Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about dramatic changes in popular music education, underscoring the importance of technology in both practice and transmission. Nevertheless, the celebration of technological integration as a one-stop solution has led to some challenges remaining overlooked and unsolved, resulting in an increasing mismatch between popular music education and the growth of online musical engagement among young people. Framed by the notion of digital musicianship, this position paper presents an overview of the adoption of technology in popular music education within the lockdown period, in the process raising concerns about whether such revisions can adequately address the challenges faced by popular music education. This leads to a discussion of a potential revamp of digital musicianship as a response to the continued and expanding presence of technology within popular music education and the post-pandemic teaching and learning environment. The authors assert that digital musicianship should encompass learners’ ability to perceive and adopt technologies for online and remote music-making, and critically evaluate their validity and quality in various contexts. Additionally, there is a need to critically address the homogeneity of musical cultures and technological determinism embedded within the design of music technology, alongside tackling the issues of inequality and accessibility.

Keywords

Access COVID-19 diversity inclusion inequality pedagogy

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak brought about unprecedented changes to education systems worldwide, reshaping considerably teaching and learning practices and prompting important conceptual and epistemological shifts in music education (Camlin & Lisboa, 2021). Scholarly works have revealed the multidimensional effects on teachers, learners, and the broader educational environment, including the psychological impact on teachers and students (Rosset et al., 2021), pedagogical approaches and adaptations (Calderón-Garrido & Gustems-Carnicer, 2021), and revisions to both policy and practice (Shaw & Mayo, 2021). The pandemic also ushered in a series of changes ranging from the integration of technology for various modes of learning (de Bruin & Merrick, 2022; Merrick & Joseph, 2023) to music performance in the digital medium (Howard et al., 2021), all of which significantly shaped and transformed many of the conventional pre-pandemic frameworks and practices (Thorley, 2023). Some of these changes within the music education sector have persisted, even as life returns “back to normal,” resulting in the embracing of practices characterized by digital pedagogies and the shifting roles of teachers (Bozkurt et al., 2022).

With a growing presence in education, the practice of popular music learning has become commonplace in both school and informal settings for the personal growth and development of young people (Smith et al., 2017). Technology has been integrated into various aspects of popular music education, including the use of digital musical instruments and computational devices as performance tools, music streaming, and video sharing platforms for the appreciation and understanding of a variety of popular music genres, digital audio workstations (DAWs) for recording and production, and sound synthesis to achieve timbral adjustment for specific musical goals, leading to increased student agency in learning popular music (Cremata, 2017; Powell, 2019). However, amidst the celebrations, a number of challenges, among them a lack of access and technological determinism, have long been present. These have been compounded by inadequate technical competence among music teachers in integrating technology into their teaching practices (Gall, 2017b), and a lack of consideration for educational affordances within the realm of music software design (Cheng & Leong, 2017).

Digital musicianship, a combination of multiple music- and technology-related practices, knowledge, skills, styles, roles, and communities, is a notion that builds upon the existing framework of musicianship which addresses the values of flexibility and versatility in making music with technology (Partti, 2014). While this notion has much to offer in guiding popular music practices in the digital era (Hugill, 2018), its embodiment within the context of popular music education remains unexplored. There is also advocacy from those scholars who claim that even prior to the pandemic digital musicianship as a concept has been slow to respond to rapidly changing music practices within both schools and the industry (Brown, 2015; Partti, 2014), including extending the definition to accommodate the increased participation of young people in online music activities and the ways in which technologies are involved in the music-making process. Given that this is a scenario which concerns music teachers, curriculum leaders and policymakers, there is a strong case to be made for the reconsideration and potential overhaul of current frameworks in ways that can create a more relevant and engaging popular music education for students.

Originating from an invited roundtable discussion at the 35th International Society for Music Education (ISME) World Conference, this position paper proposes a revamp of the notion of digital musicianship to address the aforesaid challenges. It reviews the adoption of technology within the lockdown period, followed by a discussion of its enduring impact post-pandemic. The paper argues that these pandemic pedagogies may not address the existing challenges in popular music education without reframing musicianship as a response to the growing presence of technology and the post-pandemic teaching and learning environment. Recommendations are then provided to synergize pandemic pedagogies with technological integration, aiming to redefine digital musicianship to tackle these challenges.

