How do you pick repertoire?

I often see posts in discussion groups and field questions from directors regarding repertoire selection. Too often, the advice I see posted is “Anything by __________” (insert composer name here). I understand the desire to have an easy solution but “play anything by Composer X” does not take into account individual situations, students, and the context of the school. I find it concerning that directors would so willingly give up their most important responsibility to the brief suggestions offered by others. It leads to me to believe that some directors have not established a personal set of criteria for repertoire selection.    

There has been a wealth of scholarly literature devoted to the selection of repertoire. (Carney, 2005; Cooper, 2004; Del Borgo, 1988; Fiese, 1993; Gage, 2000; Greig, 2003; Hayward, 2004; Jagow, 2007; LaRue, 1992; McBeth, 1990; Ostling, 1978; Reimer 1991). As part of my doctoral work, I developed a criteria list to evaluate new and existing works. The study sought to gather perceptions of new and emergent works for the concert band. For that reason, I found it appropriate to formulate a set of musical criteria founded in research and scholarly writing..

To begin the process, I used the four criteria offered by Reimer (1991) for determining quality in music (Craftsmanship, Sensitivity, Imagination, and Authenticity). These items were listed along the top of a four by four table. After placing the four items across the top, the four elements of music (melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre) were listed along the left side of the same table. As I reviewed different articles and studies, I placed different criteria and aspects from other lists and repertoire studies inside this grid. Once all sources were analyzed and placed in the table, the various squares were examined for common ideas and themes as related to evaluation of repertoire. While there was no set number of aspects to be identified on this criteria list, eight major criteria headings emerged from my analysis.

Within the row designated for melody, two ideas emerged from including the craftsmanship displayed in the writing and melodic material that is sincere and able to hold interest emerged as themes that should be considered. The row for harmony made reference to creative use of harmonic language that is suitable to the style of the work as another feature to be considered in the evaluation of concert band music. Vitality, variety, and suitability to the style and medium were important aspects of the rhythm row. Timbre included a variety of comments including the use of instruments, texture, and contrast.

Another feature that emerged and deserved consideration was related to formal structure and growth of music, evidenced by references in the Authenticity and Imagination column. The facet of pedagogical usefulness materialized in comments by several of the authors. Emotional impact and sensitivity were additional aspects readily identified by several authors. Finally, as I sought to learn why directors have programmed new and emergent works with their ensembles, the concept of longevity and repeated use and interest in a work provided an important final piece for consideration in the evaluation of new and emergent concert band works. The end result of this process was the creation of the Concert Band Repertoire Evaluation Criteria (CBREC). While not exhaustive, I have found these criteria to be incredibly helpful in evaluating new and existing repertoire to use with my ensembles at Messiah University, programming for honor band festivals, and making suggestions to colleagues who are examining repertoire.

Concert Band Repertoire Evaluation Criteria (CBREC)

1. Melodic Craftsmanship (MC) – The composition displays expert craftsmanship and clearly conceived ideas in the melodic material. This includes presence of countermelodies, and melodic material that is genuine, original, and able to hold interest without being repetitious.
   
2. Harmonic Language (HL) – The composition utilizes an imaginative harmonic language suitable to the style of the piece. The harmonic language demonstrates balance, direction, and sensitivity in its progressions.
   
3. Rhythmic Vitality and Tempo (RV) – The composition displays rhythmic vitality and variety throughout. The use of tempo and meter reflects sensitivity to the interaction of rhythm with other musical elements.
   
4. Timbre and Orchestration (TO) – The composition displays balance, contrast, and variety among the elements of timbre and texture. It utilizes traditional orchestration techniques while incorporating contemporary methods.
   
5. Formal Structure and Balance/Contrast (FS) – The composition reveals a well-conceived formal structure that is consistent and utilizes balance and contrast of other elements. The composition demonstrates growth throughout the various sections, so it avoids moving into trivial, useless, or incompatible musical ideas.
   
6. Pedagogical Usefulness (PU) – The composition encourages the development of musical skills of both the individual and the ensemble within the restrictions associated at the graded difficulty level that it is assigned. The composition takes into account historical, theoretical, cultural and technical aspects of music.
   
7. Emotional Impact and Sensitivity (ES) – The composition demonstrates an emotional impact that is recognizable, genuine, inspirational, and imaginative. The composition is sincere and sensitive in its interactions with other musical elements.
   
8. Longevity and Promise for Repeated Use (L) – The composition displays promise to earn repeated study and performance in the future because of its pedagogical usefulness, and aesthetic sensitivity. The composition creates a unique musical experience through the interaction and growth of the various musical elements present.

I have written and shared my thoughts on repertoire selection that take into account other factors including balancing tonality and meters, varying styles and types of pieces, and seeking the best possible solution for the context of the situation. Repertoire is the vehicle by which many of our students realize the goals of the curriculum. Our curriculum goals are not to play repertoire, but to develop insights and skills in students so they might sustain a life-long relationship with music. To do this it is imperative that every director guides students along a specific curriculum, has a definitive idea of how to evaluate repertoire to reach those goals, and a commitment to put their students in the best possible situation to gain those insights and skills. I hope that these thoughts give you some encouragement to develop your own criteria for repertoire selection.

REFERENCES

Carney, P. K. (2005). Rankings and ratings of literature selection criteria among public school wind band conductors. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/4185

Cooper, L. G. (2004). Teaching band and orchestra: Methods and materials. Chicago: GIA, Publications.

Del Borgo, E. (1988). Selecting quality literature for bands and orchestras. The Instrumentalist,43(4), 22-26.

Fiese, R. K. (1993). An examination of public secondary school band directors’ qualitative judgments. Journal of Band Research, 28(2), 27-36.

Gage, S. L. (2000). How much sugar do you use in your coffee? The importance of  repertoire selection for the band director. NBA Journal, 40(3).  

Greig, R. T. (2003). Selection criteria ratings of performed music by high school band directors in the state of Pennsylvania, and a comparison of ratings by collegiate band directors on selected works. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.

Hayward, C. M. (2004). A course in band literature based on a standard repertoire  developed from the opinions of selected collegiate and secondary school band  directors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Jagow, S. (2007). Teaching instrumental music: Developing the complete band program. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications.

LaRue, J. (1969). Fundamental considerations in style analysis. Notes, 25(3), 447-464.

McBeth, W. F. (1990). Perceiving music: Personal evaluation of quality in music. The Instrumentalist, 44(5), 16-17.

Ostling, A. E. (1978). An evaluation of compositions for wind band according to specific criteria of serious artistic merit. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation; University of Iowa.

Reimer, B. (1991) Criteria for quality in music.  In R. A. Smith & A. Simpson (Eds.), Aesthetics and arts education (pp. 330-338). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.