x

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ I1
Statement of the Problem ............................. ................................. ....... ........... 2
Statement of Purpose..................................................................... ....... ....... 4
Overview of the Study......................................................................................... 4
Procedures .......................................................................................................... 5
Assumptions ............................................................................................... 7
Delimitations .................................................................................... .. ........... 7
Limitations .................................................................................................. 8
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 8

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..................................................................... 10

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 10
The Importance of Repertoire Selection ............................ ................................. 10
Philosophical Aspects of Repertoire Selection .............. ..................................... 13
Criteria for Repertoire Selection......................................................................... 16
Programming Considerations .................................................................. 16
Ensemble Considerations................................. ...................................... 19
Director Considerations ..................................... ............ ........................ 23
M musical Considerations.......................................................................... 24
Tangential Considerations...................................................................... 30
Repertoire Selection Resources.......................................................................... 32
The History of Repertoire Selection ............................... .................................... 34
Studies on Repertoire Selection.................................................................. .. ......35
Gaines Study .......................................................................................... 36
Fiese Study ............................................................................................. 37
Bauer Study ............................................................................................ 39
Hughes Study............................................................................................. 42








Fjeld Study................................................ ............................................. 43
Gelpi Study ............................................................................................ -43
Harris and W alls Study .................................... ....................................... 44
W areham Study ...................................................................................... 46
Kvet Study ................................................. ............................................ 47
Conclusions....................................................................................................... 47

III M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 50

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 50
Grounded Theory ............................................................................................... 50
The First Phase: The Exploratory Study ............................................................. 51
Focus Interviews.................................................................................... 52
Identification of Salient Issues................................................................ 53
The Second Phase: Surveying Directors ............................................................. 53
Development of the Survey Instrument................................................... 53
Population Sample for the Study............................................................ 56
Survey Procedures............................................................................................. 59
Director Contact ..................................................................................... 59
Instrumentation ...................................................................................... 59
Survey Returns.................................................................................................. 61
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 61

IV RESULTS......................................................................................................... 64

The Exploratory Interviews ................................................................................ 64
The Questionnaire ................................................ .............................................. 66
Sample Dem 6graphics............................................................................ 67
Descriptions of Band Programs.............................................................. 72
Director Demographics.......................................................................... 74
Sources of Repertoire Selection .............................................................. 82
Factors Affecting Repertoire Selection...................... ............................. 85
Basic and Core Repertoire...................................................................... 92
Sunmm ary.............................................................. ........................................... 95

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................ 96

Sumn ary ......................................................................................................... 96
Conclusions ............................................................................................ 98
Demographics........................................................................................ 98
Repertoire Sources................................................................................. 99
Repertoire Selection Factors................................................................. 100
Summary of Conclusions................................................................................ 102
Recommendations for Middle School Band Directors ..................................... 103
Recommendations for Further Research............................... ........................... 105









APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 106

A INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RESEARCH................................ 106

B SURVEY COVER LETTER............................................................................ 107

C FOLLOW-UP LETTER................ ....................................................... ............ 108

D SURVEY......................................................................................................... 109

E BASIC REPERTOIRE LIST FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL
CONCERT BAND........................... .................................................... 124

F CORE REPERTOIRE LIST FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL
CONCERT BAND............................................................................... 126

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 127

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................... 135






























vii














LIST OF TABLES


Table pag

2.1 Techniques Used in Selecting Music.............................................................40

2.2 Factors Considered When Selecting Music ......................................................41

2.3 Works Appearing for 20+ Years on the Texas University
Interscholastic League Prescribed Music List 1967-1994 and
Percentage of Teachers Voting for Inclusion .......................................... 46

3.1 States Represented by the Survey Participants..............................................57

4.1 Size of Community Served by the School..................................................... 67

4.2 Grade Level Distribution of Schools ........................................... .................... 68

4.3 Size of School Populations.................................................................................69

4.4 School Socioeconomic Composition of School Communities............................. 69

4.5 Ethnic Composition of Schools.......................................................................... 70

4.6 Special School Programs.................................................................................... 70

4.7 Types of School Calendars ................................................................................. 71

4.8 Total Enrollments in Band Performance Classes Within Schools....................... 72

4.9 School Enrollments in Individual Band Performance Classes
of>25 Students...................................................................................... 72

4.10 Student Enrollments in Individual Band Performance Classes
of <25 Students........................................................................ .......... 73

4.11 Grade Level of Music Performed by the Most Advanced
Ensemble in a School ............................................................................. 73

4.12 Use of Repertoire Lists by Directors.................................................................. 74

4.13 Most Advanced Degrees Earned by Directors.................................................... 74

viii








4.14 Principal Instruments of Directors ...................................................................... 75

4.15 Degree Granting Institutions (Colleges and Universities) of Directors ................ 76

4.16 Number of Years Directors Have Taught Band at Any Level ............................. 79

4.17 Number of Years Directors Have Taught Band at the Middle School Level....... 80

4.18 Number of Years Directors Have Taught at Their Current School...................... 80

4.19 Director Experience Entire Teaching Career at a Middle/Junior High School...81

4.20 Sources of Repertoire Selection ................................................................... 82

4.21 Importance of Factors Affecting Repertoire Selection........................................ 85

4.22 Directors Who Publicly Performed Works From Among the List of 85 ........... 88

4.23 Additional Works Added by Director Nominations of >50% ..............................91

4.24 Rank Order of Basic and Core Compositions By Grade Level (I I HI) .......... 92

4.25 Rank Order of Basic and Core Compositions By Director Rating....................... 94














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

REPERTOIRE SELECTION PRACTICES AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CORE REPERTOIRE
FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CONCERT BAND

By

Ronald L. Howard

December 2001

Chairman: Dr. Charles R. Hoffer
Major Department: Music

The purpose of this study was to investigate and describe the repertoire selection

practices of middle school concert band directors and to develop a core repertoire for the

middle school concert band. Previous core repertoire lists have not been universally

adopted within the wind music world, and the majority of such repertoire lists have been

oriented toward the mature wind band.

This study compares and contrasts the currently available repertoire lists, drawing

upon state and national band associations and organizations, to determine what works

a) appear on all lists, b) appear on some lists, or c) do not appear on any lists. In

addition this study provides a source of information for band directors in the

implementation of quality music selection for middle school concert bands.

A survey instrument designed for the collection of data obtained demographic

information and identified the criteria and procedures used by expert middle school band








directors in selecting repertoire. Data were solicited from 184 middle school band

directors identified as 1) having at least ten years of experience in teaching middle school

band, 2) having a successful "track record" of festival-contest ratings, and 3) having

spent most or all of their teaching career in a middle school setting. Of the 184 directors

invited to participate, 163 agreed to do so and 130 actually responded, giving a response

rate of approximately 80%.

Conclusions drawn from the research findings, in addition to the creation of a

young band essential repertoire list of 29 works and a core repertoire list of 17 works,

included the following:

1. Repertoire for the young band in college methods and wind literature classes
needs to be more adequately addressed.

2. More emphasis needs to be given to the importance of selecting works of
quality for the young band.

3. The three most frequently reported sources of repertoire selection were music
publisher materials, live performances, and recordings.

4. The three factors most frequently reported as affecting repertoire selection
decisions were the level of quality of the music, technical considerations
within the music, and the ability and limitations of the ensemble performing
the music.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


The middle school concert band is arguably the most important phase in the

sequentially oriented development of wind and percussion musicians. In American public

schools, the middle school years correspond generally to the human ages often through

fourteen. It is at this level of musical development that playing habits are taught, learned

and refined. Without proper instruction at this level, further development of musicianship

and technical ability may be severely limited. The middle school years provide some

unique teaching and learning opportunities, yet, at the same time, the teacher is

continually challenged to find interesting and appropriate music literature for these young

developing instrumentalists.

While most of the available repertoire geared for this level is not necessarily "art"

music, it serves rather in a pedagogical role. Even at this rudimentary stage of

development, there is a definite need for concert literature of substance and quality.

Furthermore, over the past fifty years, public school secondary music education has

tended to be dominated by performance-oriented courses (Abeles, Hoffer, & Klotman,

1994). It therefore stands to reason that if performing organizations are going to exist

within middle schools, students who participate in such organizations need to be exposed

to quality literature and materials.

The music repertoire selected as part of the curriculum of a school ensemble is

one of the most important decisions made each school year (Menghini, 1999). Yet, the

I









challenge to the successful middle school band director lies in choosing repertoire that is

neither boring nor too difficult for instrumentalists so easily frustrated at this age level

(O'Reilly & Williams, 1998).


Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the means through which

successful middle school concert band directors select repertoire, in turn leading to the

development of a workable, usable core repertoire for the middle school concert band.

While such core repertoire lists are historically not a new idea, and while there is much

room for discussion of what specific works should appear on such a list, the idea is

further compounded by the issue of the criteria associated with works appearing on

listings of repertoire.

It appears that virtually every state in the United States has some type of music

list, usually developed under the auspices of a particular state's music education

organization. Other organizations, such as the National Band Association, have published

repertoire lists. In addition to the inclusion or exclusion of specific works on certain lists,

the problem exists of disparity of some type of grading scale, which is usually structured

solely on the basis of the technical demands of a given work.

Although there are dozens of lists available to peruse, there is some benefit to

having such lists available. One purpose of this study is to compare and contrast selected

lists, and to examine works which a) appear on virtually all lists, b) appear on some lists

but not on others, and c) do not appear on any lists at all.

The nature of "required" music lists must also be considered. Why is there such a

list? What purpose does such a list accomplish? Why are some works included and others








excluded? Who made the decisions regarding specific works appearing on lists? Are there

specific criteria pertaining to a given work which qualify it to appear on lists?

It is because of the continued publication of repertoire lists that this study is

undertaken: what works are appropriate for the middle school concert band, and by what

criteria would such works be placed on a core repertoire list? Authorities in music

education cite repertoire selection as one of the most important tasks of the teacher, yet

no hierarchy of selection criteria is offered. Many questions arise. Is there some

commonality of the repertoire selection process among all middle school band directors,

or does the selection process vary according to factors such as educational setting,

experience of the teacher, or perhaps educational or philosophical considerations? If such

variation occurs among middle school band directors, can a relationship be established

between the quality and types of repertoire selected, the criteria and procedures used for

selection, and the ultimate success of the middle school band (and its director)"

Middle school concert band experts surveyed for this study indicated that

repertoire selected for study should be a) of high quality, b) diverse, consisting of

different genres, styles, and historical periods, and c) worthy of the allotment of

classroom instructional time toward the study of such repertoire. While the issue of

quality in music is by its very nature subjective (Reimer, 1989), there is not necessarily a

universal agreement among teachers as to what constitutes quality middle school concert

band repertoire. Therefore, the issue of "quality" in repertoire selection is of utmost

importance and relevance to this study.








Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate, describe, and provide information

with regard to the repertoire selection process of expert middle school concert band

directors and to develop a core repertoire music list especially for use by the middle

school concert band. The existing literature on the subject suggests that repertoire

selection is one of the most important tasks of a teacher of performing ensembles, yet few

suggestions are offered on how to select appropriate literature. This research attempts to

provide a source of information and reference for middle school concert band directors,

particularly younger and less experienced directors, regarding repertoire selection

practices for their performing ensembles.


Overview of the Study

The two main goals of this study were to 1) provide a description of the means

through which experienced, expert middle school concert band directors select repertoire

for their performing ensembles, and 2) develop a core repertoire for the middle school

concert band. Methods of inquiry used to gather this information were initial interviews

with expert directors, examination of repertoire and required music lists from state music

organizations, and questionnaires sent to experts in the field of middle school concert

band.

A secondary goal of this research was to provide middle school band directors,

particularly less experienced directors, with a means of selecting repertoire so that

classroom instructional time can be maximized, rather than using valuable time to

explore works of questionable merit and musical validity.








Procedures

Descriptive data were collected to 1) identify the demographic characteristics of

the questionnaire respondents, 2) identify the styles and types of repertoire selected by

expert middle school concert band directors, 3) determine what methods and resources

were used by these directors to select repertoire, 4) determine what, if any, factors

influenced the repertoire selection decisions of these directors, 5) determine what

specific compositions for middle school concert band constituted quality in literature,

6) determine levels of agreement or disagreement among expert middle school concert

band directors concerning specific compositions that might be identified as "core," and

7) determine if any relationships existed between the self-identified educational settings,

teacher experience, quality of repertoire selected, and overall success of the directors and

their programs.

The first step in the inquiry process was to determine who should be qualified to

make judgments about repertoire selection practices and to contribute specific works to

be included on a core repertoire listing for the middle school concert band. An initial list

of expert middle school band directors was developed from the author's own knowledge

of successful band directors. Specific criteria were required of a director in order to be

included in the study. These criteria were as follows: 1) at least ten years of experience in

teaching middle school band, 2) a successful "track record" of festival and contest

ratings, and 3) that a director had to have spent most or all of his/her teaching career in a

middle school (or, in some cases, junior high school) setting.

Additional factors that influenced the inclusion of directors in the study were as

follows: 1) performances by middle school concert bands under their direction at state,









regional, and national music conferences and conventions, 2) specialized knowledge of

the middle school concert band and its problems, as evidenced by presentation of clinics

and workshops, and 3) consistent success with their bands both in the rehearsal room and

in adjudicated performance settings.

Names of participants were generated from recommendations made by state

music association officers as well as from membership rosters and the published program

books of such conferences as the Mid-West International Band and Orchestra Clinic, the

National Band Association, and various state music conventions.

Preliminary telephone, electronic and in-person interviews were conducted with

four expert middle school concert band directors to determine the types of questions

necessary for the questionnaire. This decision was based on the fact that there is scant

literature available on this topic. Employing the grounded theory procedures developed

by Glaser and Strauss (1967), this methodology endeavors to collect data and develop

theory that is grounded in the problems and processes themselves.

The survey instrument was field tested among a small sampling of directors. In

the initial instrument, directors as well as some composers of middle school band music

were polled. The final version of the survey instrument could not be sent to composers,

however, because of some apparent degree of bias toward a given composer's own

works.

The questionnaire was a combination of open- and closed-format questions.

Demographic information was collected through multiple-choice answers concerning

such factors as years of teaching experience, current school environment, and

descriptions of a director's current band program.








The second portion of the questionnaire asked directors to give responses on the

sources of repertoire selection as well as the factors that influenced these decisions.

