- Email: [email protected]
Considering the future of music therapy
The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 75-80, 1997 Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0197-4556/97 $17.00 + .OO
Pergamon PI1 SO197-4556(96)00061-5
CONSIDERING
THE FUTURE OF MUSIC THERAPY
LISA SUMMER,
MCAT, RMT-BC*
issues and ethics. I believe that collaboration among the arts therapies is essential at this time. 3. In addition, because collaboration with other professionals affects the direction of our growth, I believe that we must seriously evaluate the danger of a current, strong trend in music therapy to collaborate with “music healers. ’ ’
In her article in this issue, Helen Bonny gives us her unique perspective on music therapy. Her definition of music therapy is a broad one and includes influences from outside the field, such as the rapidly changing health industry, as well as current practices within our profession. Helen’s pioneering and expansive definition of music therapy began in the 1970s when the field was primarily behavioral in its theoretical orientation. Since that time, efforts by Helen Bonny and other music therapy pioneers have led to a gradual expansion of music therapy from its previously behavioral roots into new realms of clinical practice, research and theory. Noting this change, Helen comments: “Within recent years this position (adherence to the positivistic behavioral mode) has changed and there are a number of influences which have led to a new and broader description of music therapy in theory and practice.” It is time to embrace the depth and breadth of our current practice (Bruscia, 1989) and to consider how to proceed in the future. Perhaps the first, and most important, issue to consider in regard to the future of music therapy is collaboration.
Music Therapy Collaboration/Unification History Helen Bonny developed her method of Guided Imagery and Music (GIM) from her research studying the effects of music upon consciousness. The dramatic results of her GIM work led her to define music therapy as a primary, rather than an adjunctive, therapy. Paul Nordoff and Clive Robbins introduced their Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy method, which utilized music improvisation with autistic and handicapped children. These two methods were significantly different. Bonny’s method focused upon the use of classical music to stimulate imagery with psychiatrically ill and “normal” adults. Nordoff and Robbins’ model emphasized the immediacy of vocal and instrumental improvisation with children with special needs. Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins were pioneers of the humanistic model of music therapy and a belief in the deeply transformative power of music. In the 197Os, their ideas were visionary and radical, and their humanistic methods were not accepted within the primarily behavioral orientation of the National
1. We must address the split that began in the 1970s. The music therapy profession can gain no strength as a divided group; therefore, our preliminary task at this time is to establish collaboration among practitioners. 2. If music therapy is to flourish, we must consider developing collaborative relationships with other professionals who share our philosophy,
*Lisa Summer, Associate Professor/Director of Music Therapy at Anna Maria College near Boston, is also Coordinator of Guided Imagery and Music (GIM) Programs at the Bonny Foundation for Music-Centered Therapies. Editor of the Music Therapy Znfernational Repor? she is author of two books, GZM in the Institutional Setting and Music: The New Age Elixir. 75
LISA SUMMER
76
Association for Music Therapy (NAMT). Nevertheless, Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins continued to practice and train music therapists in their humanistic methods that were split off from the mainstream of music therapy. Bonny first created the Institute for Consciousness and Music in Baltimore, Maryland in 1973 (Bonny, 1980) and continues her work today at the Bonny Foundation for Music-Centered Therapies in Kansas. Nordoff and Robbins created their first center in London in 1974 and currently Clive and Carol Robbins direct the Nordoff-Robbins Center for Music Therapy, which operates in conjunction with the New York University Music Therapy Program (Aigen & Robbins, 1996). Because these methods were not accepted into the mainstream of music therapy in their infancy, their practice and training grew in relative isolation from NAMT, but grew quickly and new associations (the Association for Music and Imagery and the International Trust for Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy) were established to safeguard their ethical practice and training. However, these are not the only examples of the schisms that evolved within the music therapy field. At the same time that Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins were developing their work, the American Association for Music Therapy (AAMT) was established. Incorporated in 1971, AAMT became fertile ground for an expanded practice of music therapy. Their definition of music therapy reflects an expanded theoretical orientation: “(Music therapists) combine musical modalities with humanistic, psychodynamic, behavioral, and biomedical approaches to help clients attain therapeutic goals” (AAMT, 1993, P. 1). Current Status Although music therapy in the United States has been divided between the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT) and the American Association for Music Therapy (AAMT) for the past 25 years, in recent years the climate has changed. Helen Bonny and Clive Robbins as well as other pioneers have been recognized for their work and given honorary life memberships to the NAMT. For the first time, concerns about the future led NAMT and AAMT to negotiate a merger and in 1996 NAMT and AAMT voted to unify our two organizations. NAMT reported: The general memberships of the National Association for Music Therapy and the American
Association for Music Therapy have voted overwhelmingly to form a single music therapy association to advocate with one voice for the profession and the clients music therapists serve. (Members vote unity, 1996, p. 1) Our unification “signals the beginning of the real work necessary to bring about a unified music therapy association and profession (Members vote unity, 1996, p. 5). This is a watershed event in our history. However, simply re-naming the unified organization the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) will not erase our 25year split. To be successful, the process of unification will require music therapists to confront the differences that have evolved. For example, NAMT and AAMT each developed their own professional standards, codes of ethics, educational systems and publications, and held yearly conferences in relative isolation from each other. Each organization has developed its own identity after the years of separation. Today, NAMT is considered the conservative organization and AAMT the liberal organization. An important exception to this split is the Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance (MMTA), a group formed “with the intent of allying members of the American Association of Music Therapy (AAMT) with those of the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT)” (MMTA, 1995, p. 1). Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance meetings and conferences have created a unique climate of collaboration in Massachusetts for the last 16 years, and theoretical differences are not a divisive issue. Now, the creation of the American Music Therapy Association provides an opportunity for true collaboration between the conservative and liberal factions in music therapy. Helen Bonny points out in her article: “There are major differences between the two groups . . . in theoretical bases of belief and practice which will need to be expressed, redefined, and integrated.” The healing of our internal split can be the first step toward a strong, healthy future for music therapy. Collaboration