Digital musicianship and popular music education

Whereas traditional musicianship involves embodied knowledge comprising physical skills and artistic judgements, digital musicianship has been defined as “disembodied knowledge made evident through a set of technical skills and critical judgements” (Hugill, 2012, p. 52). Encompassing aural awareness, cultural knowledge, and the ability to make music in various ways using technologies such as DAWs and sound analysis tools (Moroz et al., 2024), it can be viewed both as a reaction to the transformation of music brought about by the mediated culture of the digital era, specifically one characterized by increased access to technology and an open mindset to its adaptation for music-making (Väkevä, 2012), and as an adjustment to the “seismic shift in music and particularly music education” (Hugill, 2018, p. xvii). Scholarly discussions have explored the role of technology in digital musicianship training in different learning contexts, revealing the diverse skills required in various computer-mediated environments. For example, Cheng (2019) investigated the development of digital musicianship in a laptop ensemble through a mixed-method study, uncovering technologically oriented musical and non-musical development among participating students, while Chen (2022) used mobile devices to explore popular music education students’ engagement, and the collaborative processes involved in group creativity, within the context of the development of their digital musicianship. Partti (2014) conducted a case study analyzing the music-making practices of digital musicians, highlighting the emphasized aspects of musical versatility and flexibility, as well as mobility between various musical communities of practice. These scholarly attempts not only reveal how relevant knowledge and skills in digital musicianship can be fostered in various teaching and learning contexts, but also hint at the shift in music education toward more technologically oriented and digitally mediated practices (Hugill, 2018).

While musicianship in conventional teaching and learning contexts concerns competencies in creating, performing, listening, and analyzing music (Willoughby, 2021), the kinds of knowledge and skills required in popular music are notable for their focus on technical ability, versatility, musical understanding, and musical creativity (Green, 2002). Several common themes can be identified between the divergence of digital musicianship and popular music education from conventional musicianship. For example, aural engagement is also foregrounded in popular music group practices when compared to other instrument ensembles in schools (Boespflug, 1999), offering students substantial freedom to develop their creative musical ideas through activities such as composition, improvisation, listening, analysis, and performance (Rodriguez, 2012); popular music education emphasizes culturally responsive teaching, centering music that reflects young learners’ realities and interests (Hess, 2019); while technological advancements have facilitated the emergence of informal learning environments that favor the development of digital musicianship (Partti, 2012), the teaching and learning of popular music often integrates informal learning practices (Green, 2006), in which students learn outside school as a self-directed pursuit (as opposed to operating under the direction of a teacher) involving interactions with peers and group activities (Lebler, 2008). Because of these common grounds, there have been pedagogical synergies where popular music pedagogies can facilitate the development of digital musicianship, and vice versa. Certain genres, such as electronic dance music and hip-hop, require more specialized and customized pedagogies that incorporate technical training in DAWs and other music production tools for a more precise and efficient learning process (Kuhn & Hein, 2021). Concurrently, those school students who are “digital natives” and technologically “tethered” are capable of learning popular music autodidactically through the convergence of technology (Waldron, 2017). As an aural tradition, the integration of technology has the potential to offer innovative teaching and learning opportunities in popular music education, in the process taking advantage of the vast amount of online learning resources accessible (Giddings, 2008, 2010); the attributes of a do-it-yourself (DIY) culture, facilitated by digitally-rich environments, including self-direction, self-monitoring, autonomy, diverse skills, and the capacity to continue learning, can empower popular music learners to become more independent and self-sustainable (Lebler & Hodges, 2017), while the improving quality and accessibility of computer-based recording platforms can help democratize the music-making and learning process (Bell, 2015a, 2016).

Popular music pedagogies during lockdown

The pandemic’s resultant lockdown witnessed a sudden shift toward a largely online modality (Daubney & Fautley, 2020); in many cases, this inevitably led to practices across the broad spectrum of music education being oriented toward digital musicianship (Brown & Dillon, 2018; Väkevä, 2013). With in-person activities, such as live performances and ensemble rehearsals, prohibited, the majority of music teachers’ efforts focused on teaching students to create music at home (Stark, 2020). Without classroom music equipment available, the use of browser-based DAWs was widely adopted by teachers to facilitate meaningful music-making experiences for their students and to sustain their interest in music learning. Pendergast (2021) proposed project ideas for teachers to design simple music-making tasks with free or low-cost DAWs, which can assist students in learning fundamental musical, creative, and technological concepts. Cayari (2021) introduced dispositions toward online music-making and outlined steps for creating virtual ensembles with DAWs, offering a creative approach to adapting disrupted music education during lockdown. Knapp et al. (2023) found that there was explosive user growth of Soundtrap, a freemium online cross-platform DAW, during the lockdown period. Although the data does not indicate specifically what these users were doing with Soundtrap, its affordances best support the creation of beat-driven electronic music in various popular idioms such as techno, hip-hop, and rock music. In an open-ended survey, Schiavio et al. (2021) discovered that students actively sought connections that go beyond their relationship with the teacher during remote learning periods, demonstrating their capability to form collaborations within and beyond the classroom in ways that echo how popular musicians typically learn (Green, 2002).