Lastly, directors were asked to identify specific works that might constitute a core

repertoire listing for the middle school concert band.


Assumptions

This study was predicated on three basic assumptions. The first assumption is that

middle school concert band directors view their performance repertoire as an integral part

of their teaching and that considerable thought is given to the repertoire that should be

selected for performance by their middle school bands. Second, it is also assumed that

middle school concert bands possess a repertoire that is distinctly different from the

repertoire of the high school or university concert band. Third, it is also assumed that

while much of the available repertoire for the middle school concert band is pedagogical

in nature, there are certain works that stand out as viable, quality compositions worthy of

study and performance.

Delimitations

To maintain a manageable scope to this study, three delimitations were imposed.

First, the study was limited to directors who teach (or have taught in) public middle

schools with regularly scheduled performing bands in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South

Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York. These geographical limits were partially the

result of the places of residence of the targeted respondents but also serve to be of value

to educators and researchers in all regions of the United States. Only public school








directors were surveyed; private schools and parochial schools were not included

Second, only concert compositions for the middle school concert band were discussed

and examined. Other materials such as method books, theory texts, and supplementary

materials were not included. Third, the development of a core repertoire list, based upon

results of the survey respondents, would not exceed 100 works.


Limitations

This study assumed that the respondents answered the questionnaires truthfully.

The accuracy of this study was limited to the degree to which the respondents indicated

their true feelings in answering the survey items.

Additionally, while the survey was conducted during the winter of 2001, recent

experiences of the respondents might have influenced the degree to which a respondent

answered the survey items, particularly regarding specific compositions or the possible

discovery of newer works for the concert band medium.


Definitions

The following definitions of terms apply to this study.

Middle School is a public educational institution that operates on a standard

academic calendar year of approximately 175-190 days, generally late summer to late

spring. It is also defined as a public educational institution that serves grade levels six

through eight, although grades five and nine may on occasion be represented.

Concert Band refers to the primary means of curricular instrumental music

instruction within a middle school setting. Concert band generally refers to a performing








ensemble with a standard instrumentation of flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons,

saxophones, trumpets, horns, trombones, euphoniums, tubas, and percussion.

Young Band refers to a performing ensemble, or to the repertoire specifically

composed or arranged for a performing ensemble, comprised of or oriented toward

players in their first, second, or third year of instrumental music study.

The Band Director of a middle school concert band is the primary teacher of wind

and percussion music, and the conductor of band performing ensembles, in a given

school. The band director is the teacher who has been contacted for participation in this

study.

Core Repertoire refers to an established, criteria-based collection or listing of

music suitable for study and performance by the middle school concert band. This

repertoire is considered to be the "backbone" of the literature available for the middle

school concert band. It represents the very finest quality literature for the medium.

Basic Repertoire refers to a body of literature that should be explored, studied,

and perhaps performed by the middle school concert band. Slightly wider in scope than

the core repertoire, this music also represents a very high level of quality and is worthy of

being studied by all directors and students at the middle school level.

Repertoire Selection refers to the process through which the middle school

concert band director evaluates, examines, and selects specific musical compositions for

performance by his/her ensembles.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Introduction

This chapter contains an overview of the existing research and literature on band

repertoire selection in general and on music selection practices for the middle school

concert band. It is organized into five sections: 1) a discussion of the importance of

repertoire selection; 2) a discussion of the philosophical aspects behind repertoire

selection; 3) the criteria for repertoire selection, which considers the issues of

programming, the music director, the ensemble, and the music itself; 4) resources for

repertoire selection; and 5) an overview of selected significant previous studies on the

topic of repertoire selection.


The Importance of Repertoire Selection

The significance and importance of repertoire selection has been treated with

great respect in the leading music education texts at the collegiate level. Decisions

regarding repertoire selection are a major task to the music educator at all levels, and this

problem is a major concern to directors of middle school concert bands. Even a cursory

examination of all band literature reveals hundreds, perhaps thousands of significant

works written for the high school, college, and professional band, whereas the elementary

level bands have a disproportionate body of literature from which to select works for

performance.









Fraedrich (1997), specifically addressing the issue of repertoire selection for the

first or second year band (found in virtually all middle schools), points out the

inadequacy of teacher-training programs in covering the subject of elementary band

repertoire.

Selecting appropriate band music can be difficult .... With
limited money to spend on music, the elementary director
cannot afford to select unwisely .... The time spent
researching the available music is time well spent. (p. 56)

Reul (1994) reports that "what should be the easiest task in the long list of

essential tasks... choosing the right literature for the band .. often turns out to be the

most vexing" (p. 39). Reul (1994) compiled a list of eleven tips relative to repertoire

selection and justifies each of his suggestions.

Virtually all music education authorities agree that the quality of a given work of

music is a foremost consideration when evaluating potential works to be studied. Hoffer

(2001) cites quality as one of two requirements that must be met for a work of music to

contribute to the students' musical education. Copland (1957) posits that quality music

has "a sensuous attraction" and cites what he calls the sheerlyy musical" type of listening,

wherein the skill and imagination with which the sounds are organized are addressed:

what notes are played, at what speed, in what combination with other notes, on what

instruments, in what pitch range, in what form or pattern, and so on (pp. 9-10).

Whitwell (1993) discusses the importance of music selection and its effect upon

the student:

Music is part of the experiential life of the student. The musical
experiences he has become his experiences. The literature the
teacher chooses to present to the student becomes part of that
student.., and shapes that student. There is an art of teaching, but
the essential musical experiences come from the music itself,









not from the teacher. Therefore, my first criterion for selecting
educational music is that it must be music which comes from
the heart. (p. 34)

The goal of an aesthetic and artistic experience and education can only be realized

through the selection of quality repertoire (Gage, 2000). Care must be taken to ensure the

potential for an aesthetic response by the performers, for the conductor, and for the

audience, according to Gage:

If... the director's goal is simply to satiate what we perceive our public's
desires are, relative to music selection... then we must re-evaluate the
repertoire selection process. (p. 11)

Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) cite several factors that contribute to the

school music program. Among these factors, "it is not the quantity of offerings but rather

the quality of these offerings that will determine the ultimate success of a school music

program. Quality involves music both as an academic discipline and an art form"

(p. 277). Certainly the quality of repertoire selected will have a direct bearing on the

success of a given school band program. In a report to the American Bandmasters

Association, Adams (1994) posits that "the strength of any academic discipline is in its

subject matter... our subject matter is the literature we teach and perform. The quality of

our literature must be equal to, if not better than, the subject matter of math, science, and

the language arts." Kirchhoff (1993) sums up the importance of repertoire selection

succinctly:

Selecting music of quality is extremely important. Literature is the vehicle
by which students are going to learn about musicianship and being a
musician. That is the "diet" we can give these kids to subsist on. (p. 36)








Eitel (1993) expresses the importance of repertoire selection even more clearly:

The only quest in town, a matter of integrity that we cannot dodge, is the
search for the best literature at all levels. This is the band director's
challenge. (p. 38)


Philosophical Aspects of Repertoire Selection

The need for philosophical justification of what is taught in music courses has

long been recognized by both the music education and the general academic profession.

A teacher's individual philosophy toward education influences every decision he or she

makes. These decisions are also reflected in the area of repertoire selection. Abeles,

Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) state:

Music teachers... must make decisions and take actions. They
cannot avoid doing so, even if they can avoid thinking or talking about the
reasons for doing something. In a very real sense, each person defines a
philosophy when he or she makes a decision. Therefore, it is not a
question of whether decisions are made and actions taken, but of whether
the person making a decision is aware of its larger implications and how
one action relates to another. (p. 41)

Reimer (1989) discusses the impact of decision making on the part of the teacher,

stating "the final reason for the importance of a convincing professional philosophy is the

fact that everything music educators do in their jobs carries out in practice their beliefs

about their subject" (p. 7). Leonhard and House (1972) suggest that the importance and

impact of a professional philosophy "serves to guide and give direction to the efforts of

the teacher" (p. 85). Casey (1993) states that "music teachers have many opinions,

beliefs, and values" representing "the teacher's conscious or unconscious ideas and

attitudes about music education. The inevitable effect of these ideas is to provide a stance

that gives impetus for what a teacher does" (p. 5).








The philosophy of music education as aesthetic education is well articulated by

many authorities in the profession. In offering arguments defining the attributes of a

music education philosophy, authorities have advocated a directional change in

philosophy toward one based on the development of aesthetic growth and awareness

(Mark, 1986). The philosophy of aesthetic education within music education is evident in

both practice and theory (Reimer, 1989). Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) state that

"aesthetic experiences are a vital part of music education" (p. 83). Other authors have

made similar statements concerning aesthetic education as an integral component of a

total music education (Broudy, 1968; Leonhard and House, 1972; Garofalo, 1983;

Howard, 1994; Kohut, 1963; Schwadron, 1967).

The music educator's attitude toward the selection of repertoire has deep

philosophical implications. Apfelstadt (2000) states that "through the repertoire chosen,

not only is curricular content taught to students, but a philosophy is conveyed in terms of

what students need to learn to achieve musical growth.., lofty goals are not met through

second-rate repertoire" (p. 19). Youngblood (1983) suggests that many people disagree

due to "differing attitudes as to what is important and what is useful" (p. 193).

Decisions concerning repertoire selection have a significant and far-reaching

effect not only upon the student performers of the music, but also upon the teachers

and listeners. However, the impact upon the students is clearly the most crucial.

Casey (1993) states:

The compositions in the music folder make up the contents of the
"textbook" the students experience. How... wisely the music educator
selects literature will determine the content that will impact upon students
via their literature. The better the literature, the more profound the
experience will be for students and the longer the impact and effects will
last. (p. 34)









Reed (1993a) suggests that choice (as in selecting repertoire) is a kind of

creative process, wherein an individual has choices among several ways of doing a

task and choices within these several ways.

The choice of literature is the single most difficult and creative action a
conductor performs. Whether he's conducting a junior high school band, a
choir, or the New York Philharmonic, choosing the program is seventy-
five percent of the job. That much of the job is over, finished, and done
with before you set your foot on the podium for the first rehearsal. (p. 36)

The teacher's philosophy of music education and of aesthetic education is clearly

expressed through the choices of repertoire. Menghini (1999) suggests that "directors

often select repertoire casually or out of habit" (p. 28). Reynolds (2000) stresses the

importance of the aesthetic aspect of repertoire selection:

We must strive to select the finest repertoire, for only through
immersion in music of lasting quality can we engage in aesthetic
experiences of breadth and depth. (p. 31)

Reynolds (2000) also states that "a well-planned repertoire creates the framework

for an excellent music curriculum that fosters the musical growth of our students" (p. 31)

and makes a rather startling commentary that "because it [repertoire selection] is one of

the most difficult aspects of the entire profession.., the difficulty occurs because you

not only choose a particular piece or set of pieces, but, in making this decision, you

determine that all other pieces will not be chosen" (p. 31).

Clearly the selection of repertoire without prior philosophical foundation has

serious implications for directors of performing ensembles. Some authors have gone so

far as to suggest that the music chosen is the curriculum for their programs. In a landmark

study with somewhat disturbing implications, Mercer (1972) found that band directors

almost always selected music to meet the requirements of the next performance, and









stated simply that "the curriculum is the score" (p. 52). Bauer (1996) also supports

Mercer's finding: "The music may be generating the curriculum rather than the other way

around" (p. 8). Reynolds (2000) further supports Mercer by stating: "The music you

choose becomes, in large part, the curriculum that you and your students follow toward a

sound music education" (p. 32).


Criteria for Repertoire Selection

Four considerations are identified which must be addressed when discussing the

topic of repertoire selection: 1) programming considerations, 2) ensemble considerations,

3) director considerations, and, perhaps most significantly, 4) musical considerations.

Programming Considerations

Authorities have identified several criteria relative to programming that must be

considered prior to the selection of repertoire. The criteria identified include a selection

of repertoire from different historical periods; selection of repertoire encompassing

different styles and genres; program issues centering around the purpose of the program

(i.e., festival, entertainment, ceremonial, etc.); audience expectations and reactions; and

the suitability of a given work relative to other works on the same program.

The most frequently cited criterion for the selection of repertoire relative to

programming is the inclusion of music of different historical periods. Secondary criteria

relate to different styles and genres of music, although the significance of these criteria

can in no way be diminished. Authorities stress the importance of a wide-ranging

repertoire because it provides for diverse educational experiences (Abeles, Hoffer, and

Klotman, 1994; Bauer, 1996; DeHoog, 1975; Gelpi, 1984; Grant and Kohut, 1992;

Hoffer, 2001; Janzen, 1985; Mayhall, 1994; Ostling, 1979; Persellin, 2000; Volway,









1987). The issue of culturally diverse music cannot be ignored when making repertoire

selection decisions. Numerous authors indicate the importance of including repertoire

reflective of world cultures (Bollinger, 1979; Grant and Kohut, 1992; Hoffer, 2001;

Howard, 1994; Leonhard and House, 1972; Meyer, 1973; Music Educators National

Conference, 1994; Reimer, 1989; Volway, 1987).

Authorities have suggested criteria for repertoire selection relative to

programming choices for specific programs, concerts, and events. One of the major

events in the typical school band program is the annual festival, contest, evaluation, or

similarly named event. Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) suggest that while "one

cannot have a musical experience without a performance of music of some type" (p. 282),

the music contest system has possibly distorted the performance objectives:

When contests were first introduced into music education, they
were designed as motivation for students and as a way of raising the
standards of performing groups. It was never intended that they become
the main goal for music performing classes. (p. 282)

Audience expectations and reactions also often influence directors' programming

choices. For example, repertoire selected for performance at the Mid-West Clinic will be

radically different from repertoire selected for performance at a school graduation

ceremony. The audiences at the two above events will have a significantly different set of

expectations, backgrounds, and reactions. On audience reaction, Hoffer (2001) states:

The musical interests of the community should be considered
in selecting music for programs. Teachers should present the
most worthwhile music they can without losing the students
and audience. A little give and take is needed. It is a rare community
that appreciates an all-art program. On the other hand, there is no
community in which some art music cannot be presented. (p. 172)









While authorities support audience expectations as a consideration of the

repertoire selection process, some do not advocate the selection of music solely on this

basis. Casey (1993) asserts:

If we believe that the primary purpose of music education is
to entertain and present a positive image of the school to the
community, then our decisions about the literature we place
in the path of the students will show the degree we have drifted
toward that purpose. On the other hand, if the primary purpose
of a music education is to impart the substance of pieces and to
contribute to the development of the individual through music
literature, we will look at the choice of literature in another way
(p. 34).

Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) state that "in a situation in which

performance becomes the end rather than the means, the emphasis shifts from learning to

the gratification of the audience... instruction is geared not to what the students will

derive from the performance, but rather to what the performance will do for the

organization and its director, with only side benefits for learners" (p. 294). O'Reilly and

Williams (1998) state that "the mix of pieces should interest the audience and motivate

parents to encourage their children" (p. 14). Other authors offer supporting positions on

the role of the audience as a part of the repertoire selection process (Apfelstatdt, 2000,

Bollinger, 1979; Dillon-Drass, 2000; Doran, 1956; Gage, 2000; Hoffer, 2001; Holvik,

1970; Knight, 2001; Leonhard and House, 1972; Mercer, 1972; Reimer, 1989; Thomas,

1970.)

With regard to the suitability of a work in relation to other works scheduled for a

given concert, repertoire selection processes can indeed bear some significance.

Menghini (1999) views repertoire selection as the core of the curriculum, stating that








"works might be chosen from a list of required repertoire for an event or to suit the taste

of the director, but music should be selected to improve the band curriculum" (p. 28).

When selecting repertoire and programming specific works for performance,

authorities illuminate the importance of contrasting compositions on a program but

maintaining a sense of unity among works selected (Bauer, 1996; Bollinger, 1979;

Dillon-Drass, 2000; Fraedrich, 1997; Gage, 2000; Hoffer, 2001; Howard, 1994; Ostling,

1978; Sheldon, 1996b; Williamson, 1992). Programming can be a demanding task, and it

is the conductor's responsibility to select repertoire that offers a contrast of styles, genres,

textures, voicings, colors, and other elements such that the concert program will have an

overall sense of a unified whole. Dillon-Drass (2000) especially urges directors to

"perform music in contrasting styles... especially if the group is to be adjudicated"

(p. 11). Gage (2000) states:

One of the most difficult decisions made by the conductor
is to select the order of the performance on the concert ....
it is important to sequence the content of a concert in a way
that allows the performers and audience a chance to
experience a variety of tone baths ... the concert should
have emotional ebbs and flows. (p. 14)

Perhaps Richard W. Bowles (1996) sums it up best:

Harold Bachman and I spent many an hour talking about
the Mid-West [Band and Orchestra Clinic.] When he
re-created "Bachman's Million Dollar Band" at the Mid-
West in 1967, he studied, researched, and worried about his
selection of musicfor one entire year. (p. 407)

Ensemble Considerations

Authorities have agreed that the parameters of the performing ensemble should be

considered when selecting repertoire for performance. These parameters include the

following: 1) the size of the ensemble; 2) the technical ability of the ensemble; 3) the








musical and physical maturity of the performers; and 4) the musical tastes, preferences,

and interests of the ensemble.

The size of an ensemble is an obvious factor to consider. Authorities stress the

importance of selecting music appropriate to the number and type of instrumental forces

available within an ensemble (Hoffer, 2001). Depending on the grade level of music

involved, compositions for band are usually written such that all instruments found

within the standard concert band instrumentation are utilized. In lower grade levels of

band music, there may be only one part for each instrument, for example, but in more

advanced literature there will be divisions within instrumental sections (i.e., first clarinet,

second clarinet, third clarinet, first trombone, second trombone).

O'Reilly and Williams (1998) state "the act of dividing first-year players into

firsts and seconds may destroy the confidence of half the players" (p. 13). Because most

first-year and second-year bands found in the typical middle school setting might not

contain all of the instrumental forces, particularly the "color" instruments, repertoire

selection becomes a sensitive issue for the director. Literature must be selected that fits

both the size of the ensemble as well as the instruments available within the ensemble

(Hilliard, 1992). Gage (2000) advocates occasional re-scoring to cover missing lines or

parts, but advises that "it is probably not wise to program pieces, too often, which are

specifically scored for voices that are not present" (p. 12).

The technical ability (and limitations) of the ensemble are a major consideration

when selecting repertoire. Repertoire selected must first of all be learnable (Hoffer, 2001)

and must be within the ability level of the entire group. Gage (2000) submits that the

repertoire selected must present an acceptable challenge for all participants:








If within the given repertoire the music is not exciting or
challenging for all of the students in the ensemble, or if it is
not stretching the technical and artistic expectations of the
performers, then we are doing an educational disservice to
those students (p. 13).

Wilder (2001) suggests innovative methods of incorporating Pestalozzian

principles to the teaching and understand of young band literature. The techniques she

reports involve a literal dissection of the work being studied such that each student has a

chance to experience every melody, every rhythm, and every harmony within the music.

McBeth (1991) states that "many composers take the wrong approach to junior

high music... feeling that simple rhythms and conservative registers constitute

approachable music." He further states that music for the elementary level should be

"more musically challenging" through "simplicity of mechanics as opposed to simple

music" (p. 13). Dillon-Drass (2000) advises "choose only one technically challenging

composition on a program" and suggests that "if half the students are really struggling

when the piece is sight-read, then it is probably too difficult to perform well under

pressure" (p. 11).

Music is often graded according to technical requirements (i.e., Grade I, Grade II,

Grade III) and these grading scales have a very wide variation of criteria. Kohut and

Mohr-Sheahan (1991) state that "it can be discouraging for the director to order music

catalogued at the Grade I level, only to find later that the music is really Grade H" (p. 49).

O'Reilly and Williams (1998) suggest that directors consider range, rhythm, reduced

parts, and what they refer to as "recognizable tunes that everyone plays" (p. 13) when

selecting repertoire. Hilliard (1992) suggests that directors should consider such technical

aspects as scoring, range, key signature, style, percussion parts, and structural elements








but cautions that "the sheer quantities of new publications produced each year" (p. 11)

might complicate the repertoire selection process.

Musical and physical maturity of the performers is another consideration

associated with the repertoire selection process. At the middle school level, students are

at a very wide-ranging stage of physical development, with some students pre-pubescent

and others fully-developed. These physical differences are also reflected in the musical

development and maturity of the performers. Authorities suggest that it is prudent to

consider these differences when selecting repertoire for performance by middle school

students (Hoffer, 2001; O'Reilly and Williams, 1998.)

The final ensemble considerations, the musical tastes, preferences and interests of

the ensemble, are perhaps the most controversial of the four. Since the musical tastes and

interests of middle school students are focused on popular music, the role of popular

music in the repertoire selection process cannot be ignored. Reimer (1989) states that

there is "a vast wasteland of musical inanity in the popular music field" but that "some

popular music of the present time is of extremely high quality in musical excellence and

musical expressiveness" (pp. 143-144). Leonhard and House (1972) support the inclusion

of some popular music in the curriculum, as do Abeles, Hoffer and Klotman (1994) and

McBeth (1991). Pembrook (1991) states that "the decision as to whether popular music

will be included in... concerts should be based on the same criteria used for any other

genre of music" (p.31).








Director Considerations

With regard to repertoire selection, three areas relative to the director must be

considered. Authorities have identified director interest, ability, and education as areas

crucial to the repertoire selection process.

Mayhall (1994) asserts that "in-depth score study, enthusiasm for rehearsal, and

sustained interest are difficult to accomplish for the director unless a powerful attraction

is present in the music" (p. 14). Gregory (1986) found that directors must maintain

interest in all aspects of their job functions, perhaps including the tasks associated with

repertoire selection, in order to avoid what he terms "burnout" (p. 32).

Labuta (1997) writes that "band directors are slow to accept curricular changes"

and that "band directors will not implement change until easy-to-use materials are

available and practical for use" (p. 6).

Conrad (1999) agrees with these positions, stating:

Band directors say their curriculum is dictated by the outside
performance demands placed on them by parents, community
members, and school officials. These events are vital to their
programs: administrators prize "superior" ratings, competition
events increase visibility in the community, and students are
motivated by winning. (p.3).

State and national standards have caused directors to reassess their curricula,

including the task of repertoire selection (Music Educators National Conference, 1994).

Conrad (1999) reports that "directors of music performance ensembles... say that they

do not have enough time to teach all the standards in their band rehearsals" (p. 3).

Authorities generally agree that director interest in both the job function and

responsibilities as well as numerous decision-making processes are critical to success

(Gregory, 1986; Hughes, 1990; Pearce, 2000; Pizer, 1990; Reynolds, 2000). Director








interest in repertoire selected must be evident, and interest is spurred by professional

growth and development (Reynolds, 2000). The ability of the director may also be a

factor in repertoire selection; i.e., the director must be able to understand, and teach, the

repertoire selected (Hoffer, 2001). Knowledge of a wide variety of styles, genres and

music from all historical periods is necessary in order to make informed repertoire

selection decisions. Numerous authorities cite knowledge of the repertoire as crucial to

the selection process (Battisti, 1995a, 1995b; Bauer, 1996; Bollinger, 1979; Del Borgo,

1988; Fiese, 1997; Gage, 2000; Gaines, 1998; Hoffer, 2001; Janzen, 1985; Kinyon, 1982;

Menghini, 1996; Miles and Dvorak, 2001; Pearce, 2000; Rocco and McBeth, 1991;

Volway, 1987.)

Grant and Kohut (1992) articulate the need for directors of the new century to

"greatly expand their knowledge of the repertoire" including an "understanding of the

performance practices and stylistic characteristics of music of the major cultures of the

world... and a sensitivity to their contribution to the social fabric of the culture"

(pp. 38, 50.)

Lastly, the educational experiences of the director can contribute to repertoire

selection choices and decisions. Limited exposure to the repertoire can be reflected in a

director's choices of music (Reynolds, 2000) which may lead to a selection of repertoire

lacking proper variety, contrast and balance.

Musical Considerations

Perhaps the most important consideration associated with the task of repertoire

selection deals with the music itself. Criteria related to the music will necessarily include

such factors as the quality, the level of technical difficulty, artistic demands upon the








performers, the performing resources required, the intricacy of the individual parts, and

the overall aesthetic effect of a given composition.

Authorities have demonstrated an historical consistency in arguing that repertoire

selected for performance must be of high quality (Apfelstadt, 2000; Bodegraven, 1965;

Cundiffand Dykema, 1923; Doran, 1956; Goldman, 1934; Hoffer, 2001; Jones, 1953;

Knight, 2001; Kohut, 1963; Kuhn, 1962; Meyer, 1973; Mursell, 1943; Persellin, 2000;

Reimer, 1989; Rosene, 1981; Thomas, 1970.) While individual recommendations may

differ among authorities, the presence of elements that affirm the level of quality of the

music is virtually mandatory.

Leonhard and House (1972) define high quality or "good" music as "that which

possesses craftsmanship and expresivity" (p. 102). Apfelstadt (2000) expands upon this

assessment, stating that "well-written music finds the balance of tension and release,

structural symmetry and asymmetry, and anticipation and surprise that makes listening

and performing it a worthwhile experience" (p. 19). Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994)

state that "to be in favor of'good' music is about as startling and controversial as being

in favor of safe driving and the prevention of forest fires" (p. 66).

Quality in music, and the musical elements that elevate a work to a level of high

quality, are considerations that have long been debated. Reimer (1989) submits that

judgment of quality in any artwork can be built on four criteria: craftsmanship,

sensitivity, imagination, and authenticity (pp. 135-137). Reimer defines craftsmanship as

"the expertness by which the materials of art are molded into expressiveness" (p. 135).

Works lacking craftsmanship are signaled by "shoddiness, by disrespect for materials, by

skill that manipulates the material rather than serving its expressiveness" (p. 135). Reimer









discusses the other three criteria (sensitivity, imagination, and authenticity) at length

(pp. 135-137).

Leonhard and House (1972) have made parallel statements to those of Reimer

with regard to quality in music. They make a distinction between good music and great

music, stating that the two differ in two characteristics: 1) the subtlety of expression, and

2) the abstractness of expression (p. 103).

McBeth (1990) makes some observations concerning the personal evaluation

of quality in music:

I think that there are two constants in all great music:
direction and originality. Direction is always evident in
great music; lesser efforts always wander. Great music is
never a succession of acceptable progressions but a journey
of sound to somewhere .... In evaluating music, and new
music in particular, as to originality, the process always
brings us to style. Personal style is the single most sought
after and hoped for ingredient... that distinguishes a work
as belonging to a specific artist. Few aspiring artists ever
achieve a personal style, but almost all successful ones do.
Your personal evaluation of quality in music must go beyond
mechanics. It must be rooted in your ability to sense direction
and originality, framed in expert craft. No one element can
stand alone. (p. 43)

Del Borgo (1988) states that "musical quality is a most difficult factor to quantify

... an airtight definition of true and lasting excellence in this area has eluded

aestheticians and critics for centuries" (p. 24). He concludes that "solid craftsmanship

usually will be apparent whether a work is to your taste or not." While the development

of specific criteria for determining quality music is open to much argument and has not

been wholly successful (Hoffer, 2001), criteria exist whereupon directors might make

competent decisions with regard to repertoire selection. Reed (1993b) looks for "a

striking, attention grabbing pattern of rhythm and melody" and states that "rhythm and









melody carry the message, and structure and form give them a recognizable shape" (p.

90). Croft (1993) expands upon this attitude:

I look first for anything that's unique. I look for the variety,
a harmonic language that maintains interest, instrumentation,
and, more than anything else, the avoidance of cliches. (p. 90)

Hoffer (2001) cautions against making judgments of repertoire solely on the basis

of technical aspects (p. 61) and concludes that "music considered to be of better quality

provides listeners with a greater challenge and variety as it progresses in ways generally

expected of music" and that "less significant music is less challenging and more

obvious."

Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman (1994) concur, expostulating

Theorists, musicologists, and aestheticians have had a
difficult time in developing consensus on a set of criteria
for the evaluation of musical quality. Sometimes certain
technical features (rhythmic proportions, melodic contours,
chord use allocations, etc.) have been identified.
Unfortunately, either the criteria have been so specific that
some works generally considered good must be eliminated
or they have been so general that they provide little help.
(p. 79)

Among the reasons cited for the use of high quality music for pedagogical reasons

is that it is through interaction with, and the study of, examples of quality music that

students' tastes will improve (Fiese, 1997). Other authorities have made similar

statements (Cundiffand Dykema, 1923; Doran, 1956; Kuhn, 1962; Meyer, 1973;

Mursell, 1943). The ability to discriminate qualitatively among various works of the

repertoire is also a desired outcome of music instruction (Fiese, 1997), a position

supported by earlier research (Bodegraven, 1965; Schwadron, 1967; Vagner, 1958).








