jmte 11 (2) pp.

183–195 Intellect Limited 2018

Journal of Music, Technology & Education

Volume 11 Number 2
© 2018 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/jmte.11.2.183_1

PATRICIA E. RILEY
The University of Vermont

Music composition for iPad

performance: Examining
perspectives

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This qualitative research investigated a music composition created specifically for iPad
performance on iPads. It examined perspectives of the composers, performers and tablet computer
audience member participants. Composers were undergraduate music education technology
majors with concentrations in music composition, performers were undergraduate music composition
music education majors, and audience members included music majors, compos- creativity
ers, music theory professors and conductors of traditional large ensembles. Data music performance
included the notated composition and written reflection statements by the compos-
ers, performers and audience members. Reflection questions guided the statements,
and included: how does composing for iPad instruments differ from composing
for more traditional instruments? How do you feel performing on an iPad differs
from performing on more traditional instruments? What were the challenges that
you encountered and how did you respond to them? And, what did you like best
and least about this composition and/or performance? The data were analysed for
emergent themes, and the themes discussed.

iPads are vibrant and dynamic tools for musicians and educators worldwide.
They are prevalent in our homes, schools and communities. This qualitative
research explores a music composition created specifically for performance on
iPads. It investigates perspectives of the composers, performers and audience

www.intellectbooks.com  183
Patricia E. Riley

member participants. Composers were undergraduate music education majors

with concentrations in music composition, performers were undergradu-
ate music education majors, and audience members included music majors,
composers, music theory professors and conductors of traditional large
ensembles. Data include the notated composition and written reflection state-
ments of the composers, performers and audience members. Reflection ques-
tions included: what was it like to compose/perform/be an audience member
for a piece composed for iPad instruments? How does composing for iPad
instruments differ from composing for more traditional instruments? How do
you feel performing on an iPad differs from performing on more traditional
instruments? What were the challenges that you encountered and how did
you respond to them? And, what did you like best and least about this compo-
sition and/or performance? The data were analysed for emergent themes, and
the themes discussed.

Review of literature
The iPad has received rave reviews for attributes such as portability and
design, and the education community is attracted by the many dynamic and
vibrant apps designed specifically for this device (Waters 2010). Tablet comput-
ers offer students the opportunity to listen to lectures, hear course-related
music and transport large quantities of information just about anywhere they
go (Galuszka 2005). iPads and other tablet computers can support student-
centred pedagogy by connecting students to their learning communities via
wireless connectivity to the Internet (Parslow 2010). They can also be used
as E-book readers to effectively support personalized learning (Huang et al.
2012). Additionally, twenty-first-century skills can be supported by collabora-
tions that utilize iPads (Murray and Olcese 2011). According to Kuzmich, ‘the
iPad itself inspires creativity and hands-on learning with feature you won’t
find in any other educational tool and on a device that students really want to
use’ (2012: 43).
Transformative change in teacher practice and student learning due to
the use of digital technology appears to be underway (Wise et al. 2011). The
challenge for educators is to motivate students to move beyond using mobile
devices for primarily social reasons to using them for educational purposes
(Oliver and Goerke 2007). One possibility is for teachers to collaborate with
students to develop curricula based on how and what students believe they
might learn by incorporating iPads and other mobile devices (Peluso 2012).
In a 2011 study at Seton Hall University, iPads were purchased for all
faculty, academic support staff and incoming freshmen to create an educational
environment that would go beyond the constraints of traditional classrooms
by expanding critical and creative thinking through interactive approaches,
providing immediate access to information, increasing student engagement
and decreasing student costs through the use of E-textbooks. It was found
in the first semester that, a majority of faculty used the iPads in every class
session, and a majority of students used the iPads to achieve course objectives
at least once a week and believe that the use of iPads has had a positive effect
on communication with faculty (Gawelek et al. 2011). Connecting, commu-
nicating and creating with mobile devices are quickly becoming a substantial
part of digital literacy that powerfully supports student achievement (Crichton
et al. 2012).

