Dialogue About Music Therapy Theory
Are We Really Looking for an "Ontology"? Response to Rudy Garred's Essay in Voices, 1(3)
It was very interesting for me to read Rudy Garred's article "The Ontology of Music in Music Therapy" in Voices (https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/63/56). I have to agree with most of Rudy's points in the article, though I use different categories. And I believe that we are in accord, foundationally, in terms of music therapy theory.
In the first paragraph, Rudy describes how there must be a search for music therapy theory that springs from the work itself. I am also looking for a new language, new model, to describe our experiences in music therapy. This desire to find a new language was expressed in my 1982 work, The Mythic Artery and again in 1989, in The Field of Play.
Let's look at a comparison between some of our categories:
Rudy uses the term "dialogue." I use the term "interplay." I decided to use the term "interplay" because it seemed to me that "dialogue" implied verbal interaction in our day-to-day usage. I believed that "interplay" was more descriptive of the musical experience. In this sense, for me, the term "interplay" helps to "illuminate dynamics of relation" (Garred) in a way that is more characteristic of the musical encounter rather than a verbal encounter.
We are both standing on solid ground when we address "relationship" in music therapy theory. This category was emphasized by William Sears (1968) in his "Processes in Music Therapy," a foundational piece of music therapy theory literature, at least in the United States, and one which I use extensively in The Field of Play (1989).
Rudy uses a triangle between the music, the therapist and the client as a graphic to describe the interrelations in music therapy. My model is process-oriented (as I think Rudy's is. However, the triangle does not communicate this to me initially). I use interacting circles to represent the client and therapist, who creates an emerging circle of "musical space" as they play music together. In other words, the music is actually born out of the relationship between the client and the therapist, or more specifically the interplay between the two.
One difference between Rudy's and my description is that I do not consider the relationship between the client and the therapists to be "mediated" so much by the music. The music is not a separate "third entity" that is overlaid onto the client/therapist relationship. Rather the music and the "musical space" are born out of the interplay between the therapist and client. This implies that the music is already within each person. And that there is a creative act that brings a "new music" into the therapeutic encounter that is completely unique in the moment and in the relationship.
Furthermore, the therapist is not mediating how music may serve in the therapeutic process of the client, as stated by Rudy. Rather the fact that the therapist is a "therapist" is merely one of the conditions in the space of the encounter. This condition of the therapist, perhaps, does put more responsibility on the therapist to "place difference" in the form of new tonalities, rhythms, textures, dynamics into the musical space and into all fields of the Field of Play.
I would also like to pick up on Rudy's theme of "qualities", which I treat in a different way. In a 1996 article entitled: "The Dilemma of Uniqueness: An Essay on Consciousness and Qualities," I emphasize the important of qualities in the music therapy experience. In this article I also stress the importance of discussing not only the existence of qualities, but also their significance in the musical encounter. I end this article by stating:
"The notion of 'qualities"' I hope, will offer a re-enchantment of the senses, and a type of liberation from "hard categories". In music therapy it is important to acknowledge and develop our participation in the aesthetic field (in which qualities are primary). This is where a great deal of the power in our work resides because in the aesthetic experience, we can attain the important sense of coherence necessary for healing to occur "(Kenny, 1996, p. 96).
In particular, we might consider the qualities expressed in a musical improvisation, for example, as non-positional qualities, to which no spatial or temporal position can be assigned. It is precisely because these qualities are "free" that they remain flexible and can have the optimal possibility of various re-positionings or interpretations of many kinds. This is important in change processes.
In fact, in the Field of Play, the creative process is the product. This approach, of course, is very difficult in a positivistic frame of mind, so necessary when selecting methods of treatment for a particular outcome. But it is possible that our music therapy theories can be so complex that they can account for such a paradox. For example, in certain treatment settings, if we extend the Field of Play beyond the simplest formulation, expressed in the 1989 text and subsequent articles, of "client and therapist," we can consider the setting, such as an institution, which then becomes one of the conditions in the fields. There may be certain necessary conditions for "outcomes" in such institutional settings. These then serve, also, as "conditions in the space" and interplay with all of the rest. So a projected outcome rests beside the ambiguities inherent in a creative process.
Well, there are many considerations. But I'll end, for now, on this one. If we are thinking about ontology, we are thinking about such things as theory of being qua being, science of the essence of things, science of fundamental principles, doctrine of categories, ultimate philosophies, rational cosmology, etc. Note the centrality of terms such as "ultimate," "essence," "fundamental," "doctrine," and "cosmology." Are we really looking for ontology or are we trying to discover what is "unique" about music therapy? Must we do one to have the other to remain philosophically correct?