Quite possibly the most frequently cited criterion used to identify quality in

musical works is that of historical significance. Hoffer (2001) suggests that one of the

benchmarks of quality of a given work is that it has "withstood the test of time" (p. 61).

He further states that "time has a way of sorting out what is of better quality." Mayhall

(1994) states that the "endurability of a piece, though not a guarantee of quality, is at least

one factor attesting to its worth" (p. 12). Buehlmann (1993) states: "I pick music of

historical importance... the masters" (p. 34). Other authorities have made similar

statements (Akey, 1997; Apfelstadt, 2000; Begian, 1991; Fiese, 1987; Gabriel, 1984;

Gage, 2000; Grant, 1993; Harris and Walls, 1996; Kreines, 1989; Lenzini, 1996; Ostling,

1978; Vagner, 1958).

Specifically addressing the issue of band repertoire, McBeth (1991) states that

"we are still in our paper plate period... using a piece once and throwing it away.., but

that will change. History will change it, and history will determine our repertoire" (p. 15).

Rosene (1981) implores directors to ask, "Will the musical composition last? Can ... it

be used again in five years, and will a potential audience then react favorably to it?"

(p. 96). Battisti (1995b) asserts that as he listens to new music each year, he is "struck by

the sameness of it all... many new pieces sound like clones of the most-popular and

best-selling selections from the previous year" (p. 17).

Authorities almost universally agree that quality repertoire must be studied and

performed. But what of the younger ensembles, the elementary and beginning and

intermediate level bands, such as those found in the middle schools? What body of

quality repertoire exists for those less experienced ensembles? Reimer (1989) states that

"it would be unrealistic and unnecessary to aim for constant use of great music in








teaching and learning, partly because of the obvious limitations of students' musical

capacities and partly because people, of any age, should not be expected to operate at the

farthest reaches of their abilities at all times" (p. 141).

Hoffer (2001) suggests that music for younger students be selected in part

according to such factors as repetition (reducing the amount of time needed to learn the

music), length (the longer the work, the more time needed to learn it), rhythm (because

adolescents are attracted to music that has rhythmic interests), and musicianship of the

students (noting that there is a limit to which adolescents can be pushed in subtleties or

symbolism) (p. 154).

Authorities generally agree that the technical difficulty of a given work should be

considered when selecting repertoire for study and performance. Technical difficulty

appears to be a relative phenomenon, as more demanding works are generally intended

for ensembles of more advanced ability. In other words, a grade VI work would not under

most circumstances be programmed for an ensemble of second-year students (although,

granted, there are probably a few exceptions to this dictum.) There are several elements

of the music that should be considered when selecting repertoire: range and tessitura of

the individual parts; melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic complexity; duration; key; runs

(scalewise or otherwise); instruments on a particular part; length of difficult passages;

and overall musical arrangement. Several authorities cite technical difficulty as a criteria

for repertoire selection (Abeles, Hoffer, and Klotman, 1994; Akey, 1997; Barresi, 1966;

Bauer, 1996; Croft, 1993; DeHoog, 1975; Del Borgo, 1988; Fiese, 1997; Fraedrich, 1997;

Gage, 2000; Grant, 1993; Hoffer, 2001; Knight, 2001; Kohut and Mohr-Sheahan, 1991,








Kvet, 1996; Pearce, 2000; Peterson, 1986; Reul, 1994; Reynolds, 2000; Sheldon, 1996a,

1996b; Trimbomrn, 1984; Wareham, 1968; Williamson, 1992).

Authorities have also indicated that the performing forces required by a given

work must be considered when selecting repertoire. Obviously repertoire cannot be

selected for performing forces if those forces are not available Directors should consider

the number of individual parts required for a work and whether or not divided parts

within sections are called for in the score. Repertoire selected should emphasize the

strengths of the ensemble, rather than calling attention to absent forces (Hoffer, 2001;

Hilliard, 1992; O'Reilly and Williams, 1998).

Finally, the element of aesthetics must once again be addressed. Repertoire

selected for study and performance must above and beyond all other factors elicit an

aesthetic response from performers, conductors, and audiences. (Hoffer, 2001; Meyer,

1973; Reimer, 1989). Some experts believe it really is good judgment to stick with works

which have withstood the test of time and which have gained the favor of professionals

within the field. Reed (1993a) expresses this thought:

I am convinced the reasons so much contemporary music
does not find an audience is in two parts: first, people do
not hear in this music what they think they should be hearing
in it. Second, they try to guess what's coming next and if it
doesn't go that way, they are disappointed, irritated, or
hostile. (p. 35)

Tangential Considerations

In addition to the criteria presented previously, authorities indicate that such

factors as music library holdings, budgetary constraints, available instructional or

rehearsal time, and accountability must be considered as a part of the repertoire selection

process. It is strongly recommended that new repertoire purchased be worthy of the









money spent and that it enhances the current holdings of one's music library (Battisti,

1995b; Hilliard, 1992; Rocco and McBeth, 1991; Rosene, 1981).

Available instructional or rehearsal time is another factor that must be considered

in the repertoire selection process. The rehearsal time needed to properly prepare a given

work is directly proportional to the technical abilities of the ensemble (collectively and

individually) and to the overall difficulty of the work. Hoffer (2001) states: "All things

being equal, the longer the work, the longer it will take to learn it. In addition, there is a

certain amount of fatigue and loss of interest in learning a work that requires a lot of time

and effort" (p. 167).

The issue of accountability has not generally been addressed by authorities as a

criterion for the selection of repertoire, but the literature suggests that accountability can

be a factor in the process. The 1994 publication of the Music Educators National

Conference, National Standards for Arts Education, suggests guidelines for repertoire

selection and lists minimum standards for repertoire challenge, difficulty, and variety of

style, genre, and historical period.

In addition to accountability in a professional sense, music educators are

accountable to the tax-paying public for what they teach. For years music educators have

had to justify the inclusion of their courses in the total school curriculum, often fighting

allegations that performing ensembles are somewhat peripheral and secondary to the

basic academic mission of the schools. Reimer (1989) submits that repertoire performed

is a strong factor of influence upon the public's perception of the educational and artistic

value of the school music program.









Repertoire Selection Resources

Music education authorities, and instrumental conductors in particular, have

identified many resources through which directors may locate acceptable repertoire

(Akey, 1997; Apfelstadt, 2000; Begian, 1991; Bollinger, 1979; Casey, 1993; Croft, 1993;

Dvorak, 1986; Fjeld, 1959; Fraedrich, 1997; Gage, 2000; Gelpi, 1984; Grant, 1993;

Grashel, 1989; Harris and Walls, 1996; Hoffer, 2001; Howard, 1994; Janzen, 1985;

Kohut and Mohr-Sheahan, 1991; Kvet, 1996; Menghini, 1999; Miles and Dvorak, 2001;

Pearce, 2000; Reynolds, 2000; Sheldon, 1996a; Volway, 1987; Williamson, 1992).

These resources include live performances of band music, band festivals and

contests, music publisher materials, recordings, printed programs, music stores, libraries,

clinic reading sessions at conferences and conventions, professional journals, and widely

available repertoire lists. Some authorities in the wind conducting field have developed

their own personal repertoire lists based on years of experience of working with

established literature of quality (Battisti, 1995b; Begian, 1991; Cochran, 1994; Dvorak,

1986; Gabriel, 1984; Grashel, 1989; Kohut and Mohr-Sheahan, 1991; Olson, 1982;

Ostling, 1978; Waybright, 1995).

Much literature is made available for the young band each year, but the discerning

director must make informed evaluations of the quality, worth, and usefulness of this vast

body of repertoire. Hilliard (1992) states:

In selecting literature for elementary bands, directors face
the difficulties of both the technical limitations of these groups
and the sheer quantities of new publications produced each
year. There are almost three times as many titles published for
young band as there are for grades three and above, resulting in
a rapid turnover of music and repertoire lists that are soon
outdated (p. 11).









Hilliard further advocates selecting repertoire for the young band that teaches

specific skills and concepts. Gaines (1998) advocates three methods of selecting

repertoire: 1) listening to publishers' recordings; 2) browsing at music stores; and 3)

consulting the [state] contest list (p. 3). Apfelstadt (2000) posits that directors should

select repertoire that will be accountable to the nine content standards set forth in the

MENC publication, National Standards for Music Education. Lenzini (1996) polled

several nationally known band directors with the question, "Which of the band works that

have been published in last ten years are likely to become part of the standard

repertoire?" (p. 17). The responses from some well-known figures in the profession are

extremely diverse and illuminating.

Menghini (1999) poses a cyclical selection of repertoire (rotating some basic

classics every three years) and also advocates the use of lists (p. 28). Akey (1997)

developed his own graded list, based on works that he actually prepared and performed

with his own junior high school band (p. 1). Reynolds (2000) parallels Akey in his

suggestion to make and keep running lists of repertoire. He states: "Lists can simplify the

process of selecting repertoire. Create one list of core repertoire selections for your

ensemble level and another of the core repertoire works for your medium (band,

orchestra, or choir)" (p. 32).

Reynolds suggests that younger, less experienced directors might obtain and refer

to the published state repertoire lists and states that "the Michigan, Texas, and Virginia

lists are especially good" (p. 32). Gaines (1998), on the other hand, cites two cautions

about lists:









First, these sources are not based on... empirical evidence
but rather, they seem to be based upon the opinions of the
compilers or some other unspecified criteria. Second, these
lists generally include only "serious" band literature (p. 1).

One last source of repertoire knowledge appears not to be addressed adequately in

undergraduate music education programs. Bauer (1996) reports that "teacher training also

needs to devote adequate time to developing students' knowledge of curricula, literature,

and the selection of literature based on curricular objectives" (p. 9). Other authorities

have made similar commentary about the lack of training in band repertoire in our

colleges and universities (Gage, 2000; Grant and Kohut, 1992; Gregory, 2000; Harris and

Walls, 1996; Rocco and McBeth, 1991; Sheldon, 1999).


The History of Repertoire Selection

Numerous studies have been conducted on the topic of repertoire selection, and a

frequent result of such studies has been the creation of a listing of musical works that

might comprise what could be termed a "core repertoire." Although there is no finite,

exhaustive, and definitive listing of any type at any level of grading, most such lists that

have been compiled over the years consist of works that are performable only by high

school and college bands.

Authorities agree that it is necessary for college instrumental music education

students, preparatory to a career as a teacher and conductor, to know the seminal works

for band (Hoffer, 2001; Menghini, 1999; Reynolds, 2000). However it appears that music

for young bands is often unknown to many college teachers, and the lack of a standard

repertoire for this level augments the problem. Thus, repertoire specifically designed for









the young band is not addressed in collegiate wind literature classes, which is a disservice

to those students preparing to become middle school or junior high school band directors

(Harris and Walls, 1996).

A small amount of reference materials and journal articles are directed toward the

middle school band director engaged in repertoire selection processes. Grashel (1989)

prepared a listing of 66 works for young bands. Kohut and Mohr-Sheahan compiled a list

of 62 works, and Cochran (1994) has a listing of 110 works although most of these are

above the grade two level of technical difficulty. Akey (1997) has compiled an annotated

listing of music including many titles appropriate for young band. Kreines (1989)

produced a massive annotated listing of concert music, some of which is appropriate for

young band. Dvorak (1986) has an extensive publication geared toward young band

music, and Miles and Dvorak (2001) have released an exhaustive compendium of 52

elementary level works.


Studies on Repertoire Selection

Several studies of varying depth and type have been conducted on the repertoire

selection processes used by band directors. Most of the studies focused on repertoire

selection at the high school and college level. Only a few studies have been conducted on

repertoire selection processes associated with the young band (Harris and Walls, 1996).

These studies are generally descriptive research, exploring the criteria and methodologies

used by band directors in the evaluation and selection of literature as well as the

influences affecting the repertoire selection process.

Nine studies were examined: 1) Gaines (1998) explored high school band

directors' repertoire selection processes; 2) Fiese (1997) examined Texas high school








band directors' qualitative judgments; 3) Bauer (1996) surveyed concert band music

selection processes of Ohio high school band directors; 4) Hughes (1990) surveyed Iowa

high school band directors on the subject of repertoire familiarity; 5) Fjeld (1959) sought

to determine which factors influenced the quality of music performed by Indiana high

school bands; 6) Gelpi (1984) studied the curriculum of the band program; 7) Harris and

Walls (1996) conducted a major study on the subjective quality of potential core works

for the young band; 8) Wareham (1968) devised a very complex system of grading band

music into six levels of difficulty; 9) Kvet (1996) surveyed eight nationally prominent

middle school band directors, asking for their "top ten" lists of repertoire appropriate for

the middle school band at the grades I-1l1 level.

Gaines Study

Gaines (1998) posed three questions as the basis of his study: 1) Do high school

band directors agree upon a "core" repertoire for the high school band medium?; 2) If so,

how extensive is this list and what repertoire constitutes this list?; and 3) Does this list

include works other than "serious" band music? If so, what pieces other than "serious"

repertoire are to be included? Gaines expostulated that band directors must be secure in

the knowledge that they are choosing performance material from a body of repertoire that

the profession agrees is important. The intent of Gaines' study was not to determine the

quality of the music considered to be core repertoire but only to investigate which

compositions made up such a list.

A questionnaire was prepared and sent to 1576 high school band directors

throughout the United States, drawn at random from the membership listings of the

Music Educators National Conference. A total of 437 usable responses were obtained.









A list of 209 band compositions compiled from 13 state music lists was randomly

ordered, and participants were asked to select one of three choices for each composition.

The choices were: Yes The composition should be part of a core repertoire for high

school band; No The composition should not be part of a core repertoire for the high

school band; or U The composition is unfamiliar to the respondent. A total of 106

compositions were then identified as being "essential to the repertoire" and a more

selective list of 17 works became the "core repertoire."

