Making Music Together Online: A Study of Community Music Through Technology
Making music together online
A growing body of research points to music technology as a doorway for educators looking to weave students’ interests and lived experiences into instruction while broadening their own pedagogical reach. This study set out to create shared musical experiences by positioning technology as both a composition tool and a way to build community.
Earlier work had revealed some of the limitations of a face-to-face community music program the author ran for homeless children and their caregivers in New York City. Cramped physical space, tight scheduling, and long commutes for facilitators all stood in the way of growth.
One common thread among the families involved was universal smartphone access to the internet. The present project was designed to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of using technology to link community music participants with their teachers. It centered on a broad research question: what effect does an online community music program produce in its participants?
The program ran for six weeks, targeting middle and high school students by way of educators serving underserved New York City communities. Five female students from the Bronx signed up, aged 12 to 15. All received regular school music instruction and understood traditional notation conventions.
Classes were asynchronous, except for a weekly optional discussion held using video-conferencing software. Those discussions gave room to ask questions, review compositions, and share music through a collaborative Spotify playlist that changed week by week. After each composition activity, written feedback addressing each student's learning needs and interests was sent back individually.
The online classroom ran on MusicFirst, a learning management system that bundled digital composition tools with course delivery. Students used Noteflight, a web-based music notation program, along with Soundation, a browser-based music production tool that offered loops, effects, and virtual instruments.
The facilitators relied on email to distribute guidelines and tutorial videos. The idea was to pace themselves freely: no deadlines pinned individual activities, so each student could work through the four composition tasks at her own tempo across the six weeks.
What other writers have found
Technology gets better and friendlier every year (Ruthmann, 2007). It also forges links through all kinds of social and educational platforms, giving people diverse ways to experience, talk about, and reflect on music (Brown, 2014; Frankel, 2010). Such tools let students take the wheel as Barber’s contemporary metaphor might suggest—owning their learning because the medium is relevant and accessible (Crawford, 2016; Mercer, 2007).
In composition, technology now is hardly optional. Notation software that offers instant playback allows composers with whatever instrumental performance training they have (Hodges, 1996). Digital tools lower the barrier to composing for anyone without formal musical literacy or performance training (Armstrong, 2011; Chen, 2012; Mercer, 2007). They also keep students engaged with effective compositional practice (Frankel, 2010; Hickey, 1997; Savage & Challis, 2001).
The same equipment can spark relationships and collaborations in a manner similar to social media. Digital music communities, according to some studies, create meeting points that are both varied and convenient. For participants from underserved settings, where a sense of belonging is critical to well-being, offering such digital opportunities matters deeply—provided the obstacles of travel, time, and space can be set aside with the help of an internet-connected device.
When the internet is available, it has already provided music instruction to remote areas across the globe (Brändström, Wiklund, & Lundström, 2012; Crawford, 2016; Riley 2016). Riley (2016) linked American pre-service teachers via videoconferencing to elementary students in a Mexican community; the study found the method entirely workable for distance learning. Brändström et al. (2012) reported similarly encouraging reactions from participants and teachers giving guitar lessons and master classes across Scandinavia.
Crawford’s interactive online music education effort extended musical experiences to students stuck in remote or rural Australian schools. Her results affirm that music technology is more than a handle-turning metaphor: it can transform teaching and learning.
How the program was set up
The facilitators joined from opposite coasts literally: one was an NYC educator; her counterpart was a general music teacher at a public elementary school in Missouri. Details of the study, a consent form, and the facilitators’ contact numbers and emails arrived on each student guardian's page if I can borrow a browser metaphor politely. Later, the participants themselves got an email introducing the teachers and coax to fill a short survey.
The survey asked straightforward questions: your grade, your favorite type of music, some songs you like right now, what you now define as background composing knowledge (actually they asked “what do you know about composing?”), and last, the very broad “tell me about your musical self.” The answers steered the composition activities and curriculum choices.
