The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a sudden rethinking of how music was taught and learned. Prior to the pandemic, the web-based digital audio workstation Soundtrap emerged as a leading platform for creating music online. The present study examined the growth of Soundtrap’s usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using machine-learning methods, we analyzed anonymized user data from Soundtrap’s 1.6 million educational users in the United States to see if the pandemic affected Soundtrap’s education user base and, if so, to what extent. An exploratory data analysis demonstrated a large increase in Soundtrap’s user base beyond five standard deviations beginning in March 2020. A subsequent changepoint analysis identified March 17, 2020, as the day this shift occurred. Finally, we created a SARIMAX model using data prior to March 17 to forecast expected growth. This model was unable to account for user growth after March 17, showing highly anomalous growth rates outside of the model’s confidence interval. We discuss how this shift affects music education practices and what it portends for our field. In addition, we explore the role of machine learning and artificial intelligence as a method for research in the music education field.
AndersT. (2021). On modelling harmony with constraint programming for algorithmic composition including a model of Schoenberg’s theory of harmony. In MirandaE. R. (Ed.), Handbook of artificial intelligence for music: Foundations, advanced approaches, and developments for creativity (pp. 283–326). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72116-9_11
2.
ArunrajN. S.AhrensD. (2015). A hybrid seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average and quantile regression for daily food sales forecasting. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 321–335.
3.
AugerK. A.ShahS. S.RichardsonT.HartleyD.HallM.WarnimentA.. . .ThomsonJ. E. (2020). Association between statewide school closure and COVID-19 incidence and mortality in the US. JAMA, 324(9), 859–870. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.14348
4.
AvdeeffM. (2019). Artificial intelligence & popular music: SKYGGE, flow machines, and the audio uncanny valley. Arts, 8(4), Article 130.
5.
BauerW. I.DammersR. J. (2016). Technology in music teacher education: A national survey. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 18(1), 2–15.
bella. p. (2015a). Can we afford these affordances? GarageBand and the double-edged sword of the digital audio workstation. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 14(1), 43–65.
8.
bella. p. (2015b). DAW democracy? The dearth of diversity in “playing the studio.”Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 8(2), 129–146.
9.
BenedictC. (2010). Methods and approaches. In AbelesH. F.CustoderoL. (Eds.), Critical issues in music education: Contemporary theory and practice (pp. 194–214). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051711000428
10.
BriotJ. P.PachetF. (2020). Deep learning for music generation: Challenges and directions. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(4), 981–993.
11.
BrockwellP. J.DavisR. A. (2016). Introduction to time series and forecasting (3rd ed.). Springer.
12.
BurgoyneJ. A.FujinagaI.DownieJ. S. (2015). Music information retrieval. In SchreibmanS.SiemensR. G. (Eds.), A new companion to digital humanities (pp. 213–228). John Wiley & Sons.
13.
CatalanoA. J.TorffB.AndersonK. S. (2021). Transitioning to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Differences in access and participation among students in disadvantaged school districts. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38, 258–270.
14.
CayariC. (2021). Creating virtual ensembles: Common approaches from research and practice. Music Educators Journal, 107(3), 38–46.
15.
ClauhsM. (2020). Songwriting with digital audio workstations in an online community. Journal of Popular Music Education, 4(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1386/jpme_00027_1
16.
ColwellR.WebsterP. R. (2011). MENC handbook of research on music learning. Oxford University Press.
17.
ElpusK.AbrilC. R. (2019). Who enrolls in high school music? A national profile of US students, 2009–2013. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(3), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419862837
18.
HinkleyD. V. (1970). Inference about the change-point in a sequence of random variables. Biometrika, 57(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.1.1
19.
IhakaR.GentlemanR. (1996). R: A language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1996.10474713
20.
KillickR.EckleyI. A. (2014). changepoint: An R package for changepoint analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 58(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v058.i03
21.
KillickR.FearnheadP.EckleyI. A. (2012). Optimal detection of changepoints with a linear computational cost. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(500), 1590–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745
22.
LeBlancA. (1979). Generic style music preferences of fifth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27(4), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344712
23.
ManigandanP.AlamM. S.AlharthiM.KhanU.AlagirisamyK.PachiyappanD.RehmanA. (2021). Forecasting natural gas production and consumption in United States—Evidence from SARIMA and SARIMAX models. Energies, 14(19), Article 6021.
24.
MarkM. L.GaryC. L. (2007). A history of American music education (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
25.
McAfeeA.BrynjolfssonE.DavenportT. H.PatilD. J.BartonD. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.
MoirZ.MedbøeH. (2015). Reframing popular music composition as performance-centred practice. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 8(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmte.8.2.147_1
28.
MyattG. J. (2007). Making sense of data: A practical guide to exploratory data analysis and data mining. Wiley-Interscience. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470101024
29.
PachetF.RoyP.CarréB. (2021). Assisted music creation with Flow Machines: Towards new categories of new. In E. R. Miranda (Ed.), Handbook of artificial intelligence for music (pp. 485–520). Springer.
30.
PrenskyM. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
31.
RosenD.SchmidtE. M.KimY. E. (2013, June). Utilizing music technology as a model for creativity development in K-12 education [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 341–344). https://doi.org/10.1145/2466627.2466670
32.
RoweV.TriantafyllakiA.PachetF. (2016). Children’s creative music-making with reflexive interactive technology: Adventures in improvising and composing. Routledge.
33.
RudderC. (2014). Dataclysm: Love, sex, race, and identity—What our online lives tell us about our offline selves. Crown.
34.
RuthmannA. (2007). The composers’ workshop: An approach to composing in the classroom. Music Educators Journal, 93(4), 38–43.
35.
SmithG. D. (2020). “Yeah, we all here tryna flourish”: A reflection on a symposium on eudaimonia and music learning. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 5(1), 123–129.
36.
ThibeaultM. D. (2014). The shifting locus of musical experience from performance to recording to data: Some implications for music education. Music Education Research International, 6, 38–55.
37.
ThomasM. (Ed.). (2011). Deconstructing digital natives: Young people, technology, and the new literacies. Taylor & Francis.
38.
VagropoulosS. I.ChouliarasG. I.KardakosE. G.SimoglouC. K.BakirtzisA. G. (2016). Comparison of SARIMAX, SARIMA, modified SARIMA and ANN-based models for short-term PV generation forecasting [Paper presentation]. 2016 IEEE International Energy Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/ENERGYCON.2016.7514029
39.
van den BurgG. J.WilliamsC. K. (2020). An evaluation of change point detection algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06222.
40.
WalzerD. A. (2016). Software-based scoring and sound design: An introductory guide for music technology instruction. Music Educators Journal, 103(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116653449
41.
YarbroughC. (2002). The first 50 years of the Journal of Research in Music Education: A content analysis. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(4), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345354
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
