"Sometimes we are so confused and sad that all we can do is glue one thing to another. Use white glue and paper from the trash, glue paper onto paper, glue scraps and bits of fabric, have a tragic movie playing in the background, have a comforting drink nearby, let the thing you are doing be nothing, you are making nothing at all, you are just keeping your hands in motion, putting one thing down and then the next thing down and sometimes crying in between." — Lynda Barry
What is thinking in music? If we entertain Liljedahl's assertion that mimicry is not thinking, what entails thinking in music? Not everything is problem-solving in the arts, though much of it is. We don't engage in the arts for problem-solving alone. I suppose we could argue that we don't engage in math for the problem-solving alone, either (Back to you, Edna St. Vincent Millay…). What else do we do that constitutes thinking?
The obvious answer is creating. But creating is a funny thing, because so much of creating is simply making a decision and then dealing with the results of that decision by making a new decision. There's not necessarily a problem that needs solving; it just is. From a math perspective, that might not be enough. From a modern education perspective, it might not be enough, either. Yet, as Lynda Barry describes simply and accurately, it is all you can do and it has to be enough. The not-thinking is the thinking. Merely making a decision is not necessarily solving a problem, but string enough decisions together and you have created something.
Is it good? That's a whole other task. Editing is also decision-making; it is also problem-solving; it is creative in its own way; but it's also a different kind of thinking. Trying to edit and create at the same time is usually called "writer's block." One of the things I've noticed is that if I give my students an entire class period to work on a song, they will take the entire class period. (To be fair, I often fall into the same trap.) And many of them still will have little to nothing to show for it. Why? Because they are trying to edit and create at the same time.
I set up a BTC-style task in which they have 10 minutes to create a verse and a chorus over a given chord progression, including making a rough recording.1 Then they switch groups and do it again. And again. Three sessions in one class period. The point is to simply get used to producing without censoring. The following class is a 10-minute creation session, then they have to go to the boards and write about what they like and don't like about their song, and how they are going to change and expand it; and then do just that.
What else is thinking? I decided to look at some official standards and see what the folks in charge have said, then added my own raw ideas to the mix:
analyzing → identifying traits, ingredients, phenomena, emotions, dramatic arc, values, relationships, describing
pattern spotting
narrative thinking → making stories, finding stories
non-narrative thinking → apply a known pattern/property (a non-narrative extension), creating/finding states of being
create: generate ideas, organizing ideas, developing/extending ideas, refining ideas, improvising → this is all true, even if we are plugging ideas into a given format: pop songs, sonnets, still life, capoeira (this is sort of what Liljedahl calls an Open-Middle Task — one solution, many paths to get there)
selecting/curating
presenting/performing
reflecting → is this just a form of analysis? is this just a form of responding?
responding → in some ways, this is analyzing; in other ways, it could be creating
evaluating, determining and applying criteria; testing out hypotheses
synthesizing
connecting/relating
planning → this also might be good for turning routines and rote tasks into thinking.
Interestingly, the Massachusetts document on standards calls all of these things "practice." But it also makes no mention of any the rote tasks below that are often the fundamental things behind a practice. I think that the rote learning stuff needs to be very explicitly combined with analysis and presented as an analysis question/task for this all to really work. In my experience, this is where "practicing" is always a problem. Kids don't know how to practice because they don't have guidance that leads them to analyze. It's always just play it over and over in a somewhat mindless way until it gets better/you don't make that mistake any more. And what they need is to figure out whether they have a muscle problem or a thinking problem or something else.
There are some grey areas:
Is recalling information thinking?
Is developing awareness thinking? Could this be a form of identifying?
Is decision-making thinking?
Is following a recipe thinking? Is using a pre-determined form akin to following a recipe? (This is answered to some extent above under creating)
What is not-thinking?2 But still necessary or at least valuable?
executing routines
setting up the classroom → for example, rehearsing a large ensemble is not going to be the same set-up as a BTC lesson; but even something as basic as getting equipment out and putting it away is something students can and should take on in the name of…
taking responsibility → may or may not involve problem solving, it may simply be executing a routine
mimicking/imitation/copying → in the context of the arts/language/sports, this could be a thinking task if combined with some form of analysis — how accurate a copy is it? what are some things you've noticed? what makes a copy/what makes an original? what do you need to do in order to make the copy? what's there/what's missing?3
Executing routines is a big part of music making. It's a big part of sports. It's a big part of language learning. The equivalent in math is the multiplication tables. The equivalent in language is the alphabet and its corresponding phonemes (which is, of course, a total bugaboo in English, and also French…). We make that information into a routine, we memorize it, we spend so much time on it, because the lack of that ready information hinders thinking! The question then becomes do we use BTC procedures for such things or do we put it aside and find some other compelling way to make it happen? It could be learning a song about, say, the multiplication tables (Schoolhouse Rock has you covered…), but then learning that song is a mimicking, rote task!
I'm not convinced it's possible or even desirable to be all BTC all the time, but in order for it to work, you have to do it often enough so that the procedure itself becomes one of your routines. And therefore, you don't have to think about it.
My use of BTC is not pure in this case — they are not standing and using Vertical Non-permanent surfaces for the songwriting. They sit, use instruments, and write lyrics on scrap paper. I may change this in the future to "comply" more closely with the letter of the process as given in the book and see if it makes a difference.
Saying that these things are not thinking feel wrong, but it’s true that we often talk about “mindless” activities, things we do on autopilot, etc. Perhaps we need to say it’s a different kind of thinking or perhaps we need another word entirely. Perhaps we already have “habit” and “routine” and that’s enough.