References
Kenny, Carolyn (1982). The Mythic Artery: The Magic of Music Therapy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co.
Kenny, Carolyn (1989). The Field of Play: A Guide for the Theory and Practice of Music Therapy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co.
Kenny, Carolyn (1996) The dilemma of uniqueness: An essay on consciousness and qualities. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy. 5(2) pp. 87-96.
Sears, William (1968) Processes in music therapy. In E. T. Gaston, Music in Therapy. New York: The Macmillan Co.
About Carolyn Kenny
Biography
Carolyn Kenny, Ph.,D. MT-BC, CMT is a Professor of Human Development and Indigenous Studies and one of the founding faculty members in the Antioch University Ph.D. in Leadership and Change in the Professions. She also continues her private practice in Music Therapy in Santa Barbara, California. She serves on the Advisory Board for Music Therapy Education and Research (MUSERS), associated with the Pavarotti Music Centre in Mostar, Bosnia-Hercegovina (http://www.musers.org) and as Co-editor-in Chief (with Brynulf Stige) of Voices: A World Forum for Music Therapy. She served for many years as Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Music Therapy Journal. And also currently serves on the Editorial Review Board for the Journal of Music Therapy. She contributes as a Book Reviewer on a regular basis to The Arts in Psychotherapy. She has published extensively in both Music Therapy and Indigenous Studies. Her most current publication is A Holistic Approach to Aboriginal Policy Research, published in French and English by the Status of Women Canada.
The Ontological status of music in music therapy is an extremely vital issue that creates a foundational basis for how and why we can give proof that music is in fact an effective method of therapy. I thought that the dialogue-approach in which the article was written served great purpose in explaining the life that music has in its existence and in its purpose in music therapy (as opposed to Carolyn Kenny's later response to this article). I think that in music therapy when interacting with a client through music the word "dialogue" is a very accurate description. Kenny talks about using the terms "just play" but the word "just" seemingly (to me) devalues what is really going on in the session. I think that in defining terms that one may use in the field because it is such a new field one can sometimes get carried away with the detailed definitions. I talk about this concept later on in this response. Developing a philosophical understanding or theory of why music is effective in therapy is imperative to the further development and bettering of our field. The theory would give credit to that side of music therapy that isn't just scientific data that we accumulate but is philosophical evidence that is quality based.
Yes, we need to keep studying the effects of music therapy that are physical and scientifically proven to be positive in their outcomes with clients. However, a philosophical theory will give the seemingly un-measurable benefits and occurrences, or "mystical" qualities that happen between therapist and client (that are not scientifically measured) a framework and place in the dialogue about music therapy. I agree with Garred's stance on having a theory and think that with a philosophical base, it will in fact enable the scientific theories to become more developed and understood as well. In looking for an all-encompassing theory for which music therapy will inhabit, we can understand this search in the context of it being a philosophical approach to the simplified question; "What is Music Therapy?" I have heard many professors and music therapists tackle this question in a multitude of ways. For example, (Gfeller, 1999 p. 6) cites the (National Association for Music Therapy 1960) in which the definition combines the words "science" and "art" with "therapeutic." She quotes, "the scientific application of the art of music to accomplish therapeutic aims. It is the use of music and of the therapist's self to influence changes in behavior." In having both a philosophical theory as well as a scientific theory of what exactly music therapy is, we can further develop our field with foundational bases, as well as come to understand more of the meaning of music as it is in therapy and as therapy. The more we converse about music and its being as it is in therapy, the more we will come to understand the many different approaches and ways as to how and why it is effective with so many people.
The concept of dialogue that was used to better explain the relation of music in therapy shows multiple sides of how the therapist, the client and the music are all in a constant state of communication with each other.
The difference of "music as therapy" and "music in therapy" I agree is an oversimplification that is useful in the sense that the distinction should be made for competency purposes. For example the defining of the differences to benefit the larger question of "What is Music Therapy?" However, I feel like this discussion of "in therapy" and "as therapy" gets blown out of proportion a lot of the time. Yes it is important to distinguish between the two, but in a way it can also become overkill. I often equate it to society and being politically correct. How far is too far when it comes to making categories in our field to keep everyone happy? Yes we are a new field and need to develop distinctions and competencies as well as standards, but we need to be careful not to get carried away when making these categories or we can lose sight of the larger picture of what is important. I think because of the position of our field (it being a new field) right now we are in a state of making sure we develop competencies and definitions and yes it is imperative to the further development and professionalism of our work, but we should also keep in mind that in the process of doing so there are multiple issues that need our attention.