Among the Arts Therapies
Collaboration with other arts therapy associations is the single most important effort in assuring a successful future for the unified AMTA. Our theory and practice are significantly different from traditional verbal therapy. In arts therapy, the therapeutic relationship is a triadic one rather than a dyadic one-it includes the therapist, the client and an art form. Our
MUSIC THERAF’Y use of the aesthetic domain as the main transformative agent in the therapeutic process distinguishes us from verbal therapy. Our art distinguishes us from other forms of therapy and it is our art that binds us together. The similarities in music, art, dance/ movement, drama, psychodrama and poetry therapy are evident throughout our literature. We have commonalities in theory, research, clinical practice, education, standards and ethics of practice. Another important bond lies in the difficulty of our dual task-to be an artist and a therapist simultaneously. Although our art gives us a common bond, it cannot be a magical bridge to collaboration. Building bridges among the arts therapy associations is a difficult task. However, our collaboration is a necessary pre-requisite to any successful alliance with larger, established fields, such as medicine, psychology, social work and special education. How can we build bridges among the arts therapy associations? The National Coalition of Arts Therapy Associations (NCATA) has been established as a forum for our collaboration. Although AAMT has been a member of NCATA, recently NAMT declined participation in this collaboration. I hope that the new, unified AMTA will become an active participant in NCATA and will play a significant role in our collaborative efforts. There are several examples for study in regard to the collaboration of art forms. Opera is one model that combines all of the arts: the drama of the story, the poetry of the libretto, the artistic design of the setting and the theatric direction of the performersmusicians, singers and dancers. In opera, each artistic discipline has its own expertise. Each artist participates side by side with others, contributing to a common goal-to enrich and enhance the lives of others through the aesthetic domain. Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, formerly Hahnemann University, offers a masters degree in Creative Arts in Therapy (MCAT) based upon this operatic model of collaboration. The Allegheny University model intertwines music, art and dance/movement therapy education, yet each modality remains distinct; each constitutes a specialty. A second model of collaboration, akin to a musical theatre production, is based upon performers trained to sing, dance and act with equal expertise in each area. This model integrates the art forms instead of keeping each as a specialization. This model of education is offered at the master’s level at Lesley College and at the California Institute for Integral Studies. NCATA’s work and the evidence from these ed-
ucational models provide important our future collaborative efforts.
cornerstones
for
A Caveat: The Danger of Unresearched Collaboration Recently (1996) Music Therapy Perspectives published a special issue on “Contemporary Trends and Practice” among NAMT members. In an article, “An Overview of Sound Healing Practices: Implications for the Profession of Music Therapy,” Crowe and Scovel recommend collaboration with music healers. The authors refer to them as “sound healers.” Crowe and Scovel report: “It seems to these authors that a new professional discipline is rapidly emerging.” They pose the rhetorical question, “Do we want to come together in some way with the sound healing practitioners to work in promoting the healing/ therapeutic benefits of music and sound?” (p. 28) in order to arrive at the uncritical answer, “yes.” On the surface, it may seem that collaborative ventures with music healers will enhance music therapy. After all, our field is expanding in new directions, one of which is toward a “holistic” model of music therapy. This impulse to expand toward a liberal, holistic music therapy model may be a healthy one, but it is not healthy to be impulsive in regard to collaboration with music healers. Crowe and Scovel refer to music healing as a “new professional discipline,” that has an association “to support and promote sound healing practices” (1996, pp. 27-28). However, there is not a “professional discipline” of music or sound healing. Aigen discusses music therapy, noting: Music therapy-as a profession-is something that we can define. Professional standards and responsibilities, educational competencies, certification criteria, acceptable forms of practice, and the function of accrediting bodies all reflect social agreements and play a role in being a music therapist. (1991, p. 80) Conversely, music healers have created no standards, educational competencies, certification criteria nor an accrediting body that would constitute a profession. Helen Bonny reports in this issue that the use (of music healing techniques) has been relegated to the non-professional music healer who often makes claims that are not based on clinical research nor on a thorough understand-
LISA SUMMER
78
ing of the physical and psychological the treatment. (1997, p. 13)
effect of
