Defining Times

Sound Sense's description of Community Music is now ten years old, but is it time for an update?

It has been ten years since Sound Sense came up with its definition of community music. This description aimed to reflect the diversity of community music as well as identifying aspects crucial to an understanding of the work; however, as community music has evolved over this time as well as our understandings of how and why it takes place, does the description need updating? First of all, here is Sound Sense's three-part description: -

1. Community music involves musicians from any musical discipline working with groups of people to enable them to develop active and creative participation in music.

2. Community music is concerned with putting equal opportunities into practice.

3. Community music can happen in all types of community, whether based on place, institution, interest, age or gender group, and reflects the context in which it takes place.

Maybe the first question we need to ask is 'Do we need to worry about a definition anyway?' And if so, who is it for? From Sound Sense's point of view, at least, a working definition is helpful in describing the work of the organisation to those either involved in community music practice or to those who might be interested in its development. Any description therefore needs to be inclusive in nature so that the wide range of people represented by both parties can relate to it. In last year's 'Facing Up' report it was suggested that Sound Sense's description of community music "could be more helpful". The document suggested that "the language of 'equal opportunities' is a bit old fashioned" and that "what it means has perhaps been forgotten". It also noted that the examples of types of community in the third part of the Sound Sense description do not mention ethnicities or faith. Finally, it noted that "there is perhaps a sense, in the first of the three tests, of music being 'done to' a group, which rather detracts from the power of the third test" and goes on to note that "In much Asian, Black and Chinese practice, there is a strong element of cultural traditions working from within". The report also states that "Musical traditions that have their roots in the empowerment of the disenfranchised are often used as a tool in community cohesion" and recommends that "it would be helpful to see this form of community music described a little more explicitly" giving the following example of a practitioner's description of community music: -

I believe in music as language that bridges and communicates beyond our everyday other languages. Community music as I see it is a shared participative, non-competitive music making experience. Community music seeks to build and bring about a feeling of togetherness in those doing it. I believe in events that promote social integration.

Lucky Moyu, Music for Change.

The point of this article then is to provoke dialogue within the community music sector (that's you) regarding this question of whether Sound Sense's now established description needs tweaking, replacing, or in fact is good for another ten years.

In preparation, I have spoken with a wide range of practitioners, including most of the Sound Sense board who have been most generous in giving their thoughts on the subject. Although I have found none of their responses to be in conflict, everybody I have asked has described what they think in different ways with the result that the idea of coming up with a succinct definition has at times seemed almost out of reach. What follows are my thoughts on the subject so far. Please, have a read, and then more importantly, respond and input your own penny’s worth.

You will see that I have decided to stick to Sound Sense's three-part formula. This is because I think it helps with the definition's clarity. I have though played about with the meaning of each section.

As far as the first statement is concerned, I agree with the Facing Up report that it does seem to imply that community music needs a practitioner to work with a group of people, i.e., it is a group activity lead by a musician. Whilst a lot of community music happens in this way (for example, most of my professional work) this does not seem to be the same as for other activities I am involved with where the separation between 'musicians' and 'groups of people' is not easily discernible. And so, I can appreciate that, for some, this "being 'done to'" description might not feel right. So what about simply:

1. Community music involves any group of people making music together.

Regarding the second section, Facing Up suggests that "the language of 'equal opportunities' is a bit old fashioned" and that "what it means has perhaps been forgotten". Again I am in agreement: from my perspective the language does seem a little dry and also distant to what I think actually goes through my head whenever taking part in a community music activity. Instead I would like to propose that any new description should try to capture something of that shared sense of achievement that we experience time and time again as a result of being involved in a group musical activity. In trying to find the words for this I don't think I can better Lucky's description of this aspect and so, with his permission, I will borrow from his words:

2. Community music seeks to build and bring about a feeling of togetherness in those doing it.

As far as the third part of Sound Sense’s definition is concerned it is the aspect of the activity reflecting the context in which it takes place that most resonates with me, rather than the attempting to mention all those who might take part. Of course community music can be enjoyed by anybody no matter what their background; however, does it actually help the definition by trying to list who that everybody is? Does not such an approach possibly create more trouble as there could always be the claim “Why isn’t such-and-such a group included?”

For me, the observation that community music “reflects the context in which it takes place” is perhaps the most crucial element of any community music activity as, from my point of view, a community music activity is one where there is a shared sense of ownership, not only in the end result but also in the actual process of the music making. Hence, a small change to the make-up of the musicians involved will often be reflected in the resulting musical outcome. Surely, here lies one of the most important skills of the community musician: how to facilitate a group in a way that everyone feels that they have contributed fully and therefore feel that they have some degree of ownership of the work. In my opinion it is this understanding of group dynamics that makes the difference between the seasoned community musician and someone who is less experienced. I therefore propose that the third part of the description could simply be:

3. Community music reflects the views and aspirations of those involved.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I have therefore the following description of community music:

1. Community music involves any group of people making music together.

2. Community music seeks to build and bring about a feeling of togetherness in those doing it.

3. Community music reflects the views and aspirations of those involved.

This description contains for me what are the three essential ingredients of community music: inclusivity (the making music together), context (that the music process and outcome reflect the group involved), and its edifying nature. I have also tried to come up with a description that not only accurately describes what a community music activity looks like to an observer but also what it feels like to someone taking part.


Robert Jarvis
Nov 05