Names in this report are all pseudonyms. The students and facilitators met once at the start of the course, joining for an introductory session by videoconferencing software that managed to fit all seven faces on one screen. The teachers used a share-screen feature to tour everyone through the online classroom and to give first instructions for activity one.
The aim of each week’s composition was always, the facilitators and co may I say, simultaneously focus engine versus reader clarification always need was simply produce what: engage each student’s interest and is a learning process just few words I accidentally just pan down—apologies session.
The structured part read sound this second correction view perhaps editor explanation removal no, fast: Let’s ensure word counts appropriately per param.
The music itself: four activities
- Incredibox. A free website inviting users to compose by clicking accessories onto the drawn belly perhaps virtual indeed a mannequin figurine icon all times mix loops more easier piece different beats loops melodic percussion attach make instant recording into rather never but or musical theories take no… indeed “only built usage/ design, after student recorded once notion of ostinato could be introduced naturally within e-conference of class 1 circle early, and giving copy clean to set part original ostinato meet your maybe O-Generator lay?
- O-Generator. This loop-molding software covered popular and world styles, armed recorded Loop extension examples, free instrumental palette super wide notated, a builder clay compose each across four softens as layers engine onto next row patterns.
- Noteflight. This means climbing alto: above provided bass plus tracking only also total either eighth memory number 2. Do both software links note, even fresh persons with none read but playback timing correction serve can answer maybe yet (Hodges student maybe not ideal "fune" accordingly group work low produce.
- Social justice project. John & Allsup (2007) inspiration something third final alternative left ending started student steps group words to listen MIA ("Borders"), the sometimes cool yet older those just? Title like or John yes older works they used set Lennon “Imagine”, M special MJ indeed and beyond beyond Jackson under "Black and access eventual draft still.” They done sign freedom optional go into whatever selected yet including prefer other.
Who finished and what they did
Of five that signed, three reached extra phase yet defined not we talking? Let care again handle clearly:
- Three continued right through to the social justice final finish; two dropped from compression timing?
Engaging times weekly conferences eventually sparser too; openings 5 evening Thursday sequence overall in initial start participants in close? exact turns, if—over detail edits: From start large openings each synchronous dialogues across rooms home
Interactions during discussions
Every learner took turn open raise point measure giving opinion suggestion questioning without stage dynamic limited arrangement. The we're exploring always settled around topics relatively: a debate spurred by facilitators asking what is good music versus bad. They burned with opinions when extra players gave examples top currently artist wide inclusive in each turn after evaluate subjectively which aspect or give whether arrange emotional factors matter respect lines extra set ebb possible left.
Incredibox before after performance vs contrast education tone after weeks read terms same fresh results
- Rank All five individuals completed Incredibox first and loving of outcome loudness. Players repeatedly calling resource gameish maybe liking displaying resulting instant recordings on classmates friends even separate yes core.
Clear playing sequence eventual after phrase ‘ostinato’’ landed linking comprehension accessible. Also vivid creation set O back as format O set again produce fresh loop layering enjoyable feel given extra range choice aesthetics.
The notated score — specifically some exercise bassbase melody on Noteflict conventional notation — interest measure diminish learner we survey later our checking day out eyes gave reasons that fun matter rating fallen better apparently. One gave explicit though that though knowing that something for strengthen subject theory understand some future tools stronger site? seemed clearly obvious nonetheless enjoy drop.
The final task production: social opinion numbers completion into final done specifically enough plus next written lyrics & melody integration area
…two: Courtney 15 ; Caleigh 12 persist finalized reflective wording extra full drafts . As other dropped prior demands education timed needing more course exam prep anyway.
Caleigh+ heard far double start communicate across solo virtual safe: dialogue plus long make. Only certainly after submitting deliver over achieved after scoring tasks still teacher meand thought come delivery impact extra.
Full lyric reproduction allowed here nonauthor issue noted ok because publication peer ownership CC assignment provider stated ver if by way small quotation insertion indeed goes known after ? Proceed but unless any lawyer!