These claims and unethical practices have been reported (Summer, 1995). Before collaborating with music healers, music therapists must investigate the theories, practice, research experience and claims of music healers. Collaboration should not be established merely because the opportunity presents itself. Collaborations that influence the direction of music therapy are too important to engage in without careful investigation. Crowe and Scovel’s article must be taken seriously because it is evidence of the current trend toward an injudicious collaboration with music healers. The authors have recommended collaboration without adequate research. They utilize Randall McClellan (1991) as a secondary reference to discuss Cymatic Therapy, which was developed by Dr. Peter Guy Manners, referred to as “Dr. Peter Guy Masters” in their article (1996, p. 24). Had they investigated Manners as a primary source they would have found that his theory, and his practice, are almost incomprehensible. In a typical example of doublespeak, Manners wrote: In all other fields of perception with the exception of the purely mechanical process the transition to non-stereoscopic colourless observation had the effect that the world consciousness simply seemed to exist, leaving the ensuing hiatus to be filled in by a pattern of imagined kinematic happenings. For example colour of ether vibrations, heat by molecular movements, not so in the sphere of acoustics for here a part of the entire event on account of its genuine kinetic character remains a constant actual observation. (no date, p. 6) Manners seems unaware of the simplest acoustical facts (Summer, 1996). He wrote: Hans Holt showed that tones which to our ears seemed to have a clear and defined pitch may be split up in a series of resonators into a number of different tones . . . Hans Holt further showed that the particular series of overtones into which a tone can be resolved is responsible for the colour of that tone as a whole. (no date, p. 7) Manners has confused Helmholtz, the notable acoustician, with an imaginary Hans Holt. Obviously,
Manners seems not to have read Helmholtz’ acoustical theories, but merely heard his name mentioned, and incorrectly rendered Helmholtz as “Hans Holt.” Every trained music therapist has studied acoustics. Should music therapists be expected to take seriously a music healing system that is based entirely upon acoustical theories by a man who is unfamiliar with Helmholtz? Manners mistaking Helmholtz for Hans Holt shows the same secondhand research technique used by Crowe and Scovel in referring to Manners as Masters. This is an example of the “Telephone Game” gone horribly awry. Crowe and Scovel depend on a secondhand interpretation of an acoustic technique developed by a music healer who depends on a secondhand interpretation of an acoustic technique. Crowe and Scovel’s readers are at least the fifth link away from the original Helmholtz in this telephone game, learning “Hans Halt’s” “acoustics” from “Masters.” Had Crowe and Scovel researched Manners’ writings with his acoustical failings, I do not believe they would be recommending collaboration with this music healing practitioner. Regarding music healer John Beaulieu, Crowe and Scovel report that he “applied sound vibration to the body through the use of tuning forks tuned in a Pythagorean scale. A specific interval needed to stimulate the healing effect is created by tapping two forks together” (1996, p. 24). In this case the authors use a primary source, citing Beaulieu’s book, Music and Sound in the Healing Arts. Beaulieu does stress the necessity for using Pythagorean intervals for effective music healing throughout his book. However, their reading of Beaulieu’s Pythagorean healing system is uncritical and therefore fatally flawed. In his book, Beaulieu lists the specific frequency for each pitch of each “Pythagorean” tuning fork in his healing system (1987, pp. 95-96). The intervals he uses and lists in his book are not Pythagorean (Summer, 1996). Crowe and Scovel report: “We believe that it is important for music therapists to be educated about these techniques and to be open to dialogue and exchange with these practitioners” (1996, p. 28). Educated, yes, but open, no. In fact, we need to be guarded and skeptical. Through their article, Crowe and Scovel attempt to point out the similarities in the practice of music healing and music therapy. “It is the opinion of the authors that music therapy and sound healing are related and may be two facets of a continuum of healing with sound and music” (1996, p. 27). The examples in their article are structured to convince the music
MUSIC THERAPY therapist of this relatedness, and, without a true investigation of Manners and Beaulieu, as well as other equally questionable practitioners of music healing, music therapists may, believing that a relatedness exists, jump to Crowe and Scovel’s conclusion and decide in favor of collaboration with music healers. But the discriminating reader of these music healers’ books will find that the music healers’ theories are not based upon the simplest, most common acoustical, musical and psychological realities. The idea of allying with music healers in an attempt to develop our field toward more holistic models of practice is based upon the assumption that music healers practice holistically. But, if music therapists intend to collaborate with holistic professionals, music healers are not good candidates. Crowe and Scovel cite McClellan as one of the music healers whose theories and techniques we should be open to. In The Healing Forces of Music, McClellan reported:
antibiotic as McClellan describes it, we will lose all credibility. Steven Halpem, who Crowe and Scovel report as “Halperin” (1996, pp. 26, 28), proffers a different system of equations and a different method, but uses the same theoretical basis as McClellan, assigning particular notes to particular parts of the body. Halpem has taken these assigned pitches and created compositions with the “healing” pitch as the tonic or keynote (Halpem, 1985). Halpem (1978) noted:
Each structure of the body has its own natural resonating frequency. Illness results when this natural frequency is altered by frequencies that are foreign to it . . . After determining the natural frequency of the structure in question, that frequency can be introduced to the body structure and, through resonance, cause it to return to its natural frequency. Thus the body structure is restored to healthfulness and harmony. (1988, pp. 4849)
In Halpem’s prescriptive healing system, music is denied its aesthetic properties and the client (listener) is denied subjective musical experience. This is not a holistic philosophy. It does not connect body and mind; it does not expand one’s consciousness. This philosophy is a narrowing of consciousness to the point where consciousness itself becomes irrelevant. In Halpem’s philosophy the client’s mind can have no effect upon his body. The client has become an object, his body akin to a musical instrument, which Halpem plans to “tune up” to the correct pitch with the particular genre of music in the key that Halpem deems ‘ ‘healing. ’ ’ There is an issue here of responsibility. Despite the fact that Halpem uses music for “healing,” he evades the complex issues inherent in using it. He does not discuss the human experience. Where are the social factors? The emotional factor? The aesthetic factor? Where is human consciousness? Laying bare Halpem’s philosophy, it is clear that it cannot be called holistic, yet his methods are represented as being holistic, non-traditional, alternative and “Eastern.” How less holistic can a music healing philosophy be than for the healer to decide that one frequency out of infinite possibilities is the only acceptable, and healthy, one at which to vibrate? Halpem’s goal in creating his concept of seven healthy human pitches is to enforce a pre-identified “appropriate” healthy condition upon his clients. His goals are not holistic; they are pseudo-behavioral: what is considered a maladap-