Documentation concerning online communities of practice has discovered the availability of learning within digital “spaces,” revealing in the process what can be achieved collaboratively and remotely from one’s own home. Veblen and Waldron (2021, 2023) surveyed digital music education in formal and informal settings, revealing a readiness to adapt social media networks so that they function as online communities which emphasize learning as a social process; within this framework, information sharing, collaboration and supportiveness, and participation are all seen as shared social/cultural capital. Such practices create opportunities for intercultural collaboration and the maintaining of sustainable connections when in-person meetings are not possible, prompting a shift of learning goals and pedagogical aims (Gibson, 2021). Knapp et al. (2023) noted a tendency to embrace project-based learning, peer learning, informal pedagogies, an emphasis on play, composition, and improvisation, and “a lack of direct, synchronous instruction” (p. 3). Resembling “pandemic pedagogies” adopted by educators during lockdown (Ryan, 2023), this tendency relies heavily on the use of technology to make learning available in the home environment. Unified by a concern for pedagogical change during the pandemic, these innovative teaching and learning practices have shifted popular music education toward more participatory, collaborative, creative, and reflective models that can be disruptive of traditional pedagogies (Olvera-Fernández et al., 2023). As the threat of the pandemic has receded, the roadmap out of lockdown has reintroduced in-person music-making activities to schools. While gathering in the same room to produce sounds remains crucial to the music curriculum, certain performance practices in relation to the use of technology, such as the adoption of mobile devices for music-making and learning, have persisted in the ensuing post-COVID landscape. More diversified approaches integrating technology into ensemble practices (Palamara, 2023), social engagement (Veblen & Waldron, 2023), and hybrid learning (Songmuang, 2023) have all been adopted in popular music education, where online and remote collaborations have become accepted aspects of music practice, whether these be in the format of live performance, co-production, acoustic, or digital music-making.

Critical review for post-pandemic popular music education

While the fusion of technology and pedagogy has become integral to nurturing students’ musical creativity and engagement during lockdown, little attention has been paid to the negative consequences of these disruptions. The urgency of facilitating emergency remote teaching has overshadowed efforts to uphold universal values that are indistinctive from acts of teaching and learning advocated in critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2020), such as social justice and democracy (Benedict et al., 2015; Woodford, 2005). As a philosophy of education developed from critical theory, critical pedagogy views teaching as a political act that involves the politics of power relation and agency both within and beyond the classroom boundaries (Freire, 1970). In time of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, critical pedagogy has seen difficulties and tensions that have moved away from democratizing the learning spaces (Gentles, 2021), further emphasizing the market-driven approaches and encouraging neoliberal practices in education (Teräs, 2020). Within the context of higher education, institutions have demonstrated their capacity to offer remote and hybrid learning for the majority of academic studies during lockdown, including music-related disciplines. While music teachers have experienced the need for a “pandemic pivot” as it relates to music teaching in/through/with technology, they have also experienced the need for access (Bell et al., 2022). Actions have been taken to facilitate emergency remote teaching, retain students’ learning interest, prioritize the health and safety of teachers and students, and ensure the fluency of the kinds of technology used to leverage and support music learning. The pandemic has demonstrated that when the majority of society needs access, it can be made to happen; conversely, when the majority does not require access, the support dissipates without announcement. This is but one example of how “back to normal” can be detrimental for those people in need of assistance, including disabled and socially restricted individuals. Many of these sorts of structural and material inequalities are rife at the best of times (e.g. Daubney & Fautley, 2020; Nichols, 2020), but have been greatly exacerbated by well-intentioned pandemic pedagogies that foreground digital music-making. The provision of access is a political choice; however, the “new normal” presents an opportunity to foreground meaningful inclusion in our day-to-day practices, making it the primary factor of what, where, when, why, and how technologies are being applied to music education, ensuring they cater to all students (Draper, 2022).