Gaines drew the following conclusions to his first and third questions proposed at

the outset of the study (the second question was answered with the list of compositions):

1) The profession does believe in an essential repertoire of 106 compositions; and 3) No,

the list of core repertoire does not include works other than "serious" literature, although

significant interest was demonstrated on the inclusion of march examples in a core

repertoire listing. Gaines' implications for further research included an exploration of the

march repertoire as well as an investigation of the understanding of the repertoire first-

year band directors leaving colleges and universities possess.

Fiese Study

Fiese (1997) investigated the qualitative judgments of high school band directors

of three unfamiliar wind band scores. Participants were asked to judge the relative

musical quality of the three works using nine musical criteria: 1) structural unity and

formal elements; 2) logical musical development; 3) contrast and variety in rhythm,

melody, harmony, texture, timbre, and dynamics; 4) activity and complexity; 5) effective

use of instruments; 6) creativity; 7) predictability; 8) evokes interest; 9) suitability for the

band medium.









Fiese's study was descriptive in nature. From an initial random selection of 100

band directors from the membership list of the Texas Bandmasters Association, 84

responded including 66 middle school or junior high school directors and 18 high school

directors. Although the study was conducted with strict subject anonymity, some

demographic information was collected, indicating a very wide range of experience and

teaching situations.

Three scores were composed by "different recognized composers of merit" and

were all in a modified concert overture form with similar durations. The composers

indicated that the works were in a "medium level of difficulty" and no extramusical

information was given to the participants (composer name, title, etc.); the scores were

simply labeled A, B, and C.

Participants were asked to complete the following tasks: 1) examine, compare and

rank the three scores on the basis of relative musical quality; 2) rank selected musical

criteria based on the importance of each to their qualitative decisions about the scores;

and 3) supply some general subject data. Participants were given five weeks to complete

the study.

The rankings of the three scores were analyzed using Kendall's Coefficient of

Concordance and indicated the level of agreement among the sample was low (W =. 14,

p>,05). The data analysis also indicated that the sample did not demonstrate significant

agreement as to the rankings of the scores on the basis of musical criteria or of musical

quality. The question of the relative musical quality of the three scores was not the

purpose of the study. The purpose was to examine band directors' agreement as to the









relative musical quality and the importance of selected musical criteria used in making a

qualitative assessment.

Among the implications for further research and investigation, Fiese suggested

that one possible project might take compositions already recognized as quality works in

the repertoire and attempt to determine what musical characteristics distinguish them

from other compositions on the basis of musical quality. He also suggested that teacher

training allow for opportunities to exercise qualitative judgments of band music scores in

their preservice experiences.

Bauer Study

Bauer (1996) sought to determine the methodologies used and the criteria

considered by high school band directors in choosing concert band repertoire for study

and performance.

From an initial random selection of 100 Ohio high school band directors, 65

returned usable responses to Bauer's Concert Band Music Selection Questionnaire

(CBMSQ). The questionnaire was constructed in three parts with 37 forced-choice

questions answered on a five-point Likert scale. Part one had three demographic type

questions. Part two contained eleven questions pertaining to the techniques directors used

to select repertoire (see Table 2.1). Part three involved 23 questions dealing with

curricular and non-curricular issues directors considered when selecting repertoire (see

Table 2.2).

The top three techniques (shown in Table 2.1) used when selecting concert band

music listed by respondents were: 1) listening to publishers' promotional recordings; 2)

browsing at the music store; and 3) consulting the Ohio Music Education Association









contest list. Bauer suggests that these three techniques collectively could provide a well-

rounded basis for repertoire selection although he cautions that listening to promotional

recordings "has some inherent weaknesses, since publishers generally record only their

newest arrangements, and these recordings are for the primary purpose of selling music."


Table 2.1
Techniques Used in Selecting Music

Responses (N = 65)

Technique Used Rank
Listen to publisher's promotional recordings 1
Browse at the music store 2
Consult the Ohio Music Educators Association contest list 3
Listen to performances by bands other than my own 4
Attend workshops, clinics, and conventions 5
Read new music reviews in professional journals 6
Seek recommendations from colleagues 7
Seek recommendations from music store personnel 8
Solicit student input 9
Consult lists of music festivals other than OMEA 10


The top four factors considered by directors when selecting concert band music

were: 1) their band's ability to execute the technical demands of the composition; 2) their

band's ability to execute the musical demands of the composition; 3) the ensemble

performance concepts (such as balance, blend, and intonation) that can be taught through

the composition; and 4) the musical stylistic concepts (such as phrasing, articulation, and

dynamic contrast) that can be taught through the composition (see Table 2.2).

Bauer's implications for further study included some form of assistance to

directors in conceptualizing and implementing this type of curricular approach to the

concert band. Bauer also addresses the need for improved teacher training in the area of

knowledge of curricula, literature, and repertoire selection based on curricular objectives.








Table 2.2
Factors Considered When Selecting Music

Responses (N = 65)

Factor Considered Rank

Your band's ability to execute the technical demands of the composition 1

Your band's ability to execute the musical demands of the composition 2

Ensemble performance concepts that can be taught through the composition 3
(balance, blend, intonation, etc.)

Musical stylistic concepts that can be taught through the composition 4
(phrasing, legato/staccato/marcato style, dynamic contrast, etc.)

Technical aspects that can be taught through the composition (rhythms, 5
finger patterns, etc.)

Type of composition (march, overture, suite, etc.) 6

Choosing music through which specific musical elements can be taught 7
(melody, harmony, rhythm, form, etc.)

Choosing music that you feel is a standard of the repertoire your students 8
should know

Aesthetic response available to students through the composition 9

Programming needs for a specific concert 10

Your own musical preference 11

How familiar you are with other works by the composer and/or arranger 12

How the composition fits into the overall curriculum of literature for the 13
school year

Theoretical and/or historical concepts that can be taught through the 14
composition

Composition's audience appeal 15


(continued)








Table 2.2 continued

Historical era of the composition (baroque, classical, romantic, etc.) 16

Choosing music representative of a specific genre (classical, jazz, rock, etc.) 17

Choosing music through which a specific composer's musical style can 18
be taught

Price of arrangement 19

Your students' musical preferences 20

Choosing music representative of a particular world culture 21

Hughes Study

Hughes (1990) surveyed Iowa high school band directors, asking them to respond

to the following statements regarding 50 works for band: 1) Familiar (F) I know this

work, either because I have performed or heard it; 2) Performance (P) I have performed

this work with an ensemble; 3) Study (St) I have not performed the work, but I have

studied the score; 4) Score (Sc) I own a score to this work; and 5) Recording (R) I

own a recording of this work.

Fourteen compositions, including one march example (Sousa's Liberty Bell) were

identified at an 80% or higher rate of familiarity. Responses for the other categories of

performance, study, and score or recording ownership, varied greatly, even among the top

fourteen compositions.

Hughes also asked open-ended questions of his respondents: 1) Do you have a

core curriculum? (apparently referring to a core repertoire); 2) Name ten pieces all of

your students shall study or perform during their high school years; 3) List five

contemporary composers for winds and percussion; 4) What major works for winds and








percussion will you be studying this year?; 5) List at least five recordings you own

(excluding publisher's promotions) of significant band works.

Hughes does not cite statistical information relevant to his study but does make

the conclusion that conductors frequently articulated their core repertoire, implying that

there is a body of literature that they believe students should study. Hughes also made the

interesting observation that the composers performed most frequently in the 1988-1989

Iowa high school band contests, Claude T. Smith and James Swearingen, did not appear

in the survey's must-play list. Hughes states: "Apparently there is a disparity between

what we say is significant and what we choose to perform" (p. 62).

Fjeld Study

The Fjeld research is included in the current study because of it was one of the

earliest investigations into the topic of quality in band music, which in turn is a

significant factor in the repertoire selection process. Fjeld identified and delineated ten

criteria for determining quality in band music. A panel of experts used the ten criteria to

determine the quality of the performed repertoire of Indiana high school bands. Fjeld

concluded that experts agreed on the importance of most of the criteria used in the

selection of music.

Gelpi Study

Gelpi (1984) explored the curriculum of the band program and the impact of

repertoire on this curriculum. She stated that band curricula should include three areas: 1)

playing and studying works from all historical periods; 2) instruction in the

characteristics and techniques of performing the music of each style period; and 3) a








rehearsal environment in which playing skills, along with musical knowledge and

understanding, can simultaneously be developed.

Gelpi addressed the function and contribution of five musical elements (rhythm,

melody, harmony, texture, and form) to the baroque, classical, romantic, and twentieth-

century historical style periods. She also conducted an analysis of one work from each

period to demonstrate the procedure of teaching a composition in this manner, discussed

her beliefs as to the type of rehearsal techniques that would be most effective in

implementing a curriculum of this nature, and included a representative list of band

repertoire from each style period.

Harris and Walls Study

Harris and Walls (1996) conducted research under the auspices of the Texas

Music Educators Association to identify older works that might be included in a

suggested core repertoire for the young band, which they defined as being comprised of

second- and third-year musicians.

The study was conducted in two phases. Phase One identified works to be

included in a suggested core repertoire for young band. A quantitative survey was made

of the works appearing on the Grade 1 and 2 sections of the University Interscholastic

League Prescribed Music List (PML) spanning the years 1967 to 1995. Of 395 works that

appeared at least once on the PMLs, 174 were at Grade 1 and 225 at Grade 2. Only 18 of

these 395 works appeared on the PMLs for more than 20 years, including nine works at

each grade level.

Phase Two of the project gathered input and opinions from experienced middle

school band directors. These educators answered questions concerning familiarity of the








18 works, educational utility, musical quality, and teacher-student appeal of the works.

The experts were selected according to recommendation from public school music

administrators and supervisors of educators who had taught for more than 12 years. Of 50

directors invited to participate, 42 agreed and 30 (71%) actually responded.

The questionnaire was arranged in two sections. The first section was

demographic in nature, while the second asked specific questions about the 18 works

identified in Phase One of the study. Likert-type scales were used to answer questions,

and the survey included the question, "Do you think this work should be included in a

'standard repertoire' list for young bands?"

Responses to the survey are given in Table 2.3. Harris and Walls point out that

many of the 18 works were written in older, fuller arrangement style, in contrast to

today's simplified instrumentation practices for young band. Most of these 18 works have

three clarinet parts, three trumpet parts, four horn parts, and three trombone parts. From a

purely historical standpoint, these 18 works deserve attention as works that exemplified

the concept of young band music from the 1950s and 1960s.

Harris and Walls suggest that the fact that these 18 works appeared on the

PMLs for over 20 years is significant. They state that while longevity of appearance on a

published list might not be an indicator of quality, it certainly could establish the caliber

of the work. Future research implications included the use of the 18 works as a starting

point for a core repertoire list for young band.









Table 2.3
Works Appearing for 20+ Years on the Texas University Interscholastic League
Prescribed Music List 1967-1994 and Percentage of Teachers Voting for Inclusion

Responses (N = 30) _________
Grade Title Composer Times on % for Rank
___ List Inclusion
1 Courtly Festival Purcell/Gordon 7 100%/ 1
1 Beau Galant Telemann/Gordon 7 60% 13
1 Chester Billings/Tolmage 6 83% 3
1 Danse Pavane Cacavas 6 55% 15
1 Cantabile Finlayson 6 700% 9
1 Allegro, Adagio, and Akers 5 67% 10
____Alleluia___
1 Air for Band Erickson 5 80% 6
1 Hansel and Gretel Humperdinck/ 5 55% 14
Overture Erickson____________
1 Little Scotch Suite Jackson 5 62% 12
2 Sarabande and Corelli/Johnson 7 50%/ 16
Gavotte_________
2 Elegy Mendelssohn/ 7 71% 8
Erickson
2 Two Gaelic Folk Tyra 7 82% 4
Songs
2 Symphonic Overture Carter 6 84% 2
2 Welsh Folk Suite Davis 6 50% 17
2 Album Leaf Wagner/Johnson 6 50% 18
2 From Shire and Sea Davis 6 81% 5
2 The Black Knight Grundman 6 71% 7
2 An Occasional Suite Handel 5 67% 11


Wareham Study

Wareham (1968) conducted an involved study of grading band music into six

levels of difficulty, based on a mathematic system of scoring for different factors within a

given work. Wareham devised a scoring system that provided criteria for defining the

DoD, or Degree of Technical and Musical Difficulty. The spectrum of difficulty of band

music was divided into six degrees, with DoD-1 representing very easy, DoD-2 easy,

DoD-3 medium easy, DoD-4 moderately difficult, DoD-5 difficult, and DoD-6 very









difficult. He used seven categories to determine the DoD of a musical composition 1)

key signature; 2) meter signature; 3) tempo; 4) rhythm patterns; 5) instrument range, 6)

fatigue factor; and 7) instrumentation. The fatigue factor was sub-divided into four

components: 1) performance time; 2) metronomic counts; 3) note-head count; and 4)

musical condiments.

Pizer (1990) expanded upon the work of Wareham. The result is a complex yet

intriguing method of evaluating and ultimately grading all band music according to sets

of very explicit criteria.

Kvet Study

Kvet (1996) observed that while most band directors can identify a standard

repertoire for band, the list of works rarely contained selections at the 1-3 grade level

appropriate for middle school ensembles. Urged by Charles Hoffer, president at the time

ofMENC, Kvet sought to develop a list of quality literature as well as the specific

reasons educators made such choices in repertoire selection.

More a descriptive study than any other type of the nine reported in this review of

the literature, Kvet's work derived from eight well-respected middle school band experts

a list of 70 compositions. His finished work is in the style of a manual and includes

highly subjective commentary from the eight educators surveyed. The work is

particularly useful for teachers in their first and second years in the field.


Conclusions

This review of the literature suggests that there is agreement among the

authorities in music education in general, and band authorities in specific, concerning

repertoire selection processes and procedures. Five areas of agreement have surfaced.








First, repertoire selection is a major task of a high degree of responsibility of the

band director. The selection of appropriate repertoire is also an indicator of director

competency. Second, authorities stress the importance of a personal philosophy of music

education along with a thorough knowledge of band literature as prerequisites to

informed decisions concerning repertoire selection. Third, specific criteria for selecting

repertoire must be utilized. Fourth, authorities on bands and band music generally agree

on the criteria to be employed when evaluating and selecting repertoire. Finally,

authorities agree that repertoire selected must elicit an aesthetic response from the

performers, the conductor, and the audience.