As mentioned before I find Garred's use of Buber's works "I and Thou" very effective in describing the relation of music in music therapy. However, some of the comparisons that are described I feel are done so in a very black and white manner, which as a new music therapist in-training I feel like I have only encountered a lot of grey area in my experience. The predetermined "cause and effect" issue, brings up a large debate as far as philosophy in general. As far as music and any given moment in time are concerned, no, we cannot truly predetermine any moment in reality…however, we do at least in mediating relationships, try to predict an outcome so that one can develop some sort of hypothesis or plan (as well as a therapeutic relationship) that the client will in fact benefit from in some way shape or form. I suppose that this prediction can act as "open reciprocity", for the therapist is fostering an environment in which the client will feel safe and compelled to participate in the desired musical interaction. Will it most definitely happen? Who knows? But there are control factors that can be implemented to predict or encourage the desired outcome, and therefore "if the therapist does this, then hopefully the client will do this…". So yes, the absolute factor of "cause and effect" cannot be an accurate description of what happens in a music therapy session, but "cause and effect" with room for mistakes can! ie. if Suzie hits the drum then she will repeat this motion (hopefully). The musical dialogue that occurs between Suzie, the therapist and the drum can hopefully develop into a repeated positive interaction that benefits the client, and there in those relationships does lie the reciprocity that Garred talked about. I suppose the purpose of my dialogue here is just to state that a philosophical argument that is very cut and dry can often be debated when it comes to music therapy (because of the complicated works that occur within the client, music and therapist relationship) which is why I think scientific evidence as well as argumentative philosophical evidence is hard to measure and define in our field.
Music as means to an end, is not always making music itself into an "it." I see this in behavioral approaches where the therapist is often looking to reach certain pre-determined goals. Music isn't to be "prescribed" per say to then predictably always have a certain outcome. However, knowing that music can be used to reach a goal for a client can be an interconnected working process that is part of the relationship between music, therapist and client. I do not see using music as a means, to automatically mean that music becomes an "it" and therefore becomes "objectifying" the client. In some situations I am positive that the objectifying and "it" qualities occur, but in my understanding, it is the music therapist's job to ensure that they are able to assess what goals are manageable and therefore work it into the communication and relationships that are happening between the client, therapist and music. It is the music therapist's job to ensure that the objectification doesn't happen, and yet the client can still be in a relation with music and therapist while working towards beneficial goals.
When looking at using music as a means in terms of reaching goals. We start to talk about the question of "Whose goals are they?" As Garred states, there is no intentionality of the client if the goals are pre-determined by the therapist or even a higher supervisor. This brings in the question of "How do you know what is best for your client?" I do not think that by assessing the client and deciding what one's intentions are that you are objectifying them. I think that as a clinical music therapist you have gone through the work and training to best come to those decisions with a team, taking into consideration the client's family, and other needs. Especially in terms of clients that are non-verbal and have limited forms of communication. If I understand this concept correctly I disagree with the statement, "Intentionality is thus not involved other than - at most - an arbitrary and inconsequential feature within the course of events, according to such a logic in its strictest sense." (Garred 2001). The intention (I hope and depending on the client) is the bettering of the quality of life of the client through music. How the intention of the therapist and client come together in music is developed through the triangular relationship that has been made as well as input from other team members. I don't think that there can be such rigidity in certain "umbrella" concepts. Each client, therapist and situation are going to be different, so there is a push-pull issue that happens here. We need to define and put into theories and concepts what we are doing a music therapists, however because our work is often on a very unique individual basis this becomes a challenge to have such black and white concepts. Hopefully over time there will come a more effective manner in which theories and philosophical identities for our field may be developed without getting lost in the jargon.
References
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou (Walter Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Charles Schribner's Sons.
Davis, B. W. Gfeller, E. K. Thaut, H. M. (1999). An introduction to music therapy: Theory and practice. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.