184  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

Riley (2016) provides guidance for using iPads as a music creation tool.
Creating music is one of the three artistic processes outlined in the 2014
National Music Standards. She recommends a variety of apps and offers
detailed descriptions, teaching recommendations and lesson plans. Nelson
(2013) uses iPads to work with special needs students in music classes. She
writes that students who were unable to before, are now able to ‘hear, see, and
feel music up close and personally via tablet technology’ (Nelson 2013: 27).
Williams (2014) describes the rationale for, pedagogy, and processes of the
iPad ensemble he performs with at the University of South Florida. He states
‘although some might balk at considering the iPad a real musical instrument,
the reality is that it offers myriad possibilities for ensemble playing and music
learning’ (Williams 2014: 93). Randles has also performed with the University
of South Florida iPad ensemble and asserts ‘being an iPadist has given me
the experience of learning to be musical in a way different from the ways of
others in the world – to be a pioneer’ (2013: 50). He continues ‘it is possible
that music teachers have yet to realize the types of instrumental music perfor-
mance possibilities available, outside the current traditional “large instrumen-
tal-performance-from-notation-only” ensembles’ (Randles 2013: 50).
Research in the area of music education has been conducted by Burton and
Pearsall (2016), Chen (2015) Hillier et al. (2016). Burton and Pearsall (2016)
examined preschool children’s app preferences. They found that the children
in their study preferred apps featuring easy navigation, familiar music, and
with frequent visual stimulation. Chen (2015) investigated the effectiveness
for aural-skill development of using the app, Auralbook on mobile devices,
including iPads. He found that students who used the app frequently at begin-
ning aural-skill levels displayed substantial progress with clapping and stylis-
tic recognition, students at intermediate aural-skill levels displayed substantial
progress with singing and that overall, students performed better in the areas
of clapping and singing than in the area of stylistic recognition. Hillier et al.
(2016) researched the use of iPads with adolescents and young adults with
autism spectrum disorders, and reported that a majority of participants felt
less stress and anxiety and increased social benefits from the beginning to end
of the nine-week study.
Research has also been conducted in other subject areas. Results of these
studies include the successful use of an iPad to facilitate the reading improve-
ment of a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (McClanahan
et al. 2012), and the effective use of iPads to assist students with autism spec-
trum disorders in using spellcheck tools (Kagohara et al. 2012). According
to Shah (2011), the touchscreen design and screen size of iPads and other
tablet computers are well suited for special needs students with poor fine-
motor skills or vision, and offer students a sense of independence that they
may have never experienced before. Their simplicity, ability to be customized
and intuitiveness are additional advantages. It has also been documented that
using iPads with English language learners has assisted with socialization and
academics (Demski 2011).
Finally, while not a research study, Criswell (2011) reported on the use of
iPads in music classes. He states that this device will potentially change the
way we work. Criswell interviewed William Bauer, technology specialist, and
(at the time of the interview), associate professor of music education at Case
Western Reserve University.

www.intellectbooks.com  185
Patricia E. Riley

Bauer believes that students who don’t have a traditional music back-
ground or who aren’t currently active participants in their school music
programme may stand to benefit the most from using tablet comput-
ers in music class. The multitude of apps that allow one to be expres-
sive without requiring an understanding of notation or other musical
formalities make the iPad in particular extremely accessible to this part
of the student population.
(Criswell 2011: 32)

This review of literature supports the use of iPads for education and crea-
tive purposes. The characteristics of iPads and other tablet computers that
these studies highlight, including portability, size, touchscreen design, simplic-
ity, ability to be customized, intuitiveness, and the many dynamic and vibrant
apps available make iPads an available and interesting option for music
composition and performance. This exploration of perspectives regarding a
music composition created specifically for iPad performance should inform
musicians and educators of advantages and disadvantages regarding compos-
ing and performing on iPads. Research questions were

• Is composing and performing music created specifically for iPad instru-

ments an aesthetically satisfying and valuable activity?
• Is attending a performance of music created specifically for iPad instru-
ments and performed on iPads an aesthetically satisfying and valuable
activity?