While the achievements of music learning have often been tied to the ability to manipulate certain technologies commonly used in the industry (Harkins & Prior, 2022), the centering of particular tools and their adoption in teaching and learning contexts requires careful consideration, not least given the natural proclivity of the tools to lean toward workflows and outcomes that mirror current practices in the music industry. Recent trends in popular music education have seen the increasing presence of commercial music platforms and products from tech giants, including Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and many DAWs, in various teaching and learning contexts (Almqvist, 2019; Waldron, 2023). Although these technologies have been helpful in terms of facilitating emergency remote teaching and enhancing their relevance with young people, there can be unintended consequences for teachers and students regarding potential barriers created by the underlying cultural epistemologies concerned. For example, the music recommendation system behind the aforementioned social media and sharing platforms provides suggestions to customers based on their preferences and listening history, prioritizing engagement over educational value. There is also a lack of safeguarding mechanisms to ensure the accuracy and relevance in relation to their pedagogical purposes, that the popularization of short-form videos limits the depth and complexity of educational content that can be embedded. Although integrating technologies can make available music learning experiences that are “easy” (Bell, 2015b) and “fun” (Simon, 2020), there are critics who claim that the use of these tools may potentially dictate the way music is practiced and learnt, leading to technological determinism (Ruthmann et al., 2014). As a reductionist theory that goes hand in hand with the capability of technology as an “extension of the human body” (McLuhan, 1964), technological determinism views technology as an agent of change capable of exerting a “causal influence on social practice” (Bimber, 1994, p. 83). In music education, this deterministic tendency can be found in the use of loop-based DAWs by students, in which their ability to make music is magnified and facilitated, but also constrained by the prepackaged workflows embedded in the software design (Bell, 2015b). The widespread adoption of DAWs as a pedagogical tool has not only turned a willful blind eye to their deterministic characteristics and potential negative impacts on students’ learning, but also privileged those who can afford to pay for downloadable content or alternative options. This is compounded by other inequality issues as a result of resource constraints (e.g. Crawford, 2008; Gall, 2017a), serving primarily to expose the widening gap between music learners among developed and developing countries (Bates, 2014). Given that these technological resources are almost mandatory within the context of a successful online learning environment, the technological divide is anticipated to remain a yardstick as it relates to the equity and access of popular music education worldwide.

Rooted in the Western music tradition, many music technologies exhibit biases toward the Western canon, which may inadequately represent diverse musical cultures. This includes the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), in which the models for generating music are trained with databases consisting of mostly Western repertoires (Barenboim et al., 2024; Civit et al., 2022). The situation has not been aided by music teacher training programs around the globe, which have long focused on the history and related performance practices of Western art music traditions (Cheng, 2023; Howard et al., 2014; Wang & Humphreys, 2009). When these programs address electronic music, they have similarly tended to align with the Western art music idiom, rather than promote a global outlook that incorporates other musical cultures (Hein, 2022). Coupled with a lack of training in relation to the integration of technology (Bauer & Dammers, 2016; Cheng et al., 2023; Dorfman, 2016; Haning, 2015), instructions found in school music classrooms often orient toward a Western classical sensibility, prioritizing technique over expressivity or musicality (Bartel & Cameron, 2004). While there have been changes in curriculum standards, subject matters, and classroom practices post-pandemic, there remain multiple opportunities to shape and redefine the role of music technology within school music education. This should be assessed in line with an examination of the racialized divide between “Western’ and “non-Western,” and “art” and “popular” music, with the intention of yielding a more critical pedagogy and a culturally responsive music education (Elliot, 2007).

Revamp of digital musicianship in popular music education

Technology has often been used as a stimulus to motivate students to explore and engage with music in ways that are meaningful to them, yet there can be unintended and negative consequences if teachers and policymakers are not aware of the affordances of these tools and their appropriation in different teaching and learning contexts. To this end, the authors assert that digital musicianship should encompass the ability to perceive and adopt technologies for online and remote music-making, alongside a critical mindset that help learners differentiate the pros and cons of applying particular tools to best suit different situations. This move echoes that of other scholars who have addressed the important role of educational and technological affordances (Bauer, 2015; Cheng & Leong, 2017; English et al., 2021), but with an added emphasis on those online and music-making tools and environments that are more relevant to young people’s creative practices and learning experiences in the post-pandemic digital age.