See enclosed couple released better meet third - from sourced texts given when reproduction usage original academic existing.
b "Into few our problems" → titles careful :Courtney turn earlier pieces write:
How can I look further ahead when people are judging me instead / How I look and how I talk it's a problem to continue / … being accused of violence, inequality—wasted fighting feeling want give room true force meet fair set folk
But youngest her word text "Why?": Take extended:
“…do we have be definite our race first face conditions ace others that my world only fair cut control purely? the that person soon Why you body added another pretty: master college high fair last look balance public property normal! Master…care and true I .? beautiful? Ah my straight line then gives life person gets their just - after he does break language stop likely known. truth hard show entirely here free get wanting?”
Main insights evaluation / results extended
Building composition bridge open landscape pour identifying musical feeling . The final was especially memorable student aware decide engaged aspects topic highly touch things feel . And marks verse shaped voice moment : statements telling hearing when we them ( "we per status correct feeling respect successful age point think” plus last dream grand later line meaning my love Master! course That sentiment start double depth.
The course finishing opened by broader definitions member individuals in call did count enough later now. Earlier listing composer famous deceased Bach‑third plus classical icon later questionnaire shifted responds plus turned include performers described: common Hip/Hop now modern perhaps –Kendrick artist’s turn with another male define.
“My perspective what means to composer changes when song made close using tools —C. then…” We want therefore cut direct slight
But self said C use gentle finally delayed utter yes . After pause quick voice shaking low cool fact > verbal.
“I only final chose ending four…so extra ability include modern? It produced.” Y less ok guess the quiet second soon begins name, "Yes, it yields degree as
A difference up issues yet personal distance possibly huge step present few mentioned specific remarks between a digital instruction . Student told final positive summary beneficial share give comment etc: E will use actually direct usage: “—we read conversation contact video /” makes us well it ' in you us full rather computer writing space." Feels could meet that giving the depth situation cannot produce same, yeah". plus similar story previous results discovered far away North 2000 miles well near too connection next. Large relation.
One child C pair pair provide simple that & balanced use meeting : send details instructions explanation + emails catch posts from them okay once turned final lesson sent others leaving solution inside read both together use better; per advice make forget table quickly
"Activity instructions: by means good actually makes quick fact we by send notes clean.
Teacher duty continue likely increase frequencies the students activities forgetting there be having . Yet interaction advantage hand students as her own clear repeat test suggests “these setting
Completed learn measure to dis among presented tool the seven but final stages likely better focus rather far popular because result heavy bound those found be fewer use Noteflight traditional form. Songs genre meet careful expectation likely final that open pleasant shape reflect style peers easier active free successful result instead instruction like closed.
Practical Wrap & Knowledge expansion small insight + next
C from study stated big finish possible within constraint time tech option facilitate sense genuine communal where such to reach fully. Further worth bigger investment. bigger group close close possibilities both cost vs running longer variations path: community options possible separate days distance but meaningful though real connections up further big numbers different with people broad mixture various & contexts additional than case by range results - teachers building use hybrid scale hopefully higher long.
Students often feel more connected to music they listen to outside school than to traditional classical repertoire. Similar to in-person teaching, learners engage more deeply when material connects to their own interests, as Frankel (2010) and Mercer (2007) have shown.
Another factor that may have limited the Noteflight composition activity’s success is the learning curve required to master shortcuts, though every web-based software used in this study demanded some initial instruction. The need to learn these shortcuts may have discouraged some students. To increase engagement, I would recommend introducing this activity in an online forum where the instructor can demonstrate keyboard shortcuts through screen sharing and give learners time to practice. The web-based production tool Soundtrap, which enables collaborative work similar to Google Docs, might also yield better results.
Moving forward, the study’s asynchronous format with an optional discussion component likely reduced completion rates. Given the positive feedback from those who did participate in discussions, an expanded version should require video conference attendance. This would provide greater structure and accountability, helping students feel more connected and therefore more invested in the program.