Method
Following the acquisition of Apple iPad3s for undergraduate music educa-
tion majors enrolled in a university music education programme, an optional
project substitution was made available to two students (with a music compo-
sition concentration within their music education degree) as part of a required
music methods course. This research study is a result of the students choos-
ing to engage in the substitute project – to compose and perform publically
a music composition created specifically for iPad performance. No additional
composition parameters were imposed or suggested.
The performance occurred approximately three weeks after the project was
assigned, in May 2012. The following is a list of sound technology used in
the public performance, which occurred in the lobby of the university’s music
building: four iPad3s, six 1/8” stereo to 1/4” cables (approximately 8’ in length),
one six-channel mixer, two powered speakers on stands and two cables from
mixer to speakers.
The university sound technician who facilitated the performance used 1/8”
cables from the headphone output of each iPad to a channel on the mixer. He
used an adapter on that cable to combine the stereo output to a mono signal,
so each iPad could be controlled by one channel on the mixer. The mixer was
located near the performers, so they did not have long cable runs. From the
mixer, the cables went to two powered speakers on stands located behind
the performers. Since the venue was small (accommodating approximately
30 audience members), the speakers served as both stage monitors for the
performers and main speakers for the audience. Each channel was panned
based on the physical position of each performer, which was important not
only for the stereo image of the combined group, but also for each musician to
be able to easily hear himself in the mix.

186  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

Participants in the research were the composers (n=2); undergradu-

ate music education major performers (n=4); audience members (including
music majors, composers, music theory professors and conductors of tradi-
tional large ensembles) (n=11). Data were the notated composition; written
reflection statements by the composers, performers and audience members;
video of the performance; and video of the composers discussing how and
why they created the piece. The composer, performer and audience member
reflection statements were completed immediately following the performance.
These reflection statements were in response to reflection questions, which
were distributed and collected by the researcher. The reflection questions were
as follows:
For composers:

1. What was it like to compose for iPad instruments?

2. How does composing for iPad instruments differ from composing for more
traditional instruments?
3. What were the challenges that you encountered and how did you respond
to them?
4. What did you like best and least about this project?

For performers:

1. What was it like to perform a piece composed for iPad instruments?

2. How do you feel performing on an iPad instrument differs from perform-
ing on more traditional instruments?
3. What were the challenges that you encountered during this rehearsal and
performance experience, and how did you respond to them?
4. What did you like best and least about this activity?

For audience members:

1. What was it like to be an audience member for a piece composed for iPad
instruments?
2. How do you feel listening to a performance of iPad instruments differs
from listening to a performance of more traditional instruments?
3. What did you like best and lease about this performance and/or composition?
4. Would you come to a performance of pieces composed for iPad instru-
ments again? Why or why not?

This researcher compiled, sorted and analysed the data. The analysis was
a content analysis, and was guided by the Patton (2002) model. The data were
coded, and predominant themes identified. Both member checking and peer
review were employed to compensate for potential researcher-bias and ensure
validity. Pseudonym names are used in the reporting of this research.

Results
Composer perspectives
What it was like to compose for iPad instruments?
According to Tony, ‘[i]t wasn’t that different from composing for “normal” instru-
ments. David and I had to experiment with the restrictions and capabilities of the
iPad instruments […] and then compose the piece’ (Reflection statement, 5/12).

www.intellectbooks.com  187
Patricia E. Riley

David stated,

Despite having eight years of composition experience under my belt,

I found composing for iPad instruments to be an intriguing challenge.
Not only did I have to compose music that was plausible to be played on
the iPads, but I also needed to find legitimate reasons why playing the
piece on iPads instead of on real instruments was a beneficial endeavor.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

How composing for iPad instruments differs from composing for

more traditional instruments?
Tony wrote,

iPad instruments are limited in moment to moment range and are often
difficult to control accurately, especially in faster passages. David and
I took this into account by composing a melody that featured lots of
chromatic motion that can be accomplished by sliding ones finger rather
than trying to make large jumps fast.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