The revamp can potentially rectify some of the neglected and hidden pitfalls as a result of the aforesaid pandemic pedagogies being persisted after lockdown. Kuhn and Hein (2021) observed that it is more common to teach the “nuts and bolts” of DAW and audio recording than project-based, popular-oriented pedagogies that might support “an art class for music” (p. 12). While technical training has very little to offer in terms of fostering creative expression and musicianship development, it risks reducing music education to a series of mechanical tasks rather than nurturing the holistic development of students as creative thinkers and well-rounded musicians capable of navigating both the technical and artistic dimensions of music-making. To address this, students should be able to apply the learnt skills, adopting the technology for self-directed music learning and creative experimentation, allowing them to explore their musical interests while critically evaluating the delimitations posed by the technology. Specific teacher training is required to make this happen, where the pandemic has already reshaped how a significant proportion of music teachers are trained, enabling them to embrace the digital convergence of instructional models beyond traditional teacher-led ideologies, using technology to navigate more open-ended approaches in teaching popular music, and developing students’ creativity within these parameters (Kladder, 2022). Furthermore, there is scholarly advocacy for emphasizing the inclusion of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) to prepare music teachers’ addressing of the inclusion of popular music practices into existing models of music education (Campanini, 2023).

Concluding remarks

This position paper problematizes the adoption of technology within and beyond the lockdown period in relation to some of the existing issues within popular music education, and discusses the potential revamp of the notion of digital musicianship in addressing these challenges. While pandemic pedagogies have primarily focused on emergency remote teaching during lockdown as an adaptation to disruptive circumstances, there are enduring challenges associated with the use of technology that may serve to worsen existing problems within popular music education, including technological determinism, the homogeneity of musical culture, accessibility and inequality issues, and the relevance to real-world practices. In an attempt to synergize pandemic pedagogies with technological integration, the authors propose a revamp of the notion of digital musicianship in a bid to tackle these challenges. These include the ability to perceive and adopt technologies for online and remote music-making, and critically evaluate their validity and quality in various contexts.

The ways music is learned, created, disseminated, and accessed are changing rapidly, driven by technological advancements and the pandemic-driven shift toward digital platforms and remote collaboration. In response to the ever-changing educational landscape, music educators need to be aware of the impact of appropriating or centering technologies in their teaching practices, along with considering how these may lead to unintended consequences, regardless of the perceived benefits they may bring. Moving forward, it is important to cultivate an awareness of the expanding influence of digital musical cultures and explore different ways in which popular music education can be more culturally responsive (Hess, 2019), and consider how technology can help to stimulate these positive changes.

Footnotes

Author contribution(s)

Lee Cheng: Conceptualization, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing - review & editing

Zack Moir: Conceptualization; Writing - original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Adam Bell: Conceptualization; Writing - original draft; Writing – review & editing.

James Humberstone: Conceptualization; Writing - original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Ethan Hein: Conceptualization; Writing - original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Data availability

There is no dataset associated with the article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lee Cheng

James Humberstone

References

Almqvist

C. F.

(2019). Thinking, being, teaching and learning with Spotify: Aspects of existential and essential musical bildung through listening in the classroom. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 12(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00011_1

Barenboim

Debbio

L. D.

Hirn

Sanz

(2024). Exploring how a generative AI interprets music. Neural Computing and Applications. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-024-09956-9

Bartel

Cameron

(2004). From dilemmas to experience: Shaping the conditions of learning. In Bartel

(Ed.), Questioning the music education paradigm (pp. 36–61). Canadian Music Educators’ Association.

Bates

V. C.

(2014). Rethinking cosmopolitanism in music education. Action Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 13(1), 310–327. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bates13_1.pdf

Bauer

W. I.

(2015). Technological affordances for the music education researcher. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 34(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314568570

Bauer

W. I.

Dammers

R. J.

(2016). Technology in music teacher education: A national survey. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 18(1), 2–15.

Bell

A. P.

(2015a). DAW democracy? The dearth of diversity in ‘playing the studio’. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 8(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.8.2.129_1

Bell

A. P.

(2015b). Can we afford these affordances? GarageBand and the double-edged sword of the digital audio workstations. Actions, Criticism and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 44–65. https://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Bell14_1.pdf

Bell

A. P.

(2016). The process of production | The production of process: The studio as instrument and popular music pedagogy ollaborative digital media performance with generative music systems. In McPherson

G. F.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 2, pp. 549–566). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928019.013.0036

10.