Authorities stress the inclusion of repertoire from all historical style periods as

well as the inclusion of culturally relevant works in band programs and curricula. Some

studies have suggested that directors do not always program the most significant

literature. Some studies also suggest that music selected for young band does not always

encompass a variety of styles, historical periods, and cultural heritage.

Throughout the literature, frequent references are made to the aspect of quality of

repertoire selected. The concept of quality has always been, and likely always will be, a

highly subjective phenomenon, yet it is a topic about which many leaders in the music

education profession have written extensively.

If the authorities implore teachers to study and perform only works of quality,

some definitive methodology of determining quality needs to be devised. On the other

hand, given the subjective nature of the aspect of quality, this might well be an

impossibility. It appears from the review of the literature that the ability to recognize

quality in a given work grows with experience.








Lastly, several questions arise from this examination of the professional literature

on the topic of repertoire selection practices and procedures. First, how do directors go

about determining the quality of a work? What methods are used by directors to evaluate

quality across a spectrum of styles, historical periods, and genres? Is a work worthy of

study and performance even if all of the criteria of quality are not met? Are works of

lesser quality never to be studied or performed? What about works from the popular

genre, or transcriptions of keyboard or orchestral works for the band medium?

It appears that the majority of the studies and references cited in this review of the

literature cite quality as the leading indicator of worth of a given composition. However,

further investigation of the aspect of quality in music, especially in the new millennium,

with an ever-expanding vocabulary of multicultural as well as electronic genres, is

unquestionably warranted.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


Introduction

The purpose of this study was to collect data and gather information relevant to

the development of procedures and methods designed to amplify 1) the repertoire

selection processes and procedures of expert middle school concert band directors, and 2)

the development of a core repertoire for the middle school concert band.

As evidenced by the literature review, this is a relatively unexplored area of study.

Not only is there a small body of literature concerned with the repertoire of the middle

school concert band, there also has been no prior large-scale systematic research executed

to date. To obtain the information needed, a two-phase research design of a qualitative

nature was developed around preliminary interviews and a questionnaire instrument sent

to selected expert middle school band directors.

This research methodology is similar in design as developed by Glaser and

Strauss (1967), which they referred to as "grounded theory." A brief summary of

grounded theory follows, as well as a report of the exploratory study, the criteria used for

the selection of the survey population, the instruments for data collection, the survey

returns, and the data analysis used.

Grounded Theory

Glaser (1978, p. 2) states that "grounded theory is based on the systematic

generating of theory from data." This research approach does not commence with any

50








preconceived ground, or idea, but rather enables the researcher to discover the

"ground" in this case the problems and challenges of repertoire selection for the

middle school concert band.

Grounded theory is a four-pronged methodology that enables sometimes ordinary

qualitative data to be collected in a highly systematic and rigorous manner (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). The four steps are as follows: 1) focus group interviews; 2) identification

of salient issues; 3) surveying the population sample; and 4) generating theory based

solely on the data collected. It is imperative to approach such research with as few

preconceived ideas as possible: the researcher's "mandate is to remain open to what is

actually happening" (Glaser, 1978, p.3).

Grounded theory represents a significant improvement over the traditional

approach to qualitative research that typically consists of detailed descriptions involving

little or no systematic study and interpretation. It incorporates a change from the attitude

of data fitting the theory, to one in which the theory is designed to fit the data (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). The research issues in this study defined its basic qualitative nature,

appropriate to an initial large-scale study of the topic.


The First Phase: The Exploratory Study

In the early stages of this study, it became readily apparent that there was little

literature on the topic of repertoire selection for the middle school concert band. It was

even more evident, through the study and examination of repertoire lists from state and

national organizations that the vast majority of such lists tended to focus on high school

and college level bands.








Focus Interviews

Initial contacts consisted of telephone, electronic, and in-person interviews with

four selected expert middle school band specialists. These contacts were based on their

immediate accessibility to the researcher. The four initial contacts were interviewed

separately as opposed to in a group setting. Preliminary interviews were conducted to

determine the types of questions necessary for the questionnaire. This decision was based

on the fact that there is scant literature available on this topic.

The four middle school band directors initially contacted were all highly

experienced teachers at this level. The directors spent their entire careers in one county in

the metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, area. Their careers spanned a period of time when

virtually all of the bands in their county functioned at a nationally renowned level of

success. All four had taken bands under their leadership to such events as the Mid-West

International Band and Orchestra Clinic as well as numerous clinics and conferences

throughout the United States. The four directors have mentored and advised scores of

young band directors throughout the nation. Each of these four directors had an unbroken

career-long record of earning superior ratings with their top bands, and the average

teaching experience among the four was 27.5 years. Lastly, and perhaps most

importantly, all four directors were considered experts in the area of repertoire and

repertoire selection for the middle school concert band.

The interviews followed an open-format outline of questioning. The initial

emphasis was to determine interest and the need, if any, for this study. It became readily

apparent from the responses of these four initial contacts that considerable interest was








indicated in the topic. The results of the exploratory phase of this research are outlined in

Chapter IV.

Identification of Salient Issues

On the basis of the interviews with the four initial contacts, several areas were

identified that warranted exploration. These areas included repertoire selection practices,

specific repertoire selected, the reasons for selection of specific repertoire, and the

possibility of the generation of a core repertoire list for the middle school concert band It

was determined early in this phase that a significant portion of the study should be

devoted to the sources utilized by the directors to evaluate and select repertoire. The early

findings associated with repertoire selection, particularly the means by which directors

selected and actually programmed specific repertoire, were highly consistent with the

ultimate outcome of the study. Lastly, the repertoire lists from several state and national

music/band organizations were examined, revealing significant differences in repertoire

listed, although a great number of works appeared consistently on almost all lists.


The Second Phase: Surveying Directors

The second phase of the research project consisted of the use of a survey

instrument, delivered either electronically or through postal mail to the selected

participants.

Development of the Survey Instrument

Two preliminary versions of the questionnaire were designed by the researcher to

obtain data from the directors under study. The two versions differed only in appearance,

depending upon whether it was in electronic form (for e-mail return) or printed form (for

postal mail return.)








The salient issues derived from the exploratory study were explored in both open-

and closed-format question items. Most of the basic information needed for the study was

obtained through the use of a Likert-type format in which directors assessed 1) the

sources of repertoire selection and 2) the factors affecting repertoire selection.

Demographic information, including data on a particular director's community, school,

band program, and educational background was collected through a check-list format in

which the directors identified responses appropriate to their particular situation.

The survey instrument concluded with a listing of 85 selected compositions,

selected for inclusion in the survey according to the following criteria: 1) of the 30 state

repertoire lists available to the researcher, a given work had to appear on at least 80%

(24) of the lists; and 2) of the four repertoire lists available from national organizations or

publications, as opposed to strictly state music association lists, a given work had to

appear on at least two of the lists. The compositions were not limited to any specific

genre or format; if a work appeared on the required number of lists, it was assumed to

have at least some artistic and educational merit.

All works on all lists examined were graded by level of difficulty, i.e., I, III;

thus, all works were assumed to be serious concert works. Marches, show tunes, popular

pieces, and novelty numbers customarily are not accorded the same status as serious

concert music; therefore these types of works were not included in this study. However,

transcriptions of works for other media, including orchestral transcriptions, were included

in this study, provided that the two criteria for selection listed previously were met.

Each director was asked to indicate whether or not each composition had been

performed by him or her in a festival or other adjudicated setting, or on a major concert








program such as a conference, convention, or clinic. The respondents were also asked to

indicate, for each composition, its importance for being included on a listing of the "core"

repertoire for the middle school concert band. An opportunity was afforded at the end of

the survey for directors to nominate specific works that did not appear in the list of 85

works on the survey instrument.

A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the stronger and weaker points of the

questionnaires before they were issued to the survey population. Six expert middle school

band directors and three internationally known composers of middle school concert band

music were selected to participate in the pilot study. The directors and composers were

selected on the basis of availability, willingness to assist in the test of the survey

instrument, and a representation of different teaching situations to be studied.

The six directors taught in three different states and in very different populations

in terms of socioeconomic strata. One of the six directors selected was a participant in the

exploratory study (in which questionnaire items were partially developed) and the other

five directors were either recommended through state music association officers or were

known personally to the researcher. The six directors had records of superior ratings at

adjudicated events as well as performances at state and regional music clinics and

conferences. The six directors resided in the states of Georgia, South Carolina, and

Texas, and the average middle school band teaching experience among the six directors

was 20.9 years.

The responses from the pilot study (with a 100% return rate) indicated some

confusion with terminology in one section of the survey, the clarity of some of the

questions, and the overall length and time demand of the survey. The terminology issues








were corrected for the final version of the survey instrument. Three questions were

clarified, and some items were eliminated from the survey, particularly the demographic

aspect, in order to shorten the length of the final version.

In the initial instrument, six directors as well as three composers of middle school

band music were polled. Two of the three composers indicated similar concerns as the six

directors regarding the clarity of some questions. All three composers suggested that the

length of the survey might be shortened. One composer disagreed with the grading

system of some of her compositions. The final version of the survey instrument could not

be sent to composers, however, because of the possibility of bias toward a given

composer's own works.

Upon completion of the survey design, it was submitted to the researcher's

committee chair for evaluation and comment. After suggested revisions were made, the

survey was further reviewed by three expert middle school band directors. One director

was a participant in the exploratory study, one director was a participant in the pilot

study, and one director was new to the research process of this study. As before, all three

directors had records of success with middle school bands and an average teaching

experience at the middle school level of 25.3 years. Some very minor changes were

suggested, and implemented, to clarify the instructions for completing the survey.

Population Sample for the Study

The first step in the inquiry process was to determine who should be qualified to

make judgments about repertoire selection practices and to contribute specific works to

be included on a core repertoire listing for the middle school concert band. An initial list

of expert middle school band directors was developed from the author's own knowledge









of successful band directors. Specific criteria were required of a director in order to be

included in the study. These criteria were as follows: 1) at least ten years of experience in

teaching middle school band; 2) a successful "track record" of festival and contest

ratings; and 3) a teaching career in a middle school (or, in some cases, junior high school)

setting. Additional factors that influenced the inclusion of directors in the study were: 1)

performances by middle school concert bands under their direction at state, regional, and

national music conferences and conventions; 2) specialized knowledge of the middle

school concert band and its problems, as evidenced by presentation of clinics and

workshops; and 3) consistent success with their bands both in the rehearsal room and in

adjudicated performance settings.

Names of participants were generated from recommendations made by state

music association officers as well as from membership rosters and the published program

books of such conferences as the Mid-West International Band and Orchestra Clinic, the

National Band Association, and various state music conventions. The survey was sent to

163 expert middle school concert band directors in 22 states, as illustrated in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1
States Represented by the Survey Participants

State Number of Surveys Sent Number of Respondents
(N=163) (N=130)

Alabama 8 7
Arizona 6 4
California 5 4
Colorado 3 2
Florida 15 11

(continued)











Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana

Mississippi
Michigan
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina

Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas

Virginia
Wisconsin


Table 3.1 continued

10
10
7
4
7

7
11
3
7
9

8
5
6
4
20

6
2


Descriptive data were collected to 1) identify the demographic characteristics of

the questionnaire respondents; 2) identify the styles and types of repertoire selected by

expert middle school concert band directors; 3) determine what methods and resources

were used by these directors to select repertoire; 4) determine what, if any, factors

influenced the repertoire selection decisions of these directors; 5) determine what specific

compositions for middle school concert band constituted quality in literature; 6)

determine levels of agreement or disagreement among expert middle school concert band

directors concerning specific compositions that might be identified as "core;" and 7)

determine if any relationships existed between the self-identified educational settings,

teacher experience, quality of repertoire selected, and overall success of the directors and

their programs.








Survey Procedures

Director Contact

Approximately one week before the distribution of the survey instruments, an e-

mail was sent to each director on the list informing them of the project, the expected uses

of the information obtained, and inviting their participation in the research (see Appendix

A). In cases where no e-mail address was available, this same information was mailed to

the director. It should be noted that approximately 80% of the directors responded

positively to the initial outreach through e-mail, and 70% ultimately responded through

this method in returning the survey. The other directors used postal mail for

communication with the researcher.

A cover letter (see Appendix B) explained the purpose of the research and the

instructions for completing the questionnaire. The questionnaire itself followed, along

with a self-addressed, stamped envelope for those participants without access to the

internet for e-mail responses.

Follow-up contacts were made, again using e-mail, as well as postcards, in an

attempt to encourage directors to respond to the survey. The follow-up letter is included

in Appendix C.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire (Appendix D) was developed from factors identified by expert

middle school band directors as important and relevant to the repertoire selection process.

The researcher's own experiences as a middle school band director, as well as discussions

with respected colleagues, were moderately influential in the development of the survey

instrument.








The questionnaire used in this study utilized both open- and closed-format

questions. Part I (21 questions) requested demographic information on the community,

the school, the band program, and the director. Part H requested information, using a

Likert scale of responses, about the sources of repertoire selection employed by the

director (22 items), as well as the factors affecting repertoire selection (31 items). Lastly,

a listing of 85 compositions was presented to the participants, requesting assessment of

the listed works in terms of being representative of a "core" repertoire for the middle

school concert band. On the final page of the survey, directors were invited to submit

compositions they believed to be "essential" or a part of the "core" middle school concert

band repertoire. Respondents were asked to provide the title and the name of the

composer/arranger, and to grade the work according to a scale of I, I, or IH, which was

parallel to the system of grading used in this study.

Responses to the survey were to be made either through manually completing a

survey response sheet (for the postal mail respondents) or through direct response to e-

mail by checking off responses or providing written responses to the appropriate

questions.

Response to the pilot survey indicated the possibility of directors being hesitant to

complete and return a survey instrument that appeared to be overly long. Numerous

comments were received regarding the length of the pilot survey. Although research has

failed to demonstrate any connection or relationship between the length of a survey and

the response rate (Adams & Gale, 1982), it was determined that the final version of the

survey instrument needed to be concise, attractive, organized, and above all, simple to

execute the responses. The decision to use an electronic format (e-mail) was based upon









the desire of the researcher to obtain responses quickly from a satisfactory percentage of

respondents. Babbie (1973) suggested a 50% return rate as being necessary to validate

research studies of this type.