Garred, R. (2001). The ontology of music in music therapy: A dialogical view. Voices: A world forum for music therapy. Retrieved November 20, 108, from https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/63/56
Kenny, C. B. (2002). Response to Rudy Garred. Voices: A world forum for music therapy. Retrieved November 20, 108, from http://voices.no/?q=content/dialogue-about-music-therapy-theory#comment-649
Dear Dr. Rudy Garred,
My name is Chiharu Wada and I am a student of Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music. I major in musicology and am interested in music therapy study in terms of music aesthetics. Since last April, I took part in the seminar given by Prof. Rika Ikuno, who is an Asian editor of Voices. In the first four months, each of us has chosen one of columns and one of main issues of Voices, and introduced them in the class. I chose your article "The Ontology of Music in Music Therapy: A Dialogical View" (https://normt.uib.no/index.php/voices/article/view/63/56).
In the first paragraph of the article, you brought a mixture of discourses from other field into question. Maybe I understood what you said in this context and agreed with that, but at the same time, I entertained a doubt of what makes a difference between the music used in music therapy and so-called classical music. As you said, the former music is applied as a means for the betterment of the client and it seems to be another thing that is sought the artistry like the latter. I asked the other students in the class about that and got the following answers: " in music therapy, the clinical effects of the music have priority over aesthetic," "it is a difference that the subjects are clients in the former, but that is music itself in the latter," and "the former can be formed variously in accordance with the clients, but the latter has the constructive beautiful."
Although these opinions are reasonable, I feel these two kinds of music are the same in essence as music. In the article, you said that the music in therapy, instead of being an autonomous art object is to be applied as a means towards a predefined end. It is true for an autonomous art object not to be a means, however this also can have some massages in its structure naturally and be open towards audience. This message is not at all concrete, but can be received by each audience as a particular impression to them, I think. I don't know if this idea directly applicable to music therapy, but at least, can the dialogue with other related fields be established easily through some common ideas?
I am very interested in the interrelations among music, client and therapist in a dialogical view. And you said that music in music therapy is not aimed towards becoming an autonomous work, an independent entity valued on its own terms. But here, I have something on my mind. To be sure, the interrelation is very important for music therapy. I think, however, the interrelation is not necessarily made only by music therapy. I cannot explain here with fully persuasive reason, but I feel that music in music therapy has more active value, in order to make clear why music is here chosen. I would like to know your opinion about this.
The response of Rudy Garred to my comments on his essay 'On the Ontology of Music in Music Therapy", help to clarify his ideas and certainly help us to understand his reference points. He also elaborates important ideas on theoretical constructs in music therapy. I'll comment briefly here in reply to his submission to the discussion.
At 18 years of age, I'm sure I didn't understand half of what my Jesuit professors were talking about during the formative stages of my academic life. I didn't really choose to main line philosophy but I have not abandoned the field entirely. Those Jesuit scholars left a lifelong impressionistic template for understanding our ideas about human nature and the world. One of the central ideas spoon-fed to us academic babies was the concept of questioning. The Jesuits were skeptics in the most radical schools of thought in every field. So Garred's defense of a philosophical approach is not necessary, at least to me. However, I remain committed to questioning "ontology". Though, as Garred suggests, ontology is about what we consider the nature of reality to be, this is the softest and most general description of ontology. As suggested in my comments on his original article, ontology can quickly become dogma. There is no better example than "religion". But music therapy could also run the risk of falling into some kind of essentialism if we do not question each other on the topic. There's no race to get "the theory", I hope.
Garred makes a wise choice in Martin Buber, not introduced to me by the Jesuits but by Even Ruud, much later than 1965 (the year I started with the Jesuits). Buber has so many useful concepts for music therapy. My bone of contention about the term "dialogue" has to do with "the nature of the musical experience". When I sat down on my piano bench next to Sister Grace Marie in the old days, she didn't say, "dialogue the piano". She said, "play the piano". And today, when I sit down at the piano with my clients in music therapy, I say something similar. Sometimes I say "Just play" or "Play". I mention this issue particularly because Garred's original article is entitled "The Ontology of Music in Music Therapy", not the Ontology of Music Therapy. Doesn't this have a few ontological implications?
Unfortunately, we are often trained to believe that if we are "playing" we are not doing anything serious. However, if we are "dialoguing", well, that's serious stuff. Playing is fundamental to our experience in music therapy. Words are not always fundamental. Now there's a little ontological implication too.
We might say that we are having a "musical conversation" or a "musical dialogue". This is a long tradition in music playing. We hear about this in improvisational genres, like jazz, as well as in our own music therapy. But we are clearly "playing". 1
Of course, Garred could redefine the term dialogue, which I assume he will do in his doctoral thesis. But how would Socrates feel about this?
