From the moment that I first saw the title and the opening statements from Brian Abrams’ article, I was taken back to the beginning of my experience with music therapy school. Just to give a brief background, I am in my third semester of music therapy study, the result of my effort to change careers after 19 years in computer programming and analysis. Naturally, in sharing the exciting news of my career change with friends and family, I, too, received many inquiries. During my prior career, having held a variety of titles which included “Information Systems Specialist”, “Systems Engineer”, and several more, I was all too familiar to the questions from acquaintances: “What do you do for a living?”, and then “Really? What’s that?!?” Fast forwarding back to the present, I had built up a pretty thick skin, so there was no offense taken, but rather, amusement, in fielding the questions, “What’s music therapy?”, and “What’s musical therapy?”
I received those friendly inquiries several times, but the story that comes to mind is the one in which one of my best friends asked the question, and during that conversation, he used the words “music” and “musical” interchangeably. It just so happens that this great friend is also a self-taught musician. He and I have played together for some fifteen years now, he on guitar with me on piano, both in church and in a side band for fun and occasional profit. This discussion with my friend was interesting to me because by trade he works as a rehabilitation specialist for an adaptive equipment services company. His job takes him into client homes, modifying and growing existing wheelchairs and other adaptive equipment, and filling prescriptions for new equipment. In filling those prescriptions, he works every day with speech therapists, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. So, in hindsight, the “-al” suffix he added on was not too surprising and really quite understandable. I found it quite amusing that our initial conversation brought him to the question, “So, does that mean you’ll help people with their music problems?” I immediately put myself in his shoes, and his question made perfect sense! After all, since the physical therapist deals with physical issues and rehabilitation, and the occupational therapist deals with facilitating a return to occupational skills, why wouldn’t a “musical” therapist deal with one’s musical problems?
I was far enough along in my Techniques I class that I was able to turn around that wording, because the exact issue of how to answer “What is music therapy?” had already been addressed and the quick answer came to mind. “Music therapy is the use of music in addressing nonmusical problems.” In providing this answer to my friend as well as with other educated adults, the result has nearly always been further questions. Usually the next questions are, of course, “Okay, what kind of problems?” and “So, who exactly will you work with?” In keeping the answers to those questions brief and on a very general level, I believe I’ve been able to give friends and family good information and a fair appreciation of what music therapy is.
This topic reminded me of the first quiz in that Techniques I class: “Everyone, take out a piece of paper and write down your definition of music therapy.” I was able to give a close wording of Bruscia’s definition, and then with the few extra minutes I included the short definition discussed earlier. Then to take it even further, inspiration took over, and the slogan that my wife’s physical therapy class put on t-shirts twenty-two years ago popped into my head. I substituted the word “musical” for “physical” and added to my answer, “If it’s musical, then it’s therapy.” My little catch-phrase is an everyday reminder of why I love music and why I’m excited to continue studying music therapy. To expand and explain a little bit better than what would fit on a bumper sticker, “If it’s musical, then it’s therapy” means to me that if something has musical qualities, then it intrinsically will have a therapeutic benefit to someone. Stated another way, “If it’s musical, then it’s therapy” could be said to summarize Abrams’ statement, “In the simple act of expanding one’s capacities for musical experience and play in particular ways, beyond one’s previous limits to these capacities, one has shifted something fundamental about one’s being, relevant to numerous other domains of health and the bases for the initial music therapy referral (or self-referral).” And “…music as a health domain holds its own intrinsic legitimacy and meaningfulness as health, independently of what it signifies with respect to other domains…” Musical Therapy? It really is not too awful of a misnomer, after all. Like Abrams, I’ll make the friendly, professional correction, but I’ll internally accept the mistake as a term of endearment.
In his article 'musical therapy', Brian Abrams explains how music therapists must learn how to dialog with uninformed or misinformed members of the public in tolerant, diplomatic ways, in the interest of advancing the music therapy profession. He presents one example of these misconceptions being the term 'musical therapy'. Abrams states that this term, when used by the public is a deliberate expression of belittlement, denigration, or deep insult.
As a music therapy student at the University of Louisville, I very often have to explain what music therapy is to family and friends who are not familiar with the profession; therefore, I agree with Abrams' view 100%. People often think that music therapy can also be referred to as musical therapy. I find it difficult to explain that these terms are not exactly interchangeable.
Abrams says that many of his colleagues have similar feelings about the term. He said that he found himself joining in the joking about the term. He said that he found himself joining in with the joking about the phrase. He said that at conferences, he and other therapists would discuss what the term actually signified—3 very anxious psychoanalysis clients who march around 2 couches, while a bearded Viennese man plays an excerpt of "Pop Goes the Weasel" on an old fashioned phonograph.
While I would not have thought of this particular mental picture of 'musical therapy', it does make quite a bit of sense in the colorful way that Abrams explains it. Because of this skewed view of our profession when the term "musical" is used, we, as music therapists, need to have a clear, concise definition of music therapy. One of the main questions to ask ourselves is, what precisely, is natural to music therapy? Also, what exactly can be distinguished as uniquely characterized music therapy discipline, and the music therapists experience?
When I try to answer these questions, I think of the terms creative, improvisatory, helpful, inspiring, and intimate. While all of these terms can be musical in nature, I do not think musical is the appropriate term to use in defining the profession.
Abrams says we need to look at music therapy through an artistic lens, in which the value of the work and its goals are weighed according to such criteria as an experiential depth, narrative coherence, personal meaningfulness, and expressive beauty. The work is understood as musical, involving client and therapist in clinical musical relationship with one another. The goals are understood as musical, in that music can be viewed as an expression of health itself.
I think that looking at music therapy through an artistic lens is a great way to put it, because music therapy is in fact artistic. This artistic lens can be experiences through various music therapy techniques including improvisation, singing, and music listening.
He concludes by saying that 'if one grants that being musical is at least one legitimate way of describing the essential distinguishing features of both work and outcomes of music therapy, then perhaps the term 'musical therapy' is really not a horrible misnomer after all'.
I am currently in my last year of school as a music therapy major. I do think that musicality plays a big role in music therapy; however, I do not think that "musical" is interchangeable with music. I think being musical is an attribute of music, but it is not the music itself.
It is very difficult to explain to others that music therapy is to aide in all areas other than music, not necessarily music itself. When I am explaining music therapy to friends, family, and colleagues, I usually try to incorporate clinical and personal experience, to provide a "real life" picture of what it is precisely that I do. I have been involved in many sessions that were quite meaningful to me, and I think when I convey this to the listener, they can glean from it a better understanding just of how effective music therapy can be.
To conclude, I agree with most of Abrams' statements about using music therapy instead of musical therapy. I hope I can continue to develop and improve my individual definition of music therapy for future use with patients, clients, family and professionals.