Discerning music therapists should know that there is no “natural resonating frequency” for “each structure of the body.” Nor does “illness result when this natural frequency is altered.” No serious health professional can ascribe to the notion that a “frequency can be introduced to the body structure and, through resonance, cause it to return to its natural frequency.” McClellan speculates wildly about acoustics (1988, pp. 13-16), with a seriously flawed understanding of acoustical principles (Summer, 1996, pp. 190-196). Later in his book, McClellan provides the reader with a prescribed set of seven equations of seven particular frequencies for particular glands and body areas (p. 92). But what could be less holistic than prescribing a pitch for a particular body organ? McClellan reduces music to sound, and sound to the equivalent of penicillin. His philosophy is simple: play a pitch or interval and thereby effect a cure. If we, as music therapists, ascribe to the belief that music is a kind of
This is how we know that the “Spectrum Suite” soundtrack (Halpem’s music) works as well as it does; its been tested, and used, by a great many people . . . Its generality of application seems to relate to the fact that all major energy centers in the body are brought into attunement. This is the function of the 7 keynotes, which relate to the 7 colors, and 7 chakras. (p. 27)
LISA SUMMER
80
tive response is altered to a specific desired response. If one does not vibrate at particular frequencies, then one is out of tune, maladapted and must be fixed. Halpern’s prescriptive method follows no theoretical model of therapy on this earth. No therapist carries a particular set of universal behavioral rules to enforce upon all clients. Halpern’s method is not holistic, nor is it behavioral, nor is it therapy at all. It necessitates no therapist, no treatment plan, no sensitivity, no process. However, with only a cursory look at music healing techniques, music therapists may come to the conclusion that music healing is a form of liberal music therapy [Halpem called his method a “ ‘radical’ form of ‘music therapy,’ ” (1978, p. 76)] and advocate collaboration in order to expand our field. Conclusions The question of collaboration inside and outside of the field of music therapy is a serious one. We are at an historic crossroad and must seriously consider our choices for the future. First and foremost, it is time for music therapists to embrace the differences within our profession. The current trend to seek alliances outside our profession with “liberal” music healers constitutes a jump over a large group of practitioners who practice legitimate, liberal music therapy: music therapists from AAMT. Could it be that the current trend to seek alliances outside our field with music healers is a resistance to the merging of the NAMT/AAMT theoretical division? To avoid joining the conservative and the liberal elements within our own field at this time would undermine our unification efforts and re-create our internal split merely in another form. Secondly, we must evaluate the possibilities for collaboration with other professions. In her article, Helen Bonny suggests, “Explorations in the integration of arts therapies through experimentation and collaboration could generate fertile opportunities. . .” Music, art, dance/
movement, drama therapy, psychodrama and poetry therapy have a strong common bond: the use of the aesthetic domain as a therapeutic tool, which has resulted in similar philosophy, treatment issues and ethics. I believe that music therapy should collaborate with other arts therapy associations in order to forge a responsible, healthy path for our future. References Aigen, K. (1991). A conception of music for music therapy. Music Therapy, IO(l), 77-98. Aigen, K., & Robbins, C. (1996). Current developments in Nordoff-Robbins music therapy. Music Therapy International Report, II, 81-86. American Association for Music Therapy (1993). Association brochure. Valley Forge, PA: AAMT. Beaulieu, J. (1987). Music and sound in the healing arts. Barrytown, NY: Station Hill Press. Bonny, H. L. (1980). GIM Therapy: Past present, and future implications. Salina, KS: Bonny Foundation. Bonny, H. L. (1997). The state of the art of music therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 24(l). Bruscia, K. (1989). Defining music therapy. Spring City, PA: Spring House Books. Crowe, B. J., & Scovel, M. (1996). An overview of sound healing practices: Implications for the profession of music therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 14(l), 21-29. Halpem, S. (1978). Tuning the human instrument: An owner’s manual. Palo Alto, CA: Spectrum Research Institute. Halpem, S. (1985). Sound health: The music and sounds that make us whole. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Manners, P. G. (nd.) Penetrating one of nature’s greatest mysteries: The creation of matter by sound. Worcestershire, England: Bretforton Hall Clinic. Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance. (1995-96). Membership directory. Boston, MA: MMTA. McClellan, R. A. (1988). The healing forces of music. Amity, NY: Amity House. McClellan, R. A. (1991). The healing forces of music. Rockport, MA: Element, Inc. Members vote unity! (1996, Winter/Spring). NAMT Notes, I. Summer, L. (1995). Unsound medicine. In C. B. Kenny (Ed.), Listening, playing, creating: Essays on the power of sound (pp. 59-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Summer, L. (1996). Music: The new age elixir. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Pergamon PI1 SO197-4556(96)00061-5
CONSIDERING
THE FUTURE OF MUSIC THERAPY
LISA SUMMER,
MCAT, RMT-BC*
issues and ethics. I believe that collaboration among the arts therapies is essential at this time. 3. In addition, because collaboration with other professionals affects the direction of our growth, I believe that we must seriously evaluate the danger of a current, strong trend in music therapy to collaborate with “music healers. ’ ’
In her article in this issue, Helen Bonny gives us her unique perspective on music therapy. Her definition of music therapy is a broad one and includes influences from outside the field, such as the rapidly changing health industry, as well as current practices within our profession. Helen’s pioneering and expansive definition of music therapy began in the 1970s when the field was primarily behavioral in its theoretical orientation. Since that time, efforts by Helen Bonny and other music therapy pioneers have led to a gradual expansion of music therapy from its previously behavioral roots into new realms of clinical practice, research and theory. Noting this change, Helen comments: “Within recent years this position (adherence to the positivistic behavioral mode) has changed and there are a number of influences which have led to a new and broader description of music therapy in theory and practice.” It is time to embrace the depth and breadth of our current practice (Bruscia, 1989) and to consider how to proceed in the future. Perhaps the first, and most important, issue to consider in regard to the future of music therapy is collaboration.