Survey Returns

The initial focus interviews with the four directors were conducted between

September 22 and October 1, 2000. The pilot study with the six directors and three

composers was conducted between October 19 and November 8, 2000. The final version

of the survey was distributed to 184 selected directors between January 16 and January

20, 2001, with 163 agreeing (in response to the cover letter) to participate in the study. A

total of 96 surveys were returned by February 1,2001, after which a follow-up e-mail or

postcard (see Appendix C) was sent to the remaining participants. An additional 44

surveys were returned by February 20, 2001, for a total of 140 responses. Five surveys

were incomplete or incorrectly answered, and five additional surveys answered

electronically had serious formatting problems, leaving a total of 130 usable survey

instruments. Thus, the overall return rate for the questionnaire was 79.75% from the

directors who agreed to participate in the study. The significance of such a high response

rate might possibly be attributed to the speed and ease of using electronic mail.


Data Analysis

The length of the questionnaire (seven pages in the printed format, and "several

screens" on the electronic version, depending on the e-mail program used by the

participant) dictated that as many closed-format, check-off questions should be included

as appropriate. Some of the questions utilized an open-format design, with space for the








director to respond in their own words in a manner descriptive of their own unique

situation.

The open-format responses on the demographic section of the survey were

provided as an opportunity to amplify responses given on the check-off type response.

However, it is worth noting that such responses were minimally used by the respondents

Open-format responses were a necessity on the concluding portion of the survey, in

which respondents were invited to submit additional compositions they believed to be

"basic" or a part of the "core" repertoire. Space was provided on the response form for 12

compositions; some respondents did not add compositions, while others provided rather

exhaustive personal listings.

The two types of questions required different modes of data analysis. The closed-

format responses were relatively simple to record and tabulate. Each answer was coded

numerically and recorded on a spreadsheet. Open-format responses, particularly on the

section asking for additional compositions not listed among the researcher's own list of

85, were somewhat difficult to categorize. The decision was made after the surveys were

returned to add a work to the list of 85 if 50% or more of the respondents listed the work.

A total of seven additional works from 87 submitted were added to the original list of 85,

for a total of 92 compositions.

Following extensive analysis of the compositions from the list of 92 checked as

being worthy of "core" status, the decision was made by the researcher that the works

cited by at least 50% (N = 130; 65 or more) of the respondents would comprise the

"basic" repertoire list, and works cited by at least 70%/ (N = 130; 91 or more) of the

respondents would comprise the "core" repertoire list.





63


The coding process for the closed-format questions was checked for coder error

and reliability. Coder reliability was checked through five proof readings of the entered

data, both by the researcher and an independent associate. All of the information was

recorded in numerical format on the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet program. The final goal

of the entire process was to generate accurate and usable information relevant to

repertoire selection processes of middle school concert band directors and to develop a

core repertoire list for this medium.















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS


The first phase of this research consisted of preliminary focus interviews with

four selected expert middle school concert band directors, all of whom were

immediately available to the researcher. Each of the four initial contacts had highly

successful careers as middle school band directors, with an average of 27.5 years of

teaching experience in the area of middle school or junior high school band. Three of

the four directors had earned such honors as having their bands perform at the

prestigious Mid-West International Band and Orchestra Clinic, in Chicago, and all

four directors had a perfect record of consecutive "superior" ratings at district and

state level adjudicated festivals and contests. Additionally, all four directors had

presented numerous clinics and workshops at district, state, and regional conventions

and similar events.

The Exploratory Interviews

A single question was posed to the four directors interviewed: "How do you

go about choosing the music that your band performs?" Within the established

parameters of concert band music selected specifically for the directors' top groups,

the four directors responded that music selected for festivals/contests (or otherwise

"major" concert performances scheduled during the academic year) was typically

selected according to the state music association list. Directors also indicated that








music publisher materials (scores for perusal and sample demonstration recordings)

were almost always consulted prior to selecting music. Each director indicated that

his/her own personal repertoire knowledge was influential in the selection process.

With a combined 102 years of teaching experience among the four directors, it

became apparent that each director had a personal library of time-tested, quality

works. It was interesting to note in analyzing the data obtained from the surveys (in

the second phase of the study) that virtually all of the "personal" works cited by the

four directors appeared on the final core and basic repertoire lists that resulted from

this study.

It was also determined from the initial interviews that, as observed by the four

directors, younger directors (i.e., first- and second-year directors) are usually not

properly prepared to select repertoire for middle school concert bands. All four

directors postulated that undergraduate college music courses devote little, if any,

time to the topic of repertoire for the young band. While studies of repertoire for more

advanced ensembles such as high school and college bands might be covered in

undergraduate or graduate courses, the area of middle school band literature remains

largely unexplored.

A review of the literature during the exploratory study phase revealed scant

information on the topic of middle school concert band repertoire selection. Three of

the four directors interviewed brought this fact to light during discussions. Although

numerous studies have been conducted on repertoire for advanced ensembles, only a

few published articles exist pertaining to the middle school band, and even fewer

systematic studies have been undertaken on the topic.









The Questionnaire

The second phase of this research consisted of a questionnaire that was sent to

163 selected expert middle school concert band directors in 22 states. The purpose of

the questionnaire was to expand upon the results of the exploratory interviews The

topics covered included 1) demographics; 2) sources of repertoire selection, 3) factors

affecting repertoire selection; and 4) consideration of repertoire that might be

considered "basic" or "core."

Originally 184 directors were contacted to determine the level of interest and

willingness to participate in this study. A total of 163 directors responded favorably,

and the survey instrument was distributed largely through electronic mail and also

through postal mail. A total of 130 usable questionnaires were returned, for a

response rate of 79.75%.

Part I, sections A and B of the survey instrument collected responses

pertaining to demographic data on the following areas: 1) community served by a

school, 2) grade levels contained within a school, 3) enrollment of a school,

4) socioeconomic status of a school, 5) ethnic composition of a school population,

6) any special academic considerations of a school, and 7) type of academic calendar

used by a school.

Table 4.1 shows the distribution of responses concerned with the size of the

community each school serves. No statistically significant relationship was

determined between director response and the size of the community served, and

none of the directors indicated working in a rural environment. Slightly less than half









described a school community as a small town or city, whereas slightly more than

half described it as a medium or large city.


Table 4.1
Size of Community Served by the School

Community (N = 130) Frequency

Rural (Population <1000) 0

Small Town (1000-10000) 14

Small City (10000-50000) 33

Medium City (50000-100000) 45

Large City (>100000) 38


Percentage

0.00%0

10.77%

25.38%

34.62%

29.23%


Table 4.2 shows the grade level arrangement within each school. While some

schools contained different combinations of grades, all of the schools described as a

part of the response to the questionnaire contained at least grades seven and eight.

These two grades, along with grade six, are widely accepted as the common grades of

the typical middle school structure.









Table 4.2
Grade Level Distribution of Schools

School Grade Levels (N = 130)

Grade Frequency Percenta

K 3 2.310/

1 5 3.840/

2 5 3.840/

3 5 3.840/

4 5 3.840/

5 20 15.380/

6 125 96.150/


Grade

7

8

9

10

11

12


ge

/0

/
0

0
0

0

0
0o

a,


Frequency

130

130

30

25

25

25


Percentage

100.00%0

100.00%

23.07%

19.23%

19.23%

19.23%


Table 4.3 shows the enrollment for each school described in the survey

responses. Most schools (83%) contained populations between 500 and 1500. Table

4.4 shows the socioeconomic composition of the school communities described in the

survey responses. Over half of the communities described had family incomes

reported as being in the $35000-$70000 range. Table 4.5 describes the ethnic

composition of the student populations of the schools. Significant minority

populations were reported from 88 (68%) of the school populations.









Table 4.3
Size of School Populations

Populations (N = 130)

<500

500-750

750-1000

1000-1250

1250-1500

>1500


Frequency

8

36

22

23

27

14


Percentage

6.15%

27.69%

16.92%

17.69%

20.77%

10.77%


Table 4.4
School Socioeconomic Composition of School Communities

Socioeconomic Composition (N = 130)

Class/Income Frequency Percentage

Lower Class
Family Incomes <$20000 4 7.69%

Lower Middle Class
Family Incomes $20000-$35000 18 13.84%

Middle Class
Family Incomes $35000-$70000 72 55.38%

Upper Middle Class
Family Incomes $70000-$ 100000 24 18.46%

Upper Class
Family Incomes >$100000 12 9.23%


Tables 4.6 and 4.7 report any descriptions of special school situations,

including special programs and special calendars. Over 90% of schools described

in the responses did not offer special programs nor did they adhere to any









non-traditional calendars. Two schools were designed as fine arts or performing arts

magnet schools in addition to a traditional school program. Three schools were

identified as having advanced middle school programs preparatory to the

International Baccalaureate Program (customarily a special program found only in

high schools) although no special emphasis was reported as being placed upon music

or the arts in these middle schools.


Table 4.5
Ethnic Composition of Schools

Ethnic Composition (N = 130)

Minority Population

<10% of school enrollment

10/o%-25% of school enrollment

25%-50% of school enrollment

50%-75% of school enrollment

>75% of school enrollment


Table 4.6
Special School Programs

Special Programs (N = 130)

Type of Program

Fine Arts/Performing Arts Magnet

International Baccalaureate Program

No special program


Frequency

42

26

40

18

4


Frequency

2

3

125


Percentage

32.31%

20.00%

30.77%

13.84%

3.08%


Percentage

1.54%

2.31%

96.15%








Table 4.7
Types of School Calendars

School Calendars (N = 130)

Type of Calendar Frequency Percentage

Year-round 7 5.38%

No special calendar 123 94.62%



Part I, section C of the survey instrument collected information about the band

programs described by directors. Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 describe the band

performance classes of the respondents. Directors were asked to describe the student

enrollments of band performance classes held during the regular school day. They

were asked to account only for band classes, not other classes such as keyboards,

chorus, general music, etc., whether or not the responding director taught such a class.

The data reveal that most (94%) of the band performance classes in given schools had

total enrollments of greater than 100 students. With regard to class size of each band

performance class, directors reported that most (86%) of their individual classes had

more than 25 students enrolled.

Table 4.11 shows the responses of directors to the grade level of music

performed by their most advanced ensemble according to their state's required or

festival music list. Obviously there is some overlapping of grade levels between states

and between literature selected for performance. The responses in Table 4.11 indicate

the director's description of the grade level of the music without regard to any

standardization of technical or other aspects of music selected, with most (65%)

music falling in the grade III to grade IV classifications.









Table 4.8
Total Enrollments in Band Performance Classes Within Schools

Band Performance Classes (N = 130)

Student Enrollment Frequency Percentage

<50 1 0.77%

50-100 7 5.38%

100-150 19 14.62%

150-200 15 11.54%

200-250 35 26.92%

250-300 36 27.69%/

>300 17 13.08%


Table 4.9
Student Enrollments in Individual Band Performance Classes of>25 Students

Student Enrollments (N = 130)

Number of Classes Frequency Percentage

0 4 3.08%

1 7 5.38%

2 7 5.38%

3 52 40.00%/

4 21 16.15%

5 or more 39 30.00%









Table 4.10
Student Enrollments in Individual Band Performance Classes of<25 Students


Student Enrollments (N = 130)

Number of Classes

0

1

2

3


Frequency

40

43

24

16


Percentage

30.77%

33.08%

18.46%

12.31%

3.08%

2.31%


5 or more


Table 4.11
Grade Level of Music Performed by the Most Advanced Ensemble in a School


Grade Level of Music (N = 130)

Grade Level Frequency Percentage

I 5 3.84%

I and II 5 3.84%

II 7 5.38%

II and Lu 9 6.92%

In 39 30.00%

III and IV 45 34.62%


Grade Level

IV

IV and V

V

V and VI

VI


Table 4.12 asked directors whether or not they used a repertoire list of any

type in selecting music for their most advanced ensemble. The vast majority reported

using some type of list for repertoire selection.


Frequency

18

2

0

0

0


Percentage

13.84%

1.54%

0.00%

0.00%/0

0.000/0









Table 4.12
Use of Repertoire Lists by Directors

Director Use (N = 130)


Yes

No


Frequency

112

18


Percentage

86.15%

13.85%


Part I, section D of the questionnaire asked questions about the director's

educational background, degrees, principal and secondary instruments, institutions

from which degrees were earned, and teaching experience.

Most (89%/) directors reported holding a master's degree or higher and an

equal percentage reported that the most advanced degrees were in music. This

information is shown in Table 4.13.


Table 4.13
Most Advanced Degrees Earned by Directors

Director Degrees (N = 130)

Degree Frequency

Bachelor 15

Master 88

Specialist 22

Doctorate 5


Percentage

11.54%

67.69%o

16.92%

3.84%


Table 4.14 shows the principal instruments of directors, indicating that

individual backgrounds in instrumental performance study cross the full range of

wind, percussion, and string instruments.









Table 4.14
Principal Instruments of Directors


Principal Director Instruments (N = 130)

Instrument Frequency Percentage

Flute 9 6.92%

Oboe 5 3.84%

Bassoon 3 2.31%

Clarinet 15 11.54%

Saxophone 11 8.46%

Trumpet 20 15.38%

Horn 6 4.62%

Trombone 17 13.08%


Instrument

Euphonium

Tuba

Percussion

Violin

Cello

Piano

Voice


Educational institutions at which training was obtained represented a full

geographic spectrum of the United States. These data are shown in Table 4.15.