Placing the "relative autonomy of music in creative music therapy" is so very important. This is certainly an ontological implication and reminds me of the times I have asked people like Rachael Verny and some other creative music therapists (Nordoff/Robbins) to tell me what the music means or describe the music to me. The only reply is, "It's all in the music". I perceive this statement, which used to drive me up the wall, and which, to my understanding, is still implied in our conversations about creative music therapy from theorists like Garred, to be not only ontological but mystical. Is the music itself the source of all being? Given the esoteric roots of creative music therapy, this question must not remain rhetorical.
Garred's use of concepts from the Field of Play do need some clarification. There is a lot that could be said here. But I'll comment briefly. Garred writes: "Music is not just "interplay" - it is something more." Diminishing the term interplay, as it is used in the Field of Play, does not really give an accurate impression. Of course the original text for the Field of Play was a rewrite of my own doctoral thesis. So, I can understand Garred's position as one of writing an "early stage" set of ideas. The Field of Play was written with the specific purpose of creating something accessible to grassroots music therapists, especially the ones who believed that theory was unimportant. I'm sure that it takes an entire life to develop a useful theory. The denotative structures in this early work (1987) suggest connotative structures, of course. And the quote I use to introduce the chapter entitled "The Interplay of the Fields" points the way:
Just can't get rid of those Jesuits, I guess. Anyway, there's something rather connotative, denotative, ontological, and mystical.
The interplay is not "merely" between persons, as Garred suggests, but as any good natural scientist knows, between fields. A field can be any environment (remember that a person is also an environment). This is basic to all understanding of systems theories, and particularly ecological systems theories and field theories. Even concepts like "the music child" place music "inside". Perhaps the music is pervasive and does not behave with boundaries in a rigid sense. As I suggest many times in my own texts, perhaps music is a fluid phenomenon and allows movement through boundaries under certain conditions. This is ecology. This is systems theory. This is physics.
In terms of the role of the music therapist, I do think that if we accept the premise that the therapist is a condition in the space, we know that she is not "merely" a condition in a one-dimensional, abstract sense. She has a nature, attributes, responsibilities, roles, and on and on. Of course, this all influences the "interplay". My concern is about the hierarchy which so easily can dominate our encounters between client and therapist. So, I attempt a rather clumsy, but humanistic approach to diminish this hierarchy, which is placed upon both the therapist and the client from the society and often embodied in the values, beliefs and behaviors of both.
I thank Garred for his challenging comments. They have helped me to make some more ideas "explicit". Though the idea of "implicate order" finally seems to have gained some popularity recently in music therapy circles, it does have a few drawbacks. Perhaps the work of a scholar is to make the implicit, explicit. It's the work of a poet to make the explicit, implicit. Well, that's an entire conversation about music therapy and other things.
I do congratulate Garred on his interests and works in music therapy theory. There's much work to do here.
Reference
Kenny, C.B.(1989). The Field of Play: A Guide for the Theory and Practice of Music Therapy. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Co.
Note
1) For a further defense of the use of the term "play" and "interplay" see my 1994 Keynote Speech for the American Association for Music Therapy entitled "Our Legacy: Work and Play" in which I build on the ideas of, d'Aquili, Dissanayke, Drewal, Duvury, Feuerstein, Huizinga,Kapferer, Kenny, Laughlin, McManus Riegel , Schechner Turner, and others.)
We do need some notion of what music is, to account for its role in therapy. Reply to Carolyn Kenny
I appreciate Carolyn Kenny's response to my essay "On the Ontology of Music in Music Therapy". First of all let me admit that I was a bit apprehensive about publishing the text, because it is an integral part of my current work on a PhD thesis. Therefore it would necessarily have to be stripped of parts that I really wanted to include, but which the format of essay would not allow me to put in. Kenny's comments and questions present an opportunity to address some of these quite briefly here.
The final, and rather challenging question posed, to take this first, whether we need an "ontology" I think needs to be answered with an affirmative yes, but not to remain 'philosophically correct'. Ontology is about what we consider the nature of reality to be. And our notion of what music is, has bearings on how we may account for how it works, which is what I was trying to address in the essay. The point is that we do have a notion about what the reality of music in therapy is, whether we are reflectively conscious of it or not. Philosophical analysis may help to make more explicit our presuppositions about music and how it works in therapy. I would like to cite from the chapter "Why Philosophy?" from The Field of Play (Kenny 1989) to bring out my point here: "If theory serves as a foundation for practice, philosophy serves as a foundation for theory (p.46)". This sums it up very succinctly, I believe.