Music Therapy Collaboration/Unification History Helen Bonny developed her method of Guided Imagery and Music (GIM) from her research studying the effects of music upon consciousness. The dramatic results of her GIM work led her to define music therapy as a primary, rather than an adjunctive, therapy. Paul Nordoff and Clive Robbins introduced their Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy method, which utilized music improvisation with autistic and handicapped children. These two methods were significantly different. Bonny’s method focused upon the use of classical music to stimulate imagery with psychiatrically ill and “normal” adults. Nordoff and Robbins’ model emphasized the immediacy of vocal and instrumental improvisation with children with special needs. Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins were pioneers of the humanistic model of music therapy and a belief in the deeply transformative power of music. In the 197Os, their ideas were visionary and radical, and their humanistic methods were not accepted within the primarily behavioral orientation of the National
1. We must address the split that began in the 1970s. The music therapy profession can gain no strength as a divided group; therefore, our preliminary task at this time is to establish collaboration among practitioners. 2. If music therapy is to flourish, we must consider developing collaborative relationships with other professionals who share our philosophy,
*Lisa Summer, Associate Professor/Director of Music Therapy at Anna Maria College near Boston, is also Coordinator of Guided Imagery and Music (GIM) Programs at the Bonny Foundation for Music-Centered Therapies. Editor of the Music Therapy Znfernational Repor? she is author of two books, GZM in the Institutional Setting and Music: The New Age Elixir. 75
LISA SUMMER
76
Association for Music Therapy (NAMT). Nevertheless, Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins continued to practice and train music therapists in their humanistic methods that were split off from the mainstream of music therapy. Bonny first created the Institute for Consciousness and Music in Baltimore, Maryland in 1973 (Bonny, 1980) and continues her work today at the Bonny Foundation for Music-Centered Therapies in Kansas. Nordoff and Robbins created their first center in London in 1974 and currently Clive and Carol Robbins direct the Nordoff-Robbins Center for Music Therapy, which operates in conjunction with the New York University Music Therapy Program (Aigen & Robbins, 1996). Because these methods were not accepted into the mainstream of music therapy in their infancy, their practice and training grew in relative isolation from NAMT, but grew quickly and new associations (the Association for Music and Imagery and the International Trust for Nordoff-Robbins Music Therapy) were established to safeguard their ethical practice and training. However, these are not the only examples of the schisms that evolved within the music therapy field. At the same time that Bonny and Nordoff-Robbins were developing their work, the American Association for Music Therapy (AAMT) was established. Incorporated in 1971, AAMT became fertile ground for an expanded practice of music therapy. Their definition of music therapy reflects an expanded theoretical orientation: “(Music therapists) combine musical modalities with humanistic, psychodynamic, behavioral, and biomedical approaches to help clients attain therapeutic goals” (AAMT, 1993, P. 1). Current Status Although music therapy in the United States has been divided between the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT) and the American Association for Music Therapy (AAMT) for the past 25 years, in recent years the climate has changed. Helen Bonny and Clive Robbins as well as other pioneers have been recognized for their work and given honorary life memberships to the NAMT. For the first time, concerns about the future led NAMT and AAMT to negotiate a merger and in 1996 NAMT and AAMT voted to unify our two organizations. NAMT reported: The general memberships of the National Association for Music Therapy and the American
Association for Music Therapy have voted overwhelmingly to form a single music therapy association to advocate with one voice for the profession and the clients music therapists serve. (Members vote unity, 1996, p. 1) Our unification “signals the beginning of the real work necessary to bring about a unified music therapy association and profession (Members vote unity, 1996, p. 5). This is a watershed event in our history. However, simply re-naming the unified organization the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) will not erase our 25year split. To be successful, the process of unification will require music therapists to confront the differences that have evolved. For example, NAMT and AAMT each developed their own professional standards, codes of ethics, educational systems and publications, and held yearly conferences in relative isolation from each other. Each organization has developed its own identity after the years of separation. Today, NAMT is considered the conservative organization and AAMT the liberal organization. An important exception to this split is the Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance (MMTA), a group formed “with the intent of allying members of the American Association of Music Therapy (AAMT) with those of the National Association for Music Therapy (NAMT)” (MMTA, 1995, p. 1). Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance meetings and conferences have created a unique climate of collaboration in Massachusetts for the last 16 years, and theoretical differences are not a divisive issue. Now, the creation of the American Music Therapy Association provides an opportunity for true collaboration between the conservative and liberal factions in music therapy. Helen Bonny points out in her article: “There are major differences between the two groups . . . in theoretical bases of belief and practice which will need to be expressed, redefined, and integrated.” The healing of our internal split can be the first step toward a strong, healthy future for music therapy. Collaboration
Among the Arts Therapies
