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.
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