Bell

A. P.

Datoo

Matterson

Bahhadi

(2022). Assessing accessibility: An instrumental case study of a community music group. Music Education Research, 24(3), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2038111

11.

Benedict

Schmidt

Spruce

Woodford

(Eds.) (2015). The Oxford handbook of social justice in music education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199356157.001.0001

12.

Bimber

(1994). Three faces of technological determinism. In Smith

M. R.

Marx

C. L.

(Eds.), Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism (pp. 79–100). MIT Press.

13.

Boespflug

(1999). Popular music and the instrumental ensemble: Music educators can make use of student-composed music in popular styles to teach musicianship and skill in the use of recording technology. Music Educators Journal, 85(6), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3399519

14.

Bozkurt

Karakaya

Turk

Karakaya

Ö.

Castellanos-Reyes

(2022). The impact of COVID-19 on education: A meta-narrative review. TechTrends, 66(5), 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00759-0

15.

Brown

A. R.

(2015). Engaging in a sound musicianship. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (2nd ed., pp. 208–220). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744443.003.0011

16.

Brown

A. R.

Dillon

S. C.

(2018). Collaborative digital media performance with generative music systems. In McPherson

G. F.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 2, pp. 549–566). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928019.013.0036

17.

Calderón-Garrido

Gustems-Carnicer

(2021). Adaptations of music education in primary and secondary school due to COVID-19: The experience in Spain. Music Education Research, 23(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1902488

18.

Camlin

D. A.

Lisboa

(2021). The digital ‘turn’ in music education. Music Education Research, 23(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1908792

19.

Campanini

(2023). A place for TPACK in popular music education: A review of existing literature. Journal of Popular Music Education, 7(3), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00108_1

20.

Cayari

(2021). Popular practices for online musicking and performance: Developing creative dispositions for music education and the internet. Journal of Popular Music Education, 5(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00018_1

21.

Chen

J. C. W.

(2022). Group creativities: Mapping the creative process of mobile music creation. In Randles

Burnard

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativities in music education (pp. 198–205). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003248194-21

22.

Cheng

Lam

C. Y.

Leung

C. H.

(2023). Digital competencies of music teachers under the ‘new normal’ in Hong Kong. International Journal of Music Education. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614231186413

23.

Civit

Civit-Masot

Cuadrado

Escalona

(2022). A systematic review of artificial intelligence-based music generation: Scope, applications, and future trends. Expert Systems with Applications, 209, Article 118190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118190

24.

Crawford

(2008). Are resources solely to be blamed? The current situation on music education facilities, computer and music technology resources in Victoria. Australian Journal of Music Education, 1, 44–55. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.517151838294372

25.

Cremata

(2017). Facilitation in popular music education. Journal of Popular Music Education, 1(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme.1.1.63_1

26.

Daubney

Fautley

(2020). Editorial Research: Music education in a time of pandemic. British Journal of Music Education, 37(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051720000133

27.

de Bruin

Merrick

. (2022). Creative pedagogies with technology: Future proofing teaching training in music. In Henriksen

Mishra

(Eds.), Creative provocations: Speculations on the future of creativity, technology and learning (pp. 143–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14549-0_10

28.

Dorfman

(2016). Exploring models of technology integration into music teacher preparation programs. Visions of Research in Music Education, 28, Article 6. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol28/iss1/6

29.

Draper

E. A.

(2022). Critical pedagogy and disability: Considerations for music education. Visions of Research in Music Education, 40, Article 10. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol40/iss1/10

30.

Elliot

D. J.

(2007). Critical pedagogy for culturally responsive music education. In Symeonidis

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Greek Society of Music Education, Thessaloniki, Greece. 29 June–1 July 2007, pp.14–22. Greek Society of Music Education.

31.

English

H. J.

Lumb

Davidson

J. W.

(2021). What are the affordances of the digital music space in alternative education? A reflection on an exploratory music outreach project in rural Australia. International Journal of Music Education, 39(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761421999731

32.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

33.

Gall

(2017a). Technology in music education in England and across Europe. In Ruthmann

S. A.

Mantie

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education (pp. 31–48). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.2

34.

Gall

(2017b). TPACK and music teacher education. In King

Himonides

Ruthmann

S. A.

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to music, technology, and education (pp. 305–318). Routledge.

35.