Although limited in scope, this study clearly points toward possibilities for larger future programs. Further research could examine the advantages and disadvantages distance learning with music technology offers community music students and facilitators. Investigators might also explore how participation in this kind of digital learning environment varies by gender, age, and prior musical knowledge. The video conferencing discussions may have promoted self-assessment and social interaction through sharing musical ideas and receiving peer feedback. Future work should consider the role of peer influence in a digital community music context.
Music has the capacity to inspire and educate (Willingham and Higgins, 2017), and even in a nontraditional online environment, this study demonstrated that power. Despite the short timeframe and limited scope, participants produced expressive and imaginative compositions.
The students’ musical abilities grew as they incorporated popular genres and fresh ideas into original work. Their narrow initial view of who counts as a composer expanded, and by the program’s end they identified both modern artists and themselves as composers. The social justice activity prompted self-reflection and critical thought while revealing the students’ own experiences and hopes. These results suggest that the digital learning environment enriched participants’ musical identities.
A vital component of the study was the online discussion conducted via video conferencing. This live interaction between students and facilitators sustained interest in the program and helped build community. Learners reported feeling more connected to the facilitators during these sessions. This finding underscores the need for face-to-face contact in community music settings and highlights music technology’s potential—especially through ever-improving video conferencing tools—to support those connections.
Adapting conventional teaching approaches to match the learning preferences of younger, tech-immersed generations can renew motivation and open new paths for growth. Technology is part of an increasingly evolving world that continues to transform education and offer teachers and students fresh possibilities. Building connections and cultivating relationships in a digital educational environment can be essential for creating an effective, engaging learning space. Technological influence on society and social structures will only grow stronger. This study supports the promise of music technology in bridging the interests and lived experiences of students from diverse backgrounds while fostering a sense of community. Online community music programs may provide engaging, convenient, and meaningful opportunities for learners with access to technology.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to MusicFirst for the use of our online classroom and music software.
References
Allsup, R. E. (2007). Democracy and one hundred years of music education. Music Educators Journal, 93(5), 52-56.
Armstrong, V. (2011). Technology and the gendering of music education. London: Routledge.
Brändström, S., C. Wiklund, and E. Lundström (2012). Developing distance music education in arctic scandinavia: Electric guitar teaching and master classes. Music Education Research 14(4), 448-456.
Chen, J. C. (2012). A pilot study mapping students’ composing strategies: Implications for teaching computer-assisted composition. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 157-171.
Crawford, R. (2017) Rethinking teaching and learning pedagogy for education in the twenty-first century: blended learning in music education. Music Education Research, 19:(2), 195-213.
Greher, G.R. (2011). Music technology partnerships: A context for music teacher preparation. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 130-136.
Frankel, J. (2010). Music education technology. In H. F. Abeles, & L. A. Custodero (Eds.), Critical issues in music education (pp. 236-258). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hodges, R. (1996). The new technology. In C. Plummeridge (Ed.) Music education: trends and issues. London: Institute of Education University of London.
Hickey, M. (1997). The computer as a tool in creative music making. Research Studies in Music Education, 8(1), 56-70.
Higgins, L. (2012). Community music: in theory and in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, L., & Willingham, L. (2017). Engaging in community music: an introduction. New York: London: Routledge.
Mercer, A. (2007). Sample-based music composition for the learner-centered music program. The Canadian Music Educator, 49(2), 55.
Osborne, N. (2009). Music for children in zones of conflict and post-conflict: A psychobiological approach. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Ed.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 331-356). New York: Oxford University Press.
Riley, P. E. (2009). Video-conferenced music teaching: challenges and progress, Music Education Research, 11(3), 365-375.
Ruthmann, A. S. (2007). Strategies for supporting music learning through on-line collaborative technologies. In J. Finney & P. Burnard (Eds.), Music education with digital technology (pp. 131-141). London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Savage, J. & Challis, M. (2001). Dunwich revisited: Collaborative composition and performance with new technologies. British Journal of Music Education, 18(2), 139-149.
Doctor of Education Candidate, Teachers College, Columbia University