Collaboration with other arts therapy associations is the single most important effort in assuring a successful future for the unified AMTA. Our theory and practice are significantly different from traditional verbal therapy. In arts therapy, the therapeutic relationship is a triadic one rather than a dyadic one-it includes the therapist, the client and an art form. Our
MUSIC THERAF’Y use of the aesthetic domain as the main transformative agent in the therapeutic process distinguishes us from verbal therapy. Our art distinguishes us from other forms of therapy and it is our art that binds us together. The similarities in music, art, dance/ movement, drama, psychodrama and poetry therapy are evident throughout our literature. We have commonalities in theory, research, clinical practice, education, standards and ethics of practice. Another important bond lies in the difficulty of our dual task-to be an artist and a therapist simultaneously. Although our art gives us a common bond, it cannot be a magical bridge to collaboration. Building bridges among the arts therapy associations is a difficult task. However, our collaboration is a necessary pre-requisite to any successful alliance with larger, established fields, such as medicine, psychology, social work and special education. How can we build bridges among the arts therapy associations? The National Coalition of Arts Therapy Associations (NCATA) has been established as a forum for our collaboration. Although AAMT has been a member of NCATA, recently NAMT declined participation in this collaboration. I hope that the new, unified AMTA will become an active participant in NCATA and will play a significant role in our collaborative efforts. There are several examples for study in regard to the collaboration of art forms. Opera is one model that combines all of the arts: the drama of the story, the poetry of the libretto, the artistic design of the setting and the theatric direction of the performersmusicians, singers and dancers. In opera, each artistic discipline has its own expertise. Each artist participates side by side with others, contributing to a common goal-to enrich and enhance the lives of others through the aesthetic domain. Allegheny University of the Health Sciences, formerly Hahnemann University, offers a masters degree in Creative Arts in Therapy (MCAT) based upon this operatic model of collaboration. The Allegheny University model intertwines music, art and dance/movement therapy education, yet each modality remains distinct; each constitutes a specialty. A second model of collaboration, akin to a musical theatre production, is based upon performers trained to sing, dance and act with equal expertise in each area. This model integrates the art forms instead of keeping each as a specialization. This model of education is offered at the master’s level at Lesley College and at the California Institute for Integral Studies. NCATA’s work and the evidence from these ed-
ucational models provide important our future collaborative efforts.
cornerstones
for
A Caveat: The Danger of Unresearched Collaboration Recently (1996) Music Therapy Perspectives published a special issue on “Contemporary Trends and Practice” among NAMT members. In an article, “An Overview of Sound Healing Practices: Implications for the Profession of Music Therapy,” Crowe and Scovel recommend collaboration with music healers. The authors refer to them as “sound healers.” Crowe and Scovel report: “It seems to these authors that a new professional discipline is rapidly emerging.” They pose the rhetorical question, “Do we want to come together in some way with the sound healing practitioners to work in promoting the healing/ therapeutic benefits of music and sound?” (p. 28) in order to arrive at the uncritical answer, “yes.” On the surface, it may seem that collaborative ventures with music healers will enhance music therapy. After all, our field is expanding in new directions, one of which is toward a “holistic” model of music therapy. This impulse to expand toward a liberal, holistic music therapy model may be a healthy one, but it is not healthy to be impulsive in regard to collaboration with music healers. Crowe and Scovel refer to music healing as a “new professional discipline,” that has an association “to support and promote sound healing practices” (1996, pp. 27-28). However, there is not a “professional discipline” of music or sound healing. Aigen discusses music therapy, noting: Music therapy-as a profession-is something that we can define. Professional standards and responsibilities, educational competencies, certification criteria, acceptable forms of practice, and the function of accrediting bodies all reflect social agreements and play a role in being a music therapist. (1991, p. 80) Conversely, music healers have created no standards, educational competencies, certification criteria nor an accrediting body that would constitute a profession. Helen Bonny reports in this issue that the use (of music healing techniques) has been relegated to the non-professional music healer who often makes claims that are not based on clinical research nor on a thorough understand-
LISA SUMMER
78
ing of the physical and psychological the treatment. (1997, p. 13)
effect of
These claims and unethical practices have been reported (Summer, 1995). Before collaborating with music healers, music therapists must investigate the theories, practice, research experience and claims of music healers. Collaboration should not be established merely because the opportunity presents itself. Collaborations that influence the direction of music therapy are too important to engage in without careful investigation. Crowe and Scovel’s article must be taken seriously because it is evidence of the current trend toward an injudicious collaboration with music healers. The authors have recommended collaboration without adequate research. They utilize Randall McClellan (1991) as a secondary reference to discuss Cymatic Therapy, which was developed by Dr. Peter Guy Manners, referred to as “Dr. Peter Guy Masters” in their article (1996, p. 24). Had they investigated Manners as a primary source they would have found that his theory, and his practice, are almost incomprehensible. In a typical example of doublespeak, Manners wrote: In all other fields of