Frequency

7

6

19

2

1

5

4


Percentage

5.38%

4.62%

14.62%

1.54%

0.77%

3.84%

3.08%








Table 4.15
Degree Granting Institutions (Colleges and Universities) of Directors

Institution Bachelor Master Specialist Doctorate

Alabama 4 2 2
Appalachian State 2
Arizona 1
Arizona State 2 1 1
Arkansas State 1 1

Auburn 3 2 1
Baylor 1 1
Berry 1
Bowling Green 2
Brevard 2

Catholic 3 1
Central Florida 2
Cincinnati 3 2
Citadel 1 1
Clarion 2

Columbus State 3 2 1
DePaul 3
East Carolina 2 2
East Tennessee State 2
Eastman 2 4 1 1

Florida 4 3 1 1
Florida A & M 2 1
Florida International 1
Florida Southern 1
Florida State 4 4 1

George Mason 2 2
Georgia 3 4 2
Georgia Southern 1
Georgia State 3 4 1
Hofstra 1

Houston I
Howard 1
Illinois 2
Iowa I
Ithaca I









Table 4.15 continued

Institution Bachelor Master Specialist Doctorate

Jacksonville State 2 1
James Madison 1
Kansas 1 1
Kent State 2 1
Lamar 1

Louisiana State 3 1
Loyola 1
Manhattan 1
Maryland 1 1
Memphis 1

Miami 1 2
Miami-Ohio 2
Michigan I
Michigan State 2 1
Minnesota 1 1

Mississippi 1
Mississippi State 2 1
Missouri-Kansas City 2
Mobile I
Morehead State 1

Mount Saint Joseph 1 1
Naval School of Music 2
New England Conservatory 2
New Hampshire I
New Mexico 1

New Orleans 1
North Carolina-Chapel Hill
North Carolina-Greensboro 2 2
North Carolina State 1
North Florida 1

North Texas 2 4
Northeast Louisiana 1
Northwestern 2 3
Northwestern State Louisiana 1 1
Ohio State 2 1








Table 4.15- continued

Institution Bachelor Master Specialist Doctorate

Oklahoma 1
Old Dominion 1
Oregon 1 1
Ouachita Baptist 2
Radford 1

San Diego State 1
San Francisco State 1 1
South Alabama 2
South Carolina 2 1
South Florida 1 3 1

Southern Mississippi 6 5 2 1
Stetson 1
SUNY-Potsdam 1
Tampa 1
Tennessee 2 2 1

Texas-Arlington 1
Texas-Austin 3 4
Texas-El Paso 1
Texas Christian 1
Troy State 1 1

Tulsa 1
Valdosta State 1
Vandercook 2 3
Virginia Tech 1 1
West Florida 2

West Texas State 2 1
Wichita State 1
William Carey 1
Wisconsin-Madison 1
Wisconsin-Milwaukee 2
Youngstown State 3 2


Tables 4.16,4.17, 4.18, and 4.19 reflect information gathered about the

directors' teaching experience. Responses showed that most (78%) directors had








between 16 and 25 years of teaching experience with band at any level (elementary

through college). 82% of the directors had taught between 16 and 25 years at the

middle school or junior high school level, and 74% of the respondents had taught in

the same school for at least ten years.

Directors who reported spending their entire teaching career at the middle

school or junior high school level accounted for 60% of the total, while 40% had

taught in grade levels other than middle school or junior high school.


Table 4.16
Number of Years Directors Have Taught Band at Any Level

Director Experience (N = 130)

Years Frequency Percentage

<6 years 0 0.00%0

6-10 years 4 3.08%

11-15 years 9 6.92%

16-20 years 69 53.08%

21-25 years 32 24.62%

26-30 years 12 9.23%

31-35 years 4 3.08%

>35 years 0 0.000/0









Table 4.17
Number of Years Directors Have Taught Band at the Middle School Level


Director Experience (N = 130)

Years

<6 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

26-30 years

31-35 years

>35 years


Frequency

0

4

7

79

27

10

3

0


Percentage

0.00%

3.08%

5.38%

60.77%

20.77%

7.69%/

2.31%

0.00%0


Table 4.18
Number of Years Directors Have Taught Band at Their Current School


Director Experience (N = 130)

Years

1-3 years

4-6 years

7-9 years

10-12 years

13-15 years

>15 years


Frequency

10

13

11

32

29

35


Percentage

7.69%

10.00%0

8.46%

24.62%

22.31%

26.92%








Table 4.19
Director Experience Entire Teaching Career at a Middle/Junior High School

Director Experience (N = 130)

Frequency Percentage

All at middle school/junior 78 60.00%
high school level

Partly at middle school/junior 52 40.00%
high school level, partly at
other levels


Part H, section A of the survey instrument collected information on the

sources directors used to select repertoire for their performing ensembles. For each

source of repertoire listed on the questionnaire, directors were asked to indicate how

often each source was used according to a Likert scale of five responses: 1 =Never,

2=Seldom, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, or 5=Very Often.

Music publisher materials (sample scores, complimentary scores, and

recordings) were reported as being used most often as a tool for selecting repertoire.

Other leading sources of repertoire selection included live performances of band

music, recordings, and music recommended by colleagues. State music association

lists of repertoire ranked fifth in the order of sources used by directors. Table 4.20

shows the responses for the survey population regarding the 22 repertoire sources

listed in the questionnaire.









Table 4.20
Sources of Repertoire Selection

Source Tot
(In order as listed on the Lik
questionnaire)

1. Live performances of band music

2. Band festivals/contests

3. Readings by your own band

4. Band music reading sessions
(clinic type)

5. Band workshops/clinics

6. Music publisher materials
(scores, recordings)

7. Music recommended by your colleagues

8. Music publisher/distributor catalogues

9. Music you performed in college

10. Music you performed in high school

11. Music you performed in middle/
junior high school

12. Music you performed in other groups
(community, professional, military)

13. Examination of scores in music stores

14. Recordings of any type

15. Lists of any type from your state
music association

16. Lists of any type from other state
music associations


al of Directors'
ert Responses


495

460

425

375


380

515


485

370

215

260

240


250


385

490

480


290


Mean
Response


3.81

3.54

3.27

2.88


2.92

3.96


3.73

2.85

1.65

2.00

1.85


1.92


2.96

3.77

3.69


2.23


Rank
Order


2

6

7

10


9

1


4

11

20

15

19


17


8

3

5


13










Table 4.20 -

Source Total
(In order as listed on the Like,
questionnaire)

17. Lists published by the MENC
or any of its affiliated organizations

18. The National Band Association
Music List

19. Materials from the American School
Band Directors Association

20. Materials from the American
Bandmasters Association

21. Lists published in journals or periodicals

22. Any other published repertoire lists


continued

I of Directors' Mean
rt Responses Response


245


255


210


1.88


1.96


1.62


1.42


2.27

2.08


295

270


Part II, section B of the survey instrument collected information regarding the

factors affecting repertoire selection among the directors. For each factor affecting

repertoire selection listed on the questionnaire, directors were asked to indicate the

level of influence of each factor according to a Likert scale of five responses: l=Not

Considered At All; 2=Not An Influence; 3=Slight Influence; 4=Moderate Influence;

and 5=High Influence.

The level of the quality of music was reported as being the most influential

factor in selecting repertoire. Other leading factors having significant impact upon

repertoire selection included technical considerations within the music, the ability and

limitations of the ensemble performing the music, instrumental skills that can be


Rank
Order


18


16


21


22


12

14








taught through the music, and the musical maturity of the ensemble performing the

music.

The least influential factors affecting repertoire selection practices included

the cost of the published score and parts, needs of the music library in the director's

school, the likelihood of using the music more than once, and whether or not the

music was newly published. Table 4.21 shows the responses for the survey population

regarding the 31 factors affecting repertoire selection listed in the questionnaire.

Part II, section C of the survey instrument presented the respondents with a

listing of 85 band compositions appropriate to the middle school level. As outlined in

Chapter HLI, the list of 85 works was assembled from various state and national music

lists and other publications. Works were all at the Grade I, II, or II level and had to

have appeared on 20 of the 27 state lists available to the researcher as well as two of

the four national lists and publications.

Respondents were informed on the survey that primary consideration in

grading was according to the technical aspects of the works listed while secondary

consideration was given to melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic aspects of the music.

Grade I corresponded to "easy" levels of technical difficulty, appropriate to the ability

of the first and second year instrumental music student. Grade II indicated a more

advanced level of technical difficulty, appropriate to the ability of second to third year

students. Grade III corresponded to music of increasingly advanced technical

difficulty, appropriate for third year and beyond students.








Table 4.21
Importance of Factors Affecting Repertoire Selection

Factor Total of Directors' Mean Rank
(In order as listed on the Likert Responses Response Order
questionnaire)

1. Quality of the music ("This is quality 625 4.81 1
music to which the students should
be exposed.")

2. Instrumental performance skills that 575 4.42 4
can be taught through the music
(phrasing, balance, tone quality,
intonation, articulation, etc.)

3. Historical elements of the music 395 3.04 20
(musical period, historical period,
style)

4. Social elements of the music 335 2.58 23
(multicultural, social influences of the
time, relation of history to society)

5. Music to fit the program ('These two 540 4.15 6
or three selections create a cohesive and
contrasting festival program)

6. The potential of the music as heard by 330 2.54 24
the adjudicators ("The judges will like
this music.")

7. The potential of the music to earn high 325 2.50 25
ratings ('The band can earn a superior
rating, first place, division champion...")

8. The audience appeal of the music 390 3.33 18
("The audience will enjoy hearing this
music.")

9. The student appeal of the music 485 3.73 15
("The students will enjoy performing
this music.")








Table 4.21 continued

Factor Total of Directors' Mean Rank
(In order as listed on the Likert Responses Response Order
questionnaire)

10. Appeal of the music to colleagues 290 2.23 28
("Other band directors will enjoy
hearing this music.")

11. Appeal of the music to yourself 535 4.12 7
("'1 will enjoy spending class time to
prepare this music ")

12. The music appears on a state or 500 3.84 13
national or "approved" list of some
type

13. Musical elements that can be taught 505 3.88 12
through the music (style, form,
compositional techniques, etc.)

14. Melodic considerations within the music 515 3.96 10
(melodic line, phrasing, countermelody,
harmonic considerations, etc.)

15. Technical considerations within the music 610 4.69 2
(range, tessitura, fingerings, etc.)

16. Rhythmic considerations within the music 520 4.00 9
(rhythms, patterns, ostinati, etc.)

17. Aesthetic appeal or value of the music 490 3.77 14
("This music provides an aesthetic
experience.")

18. You recently heard another band perform 370 2.85 21
this music

19. The ability and limitations of the ensemble 600 4.62 3
that performs this music

20. The size of the ensemble that performs 480 3.15 19
this music









Table 4.21 -

Factor Total
(In order as listed on the Like
questionnaire)

21. The musical maturity of the
ensemble that performs this music

22. The music appeared on the program
of an honor, district, or all-state
type of band program

23. The music is new (published or
available only within the past year)

24. The music is older or has an
established place in the repertoire
of this level

25. The music is of high craftsmanship
("Thus music has withstood the test
of time.")

26. Your ability to prepare and perform
this music ("I am capable of
understanding and teaching this music.")

27. Reputation of the composer

28. Previous performances of music by
the same composer

29. Cost of the published score and parts

30. Music library needs

31. Likelihood that the music will be
performed again in the future


continuedd

of Directors' Mean
ii Responses Response


570


315


295


365


4.38


2.42


2.27


2.81


4.04


510


445

440


195

225

185


3.92


3.42

3.38


1.50

1.73

2.19


Directors were asked two questions regarding the 85 compositions listed.

First, the director was asked if he/she had ever performed the work with a middle

school concert band in a festival/contest or adjudicated setting or on a major concert


Rank
Order








program such as a clinic or convention performance; second, the director was asked if

he/she considered the work to be a "significant contribution to the middle school

concert band repertoire," at a level that it would be regarded as one of the top

compositions for middle school concert band, and therefore a part of a "core"

repertoire. Table 4.22 shows the responses of the directors who have performed a

given work according to the parameters set forth in the survey instrument. Table 4.23

shows the works that did not appear on the original list of 85 but were nominated by

directors and classified as "basic" (requiring 50% of the respondents to classify as

such) and "core" (requiring 70%/ of the respondents to classify as such.)

Table 4.22
Directors Who Publicly Performed Works From Among the List of 85

Directors Performing Works (N = 130)

Title Composer/Arranger Frequency Percentage

(Grade I Compositions)
1. African Folk Trilogy McGinty 82 63.07%
2. Anasazi Edmondson 87 66.92%
3. Amazing Grace (arr) Bullock 89 68.46%
4. American Folk Trilogy McGinty 82 63.07%/
5. Aztec Sunrise Edmondson 83 63 84%

6. British Isle Ballads Kinyon 102 78.46%
7. Cantilena Seward 43 33.07%/
8. Change of Pace O'Reilly 29 22.30%
9. Chant and Celebration O'Reilly & Feldstein 90 69.23%
10. Chorale and Canon McGinty 60 46.15%

11. Chorale and Counterpoint Feldstein 62 47.69%
12. Dragons of Komodo, The Kinyon 75 57.69%/
13. From A Schumann Album (arr) Spears 48 36.92%
14. Minuet in G Bach/Dishinger 57 43.84%
15. Theme and Variations Broege 80 61.53%











Title
16. Windhaven Celebration
17. Windsor Overture

(Grade II Compositions)
18. African Festival
19. Ancient Voices
20. Astro Overture
21. Belle Qui Tiens Ma Vie
22. Brookpark Overture

23. Canto
24. Childhood Hymn, A
25. Clouds
26. Crystal City Overture
27. Early English Suite

28. Engines of Resistance
29. Fanfare, Ode and Festival
30. Fantasy on a Fanfare
31. Four Pieces for Band
32. Japanese Festival

33. Japanese Folk Trilogy
34. Kentucky 1800
35. Korean Folk Rhapsody
36. Little English Suite
37. Pageantry Overture

38. Park Street Celebration
39. Pavana and March
40. Pevensey Castle
41. Prehistoric Suite, A
42. Queenwood Overture

43. Red Balloon, The
44. Renaissance Faire, A
45. Sabre Dance
46. Sansketch
47. Sea Song Trilogy


Table 4.22 continued

Composer/Arranger
Edmondson
McGinty


Hillard-Elledge-Pearson
Sweeney
Kinyon
Arbeau/Margolis
Swearingen

McBeth
Holsinger
McGinty
Edmondson
Duncombe/Finlayson

Clark
Margolis
Edmondson
Bartok/Suchoff
Hilliard

McGinty
Grundman
Cumrnow
Jackson
Edmondson

Swearingen
Byrd/Gordon
Sheldon
Jennings
McGinty

McGinty
(arr) Custer
Khatchaturian/Balent
Spears
McGinty


Frequency
68
40


105
85
101
86
109


Percentage
52.30%
30.76%


80.76%
65.38%
77.69%
66.15%
83.84%

72.30%
51.53%
48.46%
43.84%
73.84%

63.84%
86.15%
60.76%
49.23%
73.07%

52.30%
71.53%
46.15%
56.92%
67.69%

54.61%
54.61%
67.69%
70.76%
32.30%/

53.84%
53.07%
30.00%
57.69%
56.92%