Gentles

C. C. H.

(2021). Critical pedagogy in the time of COVID-19: Lessons learned. Multicultural Affairs, 6(2), Article 21. https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/jma/vol6/iss2/21

36.

Gibson

(2021). Shifting from offline to online collaborative music-making, teaching and learning: Perceptions of Ethno artistic mentors. Music Education Research, 23(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1904865

37.

Giddings

(2008). Popular music education: A different type of musicianship. The Canadian Music Educator, 49(3), 31–35.

38.

Giddings

(2010). Popular music education: A different type of musicianship, the follow-up. The Canadian Music Educator, 52(2), 33–36.

39.

Giroux

H. A.

(2020). On critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.

40.

Green

(2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315253169

41.

Green

(2006). Popular music education in and for itself, and for ‘other’ music: Current research in the classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 24(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761406065471

42.

Haning

(2015). Are they ready to teach with technology? An investigation of technology instruction in music teacher education programs. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 25(3), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715577696

43.

Harkins

Prior

(2022). (Dis)locating democratization: Music technologies in practice. Popular Music and Society, 45(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2021.1984023

44.

Hein

(2022). The politics is in the drums: Producing and composing in the music classroom. Journal of Popular Music Education, 7(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00070_1

45.

Hess

(2019). Popular music education: A way forward or a new hegemony? In Moir

Powell

Smith

G. D.

(Eds.), Bloomsbury handbook of popular music education: Perspectives and practices (pp. 29–44). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350049444.ch-003

46.

Howard

Bennett

Green

Guerra

Sousa

Sofija

(2021). ‘It’s turned me from a professional to a “bedroom DJ” once again’: COVID-19 and new forms of inequality for young music-makers. Young, 24(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308821998542

47.

Howard

Swanson

Campbell

P. S.

(2014). The diversification of music teacher education: Six vignettes from a movement in progress. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 24(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083713494011

48.

Hugill

(2012). Musicianship in the digital age. In Brown

(Ed.), Sound musicianship: Understanding the crafts of music (pp. 52–61). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

49.

Hugill

(2018). The digital musician (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203704219

50.

Kladder

(2022). Project-based learning and students’ individual creativity in music teacher education: Learning, teaching, and performing popular music in virtual spaces. In Randles

Burnard

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativities in music education (pp. 539–553). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003248194-52

51.

Kuhn

Hein

(2021). Electronic music school: A contemporary approach to teaching music creativity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190076634.001.0001

52.

Knapp

Powell

Smith

G. D.

Coggiola

J. C.

Kelsey

(2023). Soundtrap usage during COVID-19: A machine-learning approach to assess the effects of the pandemic on online music learning. Research Studies in Music Education, 45(3), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X221149374

53.

Lebler

(2008). Popular music pedagogy: Peer learning in practice. Music Education Research, 10(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800802079056

54.

Lebler

Hodges

(2017). Popular music pedagogy: Dual perspectives on DIY musicianship. In Smith

G. D.

Moir

Brennan

Rambarran

Kirkman

(Eds.), The Routledge research companion to popular music education (pp. 272–284). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613444-22

55.

McLuhan

(1964). Understanding media: The extension of man. McGraw-Hill.

56.

Merrick

Joseph

(2023). ICT and music technology during COVID-19: Australian music educator perspectives. Research Studies in Music Education, 45(1), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X221092927

57.

Moroz

Vear

Poltronieri

(2024). Evaluation of digital musicianship in higher education through playing and creating digital scores. In Kocher

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Technologies for Music Notation and Representation, Zurich, Switzerland. 4–6 April 2024, pp. 18–27. Zurich University of the Arts.

58.

Nichols

B. E.

(2020). Equity in music education: Access to learning during the pandemic and beyond. Music Educators Journal, 107(1), 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120945151

59.

Olvera-Fernández

Montes-Rodríguez

Olvera-Fernández

(2023). Innovative and disruptive pedagogies in music education: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Music Education, 41(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221093709

60.

Palamara

(2023). Diverse instrument symphonic ensembles: Making sustainable music amid unsustainable situations. Journal of Popular Music Education, 7(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00113_1

61.

Partti

(2012). Learning from cosmopolitan digital musicians: Identity, musicianship, and changing values in (in)formal music communities. Sibelius Academy.

62.

Partti

(2014). Cosmopolitan musicianship under construction: Digital musicians illuminating emerging values in music education. International Journal of Music Education, 32(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761411433727

63.