perception with the exception of the purely mechanical process the transition to non-stereoscopic colourless observation had the effect that the world consciousness simply seemed to exist, leaving the ensuing hiatus to be filled in by a pattern of imagined kinematic happenings. For example colour of ether vibrations, heat by molecular movements, not so in the sphere of acoustics for here a part of the entire event on account of its genuine kinetic character remains a constant actual observation. (no date, p. 6) Manners seems unaware of the simplest acoustical facts (Summer, 1996). He wrote: Hans Holt showed that tones which to our ears seemed to have a clear and defined pitch may be split up in a series of resonators into a number of different tones . . . Hans Holt further showed that the particular series of overtones into which a tone can be resolved is responsible for the colour of that tone as a whole. (no date, p. 7) Manners has confused Helmholtz, the notable acoustician, with an imaginary Hans Holt. Obviously,
Manners seems not to have read Helmholtz’ acoustical theories, but merely heard his name mentioned, and incorrectly rendered Helmholtz as “Hans Holt.” Every trained music therapist has studied acoustics. Should music therapists be expected to take seriously a music healing system that is based entirely upon acoustical theories by a man who is unfamiliar with Helmholtz? Manners mistaking Helmholtz for Hans Holt shows the same secondhand research technique used by Crowe and Scovel in referring to Manners as Masters. This is an example of the “Telephone Game” gone horribly awry. Crowe and Scovel depend on a secondhand interpretation of an acoustic technique developed by a music healer who depends on a secondhand interpretation of an acoustic technique. Crowe and Scovel’s readers are at least the fifth link away from the original Helmholtz in this telephone game, learning “Hans Halt’s” “acoustics” from “Masters.” Had Crowe and Scovel researched Manners’ writings with his acoustical failings, I do not believe they would be recommending collaboration with this music healing practitioner. Regarding music healer John Beaulieu, Crowe and Scovel report that he “applied sound vibration to the body through the use of tuning forks tuned in a Pythagorean scale. A specific interval needed to stimulate the healing effect is created by tapping two forks together” (1996, p. 24). In this case the authors use a primary source, citing Beaulieu’s book, Music and Sound in the Healing Arts. Beaulieu does stress the necessity for using Pythagorean intervals for effective music healing throughout his book. However, their reading of Beaulieu’s Pythagorean healing system is uncritical and therefore fatally flawed. In his book, Beaulieu lists the specific frequency for each pitch of each “Pythagorean” tuning fork in his healing system (1987, pp. 95-96). The intervals he uses and lists in his book are not Pythagorean (Summer, 1996). Crowe and Scovel report: “We believe that it is important for music therapists to be educated about these techniques and to be open to dialogue and exchange with these practitioners” (1996, p. 28). Educated, yes, but open, no. In fact, we need to be guarded and skeptical. Through their article, Crowe and Scovel attempt to point out the similarities in the practice of music healing and music therapy. “It is the opinion of the authors that music therapy and sound healing are related and may be two facets of a continuum of healing with sound and music” (1996, p. 27). The examples in their article are structured to convince the music
MUSIC THERAPY therapist of this relatedness, and, without a true investigation of Manners and Beaulieu, as well as other equally questionable practitioners of music healing, music therapists may, believing that a relatedness exists, jump to Crowe and Scovel’s conclusion and decide in favor of collaboration with music healers. But the discriminating reader of these music healers’ books will find that the music healers’ theories are not based upon the simplest, most common acoustical, musical and psychological realities. The idea of allying with music healers in an attempt to develop our field toward more holistic models of practice is based upon the assumption that music healers practice holistically. But, if music therapists intend to collaborate with holistic professionals, music healers are not good candidates. Crowe and Scovel cite McClellan as one of the music healers whose theories and techniques we should be open to. In The Healing Forces of Music, McClellan reported:
antibiotic as McClellan describes it, we will lose all credibility. Steven Halpem, who Crowe and Scovel report as “Halperin” (1996, pp. 26, 28), proffers a different system of equations and a different method, but uses the same theoretical basis as McClellan, assigning particular notes to particular parts of the body. Halpem has taken these assigned pitches and created compositions with the “healing” pitch as the tonic or keynote (Halpem, 1985). Halpem (1978) noted:
Each structure of the body has its own natural resonating frequency. Illness results when this natural frequency is altered by frequencies that are foreign to it . . . After determining the natural frequency of the structure in question, that frequency can be introduced to the body structure and, through resonance, cause it to return to its natural frequency. Thus the body structure is restored to healthfulness and harmony. (1988, pp. 4849)
In Halpem’s prescriptive healing system, music is denied its aesthetic properties and the client (listener) is denied subjective musical experience. This is not a holistic philosophy. It does not connect body and mind; it does not expand one’s consciousness. This philosophy is a narrowing of consciousness to the point where consciousness itself becomes irrelevant. In Halpem’s philosophy the client’s mind can have no effect upon his body. The client has become an object, his body akin to a musical instrument, which Halpem plans to “tune up” to the correct pitch with the particular genre of music in the key that Halpem deems ‘ ‘healing. ’ ’ There is an issue here of responsibility. Despite the fact that Halpem uses music for “healing,” he evades the complex issues inherent in using it. He does not discuss the human experience. Where are the social factors? The emotional factor? The aesthetic factor? Where is human consciousness? Laying bare Halpem’s philosophy, it is clear that it cannot be called holistic, yet his methods are represented as being holistic, non-traditional, alternative and “Eastern.” How less holistic can a music healing philosophy be than for the healer to decide that one frequency out of infinite possibilities is the only acceptable, and healthy, one at which to vibrate? Halpem’s goal in creating his concept of seven healthy human pitches is to enforce a pre-identified “appropriate” healthy condition upon his clients. His goals are not holistic; they are pseudo-behavioral: what is considered a maladap-