Though there seems to be a basic accord of music therapy theory, between Carolyn Kenny and myself, we do use different terms. Let me say something more about why I use the word 'dialogue'. It is precisely because I think it is applicable across the two spheres of the interpersonal and the musical. I think it is a real challenge for music therapy theory to sort out, to distinguish between the part music plays, as music, and the interpersonal aspect of music therapy, and furthermore how these are related. I have chosen to use the term dialogue, based on Martin Buber's original conception in the book I and Thou, to try to achieve some kind of focus in developing these rather complex issues in current music therapy discourse. A particularly tricky and recurring theme is the difference and interconnection between the verbal and musical in music therapy. I find that 'dialogue' as a foundational concept within and between these modalities allows new ways of viewing these matters. This at least is a theoretical hypothesis, which as mentioned, I am in the midst of trying to work out.
The triangle as it is set up serves the purpose of relating the two aspects of the musical and the interpersonal to each other, by interconnecting the three sides of client, therapist and music. This is merely a graphic illustrative devise for the argument presented, and should not be taken as a 'model' in any strict sense. I am glad to have to opportunity of pointing this out here. There is always the danger of reading too much into such a figure, resulting in a restriction rather than a broadening of thought. And the limitation of such an illustrative device as a triangle is that the process orientation is not initially apparent, as Kenny quite rightly points out. Therefore a clear qualification is needed, because the triangle just shows interrelations, but not the direction, where it is all heading. Music therapy is not about making musical art. In making art the focus is in making the work into a whole, whereas in therapy the focus is the rather making the client whole. This may not be read out of such a triangle, which only indicates various interrelations between three sides. The aim is not shown, which is the benefit of the client.
I am glad that Kenny, though she does not initially find this within the triangle, still senses an overall process orientation. Let me then just state my priorities that if such an illustrative device as a triangle should obscure such an orientation I would readily dispose of it. I still, for now at least, hold on to the perspective of these three interrelated sides, to bring out what I believe to be some crucial aspects of music therapy process. I do not think that music in the last resort is "already within each person" as Kenny puts it, whatever this really means. I think music may be considered a reality that may be related to creatively in the making of it, and in finding meaning in it. It is an encountered present reality that is not reduced to, or simply confined within the space between people. Music is not just "interplay" - it is something more. And this does not imply that it is a separate entity. A dialogical perspective as I see it, points to dynamic interrelations rather than fixed entities. It is not about establishing separate entities, one working on the other, but about mutualities between the different sides, not reducing one in favour of another. If music here was nothing more than "interplay" between persons, it was really nothing that could be related to on its own terms, either creatively or aesthetically. I want to argue for a relative autonomy of music in creative music therapy. And I suspect that something about what is unique in music therapy is to be found here: in the role of music, as music, in therapy.
I find it hard to see how a music therapist does not mediate how music may serve in the therapeutic process of the client, as Kenny suggests, even putting the term "therapist" in brackets, and stating that the therapist is "merely one of the conditions within the space of the encounter". I believe the particular role of the therapist has to be recognized. I will follow Buber here, who uses the term 'inclusion' to indicate what the role of the therapist entails. This implies that the music therapist has to take into consideration what the significance of the musical experience may be for the client. The client does not have this kind of responsibility towards the therapist, lest the relation ceased to be a therapeutic one. This is simply what creative music therapy is about, as I see it. Thus I find Kenny's statement: "This condition of the therapist, perhaps, does put some more responsibility on the therapist to "place difference" in the form of new tonalities, rhythms, textures, dynamics into the musical space." a bit too weak in the insertion of the word "perhaps" about the therapist having more responsibility. I think the responsibility of the therapist, also in relation to the music, is inevitable.
Kenny has an interesting note on considering the institutional setting as one condition within the Field of Play, which could be introduced to account for the paradox, as she terms it, of the creative process being the product in music therapy. This would serve to indicate a projected outcome of the inherently ambiguous creative process. I think this is an exciting train of thought, incorporating the conditions of the setting within the field as a whole, and I agree that it is necessary to develop more complex theory as an alternative to a strictly positivistic frame of mind, to capture expected "outcome" of music therapy process. This of course should furthermore be closely connected to various ways of documentation of music therapy practice.
Let this be my preliminary response to the questions brought up by Kenny. Though I am tempted to elaborate further on these issues I leave them here, to return to them more extensively on a later occasion hopefully. I still will invite and welcome any further questions and comments on the essay, of course, and my reply here.