Pendergast

(2021). Creative music-making with Digital Audio Workstations. Music Educators Journal, 108(2), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00274321211060310

64.

Powell

(2019). The integration of music technology into popular music ensembles: Perspectives of modern band teachers. Journal of Music, Technology and Education, 12(3), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte_00012_1

65.

Rodriguez

C. X.

(2012). Popular music ensemble. In McPherson

G. E.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education (Vol. 1, pp. 878–889). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199730810.013.0053

66.

Rosset

Baumann

Altenmüller

(2021). Studying music during the coronavirus pandemic: Conditions of studying and health-related challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 651393. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.651393

67.

Ruthmann

S. A.

Tobias

E. S.

Randles

Thibeault

M. D.

(2014). Is it technology? Challenging technological determinism in music education. In Randles

(Ed.), Music education: Navigating the future (pp. 122–138). Routledge.

68.

Ryan

J. M.

(Ed.) (2023). Pandemic pedagogies: Teaching and learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003324096

69.

Schiavio

Biasutti

Philippe

R. A.

(2021). Creative pedagogies in the time of pandemic: A case study with conservatory students. Music Education Research, 23(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1881054

70.

Shaw

R. D.

Mayo

(2021). Music education and distance learning during COVID-19: A survey. Arts Education Policy Review, 123(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2021.1931597

71.

Simon

(2020). Guided by delight: Music apps and the politics of user interface design in the iOS platform. Television and New Media, 21(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418794634

72.

Smith

G. D.

Moir

Rambarran

Kirkman

(2017). Popular music education (r)evolution. In Smith

G. D.

Moir

Brennan

Kirkman

Rambarran

(Eds.), The Routledge research companion to popular music education (pp. 5–13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315613444-2

73.

Songmuang

(2023). From quarantine to in-person modality: Effects of the pandemic on music technology education and possible solutions for the loss of social interactivity. Journal of Popular Music Education, 7(3), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00127_7

74.

Stark

(2020). A pedagogy for a pandemic. The Canadian Music Educator, 61(4), 12–15.

75.

Teräs

Suoranta

Teräs

Curcher

(2020). Post-Covid-19 education and education technology ‘solutionism’: A seller’s market. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00164-x

76.

Thorley

(2023). The pandemic as a catalyst for remotivity in music. In Agamennone

Palma

Sarno

(Eds.), Sounds of the pandemic: Accounts, experiences, perspectives in times of COVID-19. (pp. 213–225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003200369-20

77.

Väkevä

(2012). Digital artistry and mediation: (Re)mixing music education. Teachers College Record, 114(13), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401311

78.

Väkevä

(2013). Digital musicianship in the late modern culture of mediation: Theorizing a new praxis for music education from a pragmatist viewpoint. Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology, 6(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.2478/sigtem-2013-0059

79.

Veblen

K. K.

Waldron

J. L.

(2021). Digital sociology, music learning, and online communities of practice. In Wright

Johansen

Kanellopoulos

P. A.

Schmidt

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociology of music education (pp. 456–466). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429504631-33-43

80.

Veblen

K. K.

Waldron

J. L.

(2023). Digital sociology and online music communities: Models and lessons from the Internet. Visions of Research in Music Education, 41, Article 7. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol41/iss1/7

81.

Waldron

J. L.

(2017). The convergence of networked technologies in music teaching and learning. In Ruthmann

S. A.

Mantie

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of technology and music education (pp. 475–486). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199372133.013.45

82.

Waldron

J. L.

(2023). YouTube, TikTok, and online music learning. In Randles

(Ed.), Milestones in music education (pp. 151–188). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003245681-8

83.

Wang

J. -C.

Humphreys

J. T.

(2009). Multicultural and popular music content in an American music teacher education program. International Journal of Music Education, 27(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761408099062

84.

Willoughby

(2021). Comprehensive musicianship. Visions of Research in Music Education, 16, Article 28. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/vrme/vol16/iss1/28

85.

Woodford

(2005). Democracy and music education: Liberalism, ethics, and the politics of practice. Indiana University Press.

Digital musicianship in post-pandemic popular music education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Digital musicianship and popular music education

Popular music pedagogies during lockdown

Critical review for post-pandemic popular music education

Revamp of digital musicianship in popular music education

Concluding remarks

Footnotes

Author contribution(s)

Data availability

Funding

ORCID iDs

References