Discerning music therapists should know that there is no “natural resonating frequency” for “each structure of the body.” Nor does “illness result when this natural frequency is altered.” No serious health professional can ascribe to the notion that a “frequency can be introduced to the body structure and, through resonance, cause it to return to its natural frequency.” McClellan speculates wildly about acoustics (1988, pp. 13-16), with a seriously flawed understanding of acoustical principles (Summer, 1996, pp. 190-196). Later in his book, McClellan provides the reader with a prescribed set of seven equations of seven particular frequencies for particular glands and body areas (p. 92). But what could be less holistic than prescribing a pitch for a particular body organ? McClellan reduces music to sound, and sound to the equivalent of penicillin. His philosophy is simple: play a pitch or interval and thereby effect a cure. If we, as music therapists, ascribe to the belief that music is a kind of
This is how we know that the “Spectrum Suite” soundtrack (Halpem’s music) works as well as it does; its been tested, and used, by a great many people . . . Its generality of application seems to relate to the fact that all major energy centers in the body are brought into attunement. This is the function of the 7 keynotes, which relate to the 7 colors, and 7 chakras. (p. 27)
LISA SUMMER
80
tive response is altered to a specific desired response. If one does not vibrate at particular frequencies, then one is out of tune, maladapted and must be fixed. Halpern’s prescriptive method follows no theoretical model of therapy on this earth. No therapist carries a particular set of universal behavioral rules to enforce upon all clients. Halpern’s method is not holistic, nor is it behavioral, nor is it therapy at all. It necessitates no therapist, no treatment plan, no sensitivity, no process. However, with only a cursory look at music healing techniques, music therapists may come to the conclusion that music healing is a form of liberal music therapy [Halpem called his method a “ ‘radical’ form of ‘music therapy,’ ” (1978, p. 76)] and advocate collaboration in order to expand our field. Conclusions The question of collaboration inside and outside of the field of music therapy is a serious one. We are at an historic crossroad and must seriously consider our choices for the future. First and foremost, it is time for music therapists to embrace the differences within our profession. The current trend to seek alliances outside our profession with “liberal” music healers constitutes a jump over a large group of practitioners who practice legitimate, liberal music therapy: music therapists from AAMT. Could it be that the current trend to seek alliances outside our field with music healers is a resistance to the merging of the NAMT/AAMT theoretical division? To avoid joining the conservative and the liberal elements within our own field at this time would undermine our unification efforts and re-create our internal split merely in another form. Secondly, we must evaluate the possibilities for collaboration with other professions. In her article, Helen Bonny suggests, “Explorations in the integration of arts therapies through experimentation and collaboration could generate fertile opportunities. . .” Music, art, dance/
movement, drama therapy, psychodrama and poetry therapy have a strong common bond: the use of the aesthetic domain as a therapeutic tool, which has resulted in similar philosophy, treatment issues and ethics. I believe that music therapy should collaborate with other arts therapy associations in order to forge a responsible, healthy path for our future. References Aigen, K. (1991). A conception of music for music therapy. Music Therapy, IO(l), 77-98. Aigen, K., & Robbins, C. (1996). Current developments in Nordoff-Robbins music therapy. Music Therapy International Report, II, 81-86. American Association for Music Therapy (1993). Association brochure. Valley Forge, PA: AAMT. Beaulieu, J. (1987). Music and sound in the healing arts. Barrytown, NY: Station Hill Press. Bonny, H. L. (1980). GIM Therapy: Past present, and future implications. Salina, KS: Bonny Foundation. Bonny, H. L. (1997). The state of the art of music therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 24(l). Bruscia, K. (1989). Defining music therapy. Spring City, PA: Spring House Books. Crowe, B. J., & Scovel, M. (1996). An overview of sound healing practices: Implications for the profession of music therapy. Music Therapy Perspectives, 14(l), 21-29. Halpem, S. (1978). Tuning the human instrument: An owner’s manual. Palo Alto, CA: Spectrum Research Institute. Halpem, S. (1985). Sound health: The music and sounds that make us whole. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Manners, P. G. (nd.) Penetrating one of nature’s greatest mysteries: The creation of matter by sound. Worcestershire, England: Bretforton Hall Clinic. Massachusetts Music Therapy Alliance. (1995-96). Membership directory. Boston, MA: MMTA. McClellan, R. A. (1988). The healing forces of music. Amity, NY: Amity House. McClellan, R. A. (1991). The healing forces of music. Rockport, MA: Element, Inc. Members vote unity! (1996, Winter/Spring). NAMT Notes, I. Summer, L. (1995). Unsound medicine. In C. B. Kenny (Ed.), Listening, playing, creating: Essays on the power of sound (pp. 59-64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Summer, L. (1996). Music: The new age elixir. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.