Tony also pointed out that chromaticism is appropriate within the twelve-
bar blues idiom in which he and David were writing.
According to David,

Although the MIDI from the iPad is quite good, playing a MIDI piano or
guitar is entirely different than playing a real instrument – both physi-
cally and aurally. Whereas I’m used to playing real instruments such as
the marimba or the guitar while composing in order to gain inspira-
tion, all of my ideas had to stem from the capabilities of the iPad instru-
ments. If I were to compose music with difficult parts spanning multiple
octaves, it would be nearly impossible to perform on the iPads due to
the necessity to scroll in order to access other octaves. Also, the keys
on the GarageBand MIDI keyboard are much smaller than those on a
standard piano, making accuracy even more important. Despite these
shortcomings, there are a wide variety of instrument sounds available
on the GarageBand app, providing students as well as composers with a
plethora of enjoyable options for musical experimentation and growth.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

Composing challenges encountered

Tony asserted, ‘we were challenged with the limitations of the instruments. We
also found that some of the parts required a bit of practice (like the unwrit-
ten transition to the electronic dance instruments). We responded by writing
conservatively and practicing’ (Reflection statement, 5/12).
Similarly, David wrote

One of the most difficult parts of this project was to compose a piece that fit
the capabilities of the iPad instruments, particularly those in GarageBand.
As previously stated, I had to limit the difficulty of the parts in order to
make them playable on the iPad. Also, I initially struggled to find rational

188  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

for my piece to be most beneficial when played with iPad instruments,

rather than on real instruments. I resolved all of these issue by composing
a 12-bar blues head accompanied by chord changes and solo backgrounds.
All three parts (the melody, harmony, and backgrounds) are very acces-
sible on a variety of iPad instruments. Additionally, there are great educa-
tional implications behind playing this piece on the iPads. Young students
who are newer to music, or new to the Blues, will be able to easily learn
the melody and backgrounds on GarageBand’s MIDI keyboard, and the
harmony can be played either on the keyboard or as preset chords on the
GarageBand’s Smart Guitar feature.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

Liked best and least about composing for iPads

According to Tony,

I liked that this project was fun, not restrictive, and felt low pressure.
There was not much that I didn’t like about the project. We probably
couldn’t have done it with the sound technician. It would have been
much harder and more stressful if we had needed to take care of the
technical issues.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

David stated

Despite my initial concerns, I greatly enjoyed this project. I was pleas-

antly surprised by the wide variety of features and capabilities of the
GarageBand app and I’m eager to learn even more about it over the
next few months. Also, I have begun to search for other MIDI apps for
the iPad that will provide me with even more compositional tools. I look
forward to composing more works for ‘iPad ensemble’ over the summer,
particularly pieces in the genre of ambient, electronic music. That being
said, I didn’t enjoy having to work around some of the iPads limitations;
for example, the inability to compose more difficult melodic lines with-
out having them be impossible (due to the necessity to scroll to access
other octaves). Regardless, I am confident that I can work around these
predictable limitations and compose pieces that are still musically valu-
able and interesting.
(Reflection statement, 5/12)

The predominant themes that emerged from the composers were that
composing for iPad performance was fun and enjoyable, but the limitations of
the iPad instruments were a drawback – most specifically that multiple octaves
could not be accessed on the GarageBand app’s keyboard without scrolling,
and that performance difficulties were posed by the smaller keyboard.

Performer perspectives
What it was like to perform on iPad instruments?
All four performers stated that it was ‘fun’. John also wrote that until he got
used to the interface, it was ‘a little daunting’. Max added that although it
was ‘really fun’, he also felt ‘pretty silly’. According to Tony (who was also a

www.intellectbooks.com  189
Patricia E. Riley

composer), it was ‘frustrating at times due to the finicky nature of the touch-
pad’, and according to David (the other composer),

I thoroughly enjoyed performing the piece. It was a fun, exciting expe-

rience to perform with three great friends/musicians in a setting (both
musically and spatially) with which I am unfamiliar. It was not at all
time-consuming to prepare for the performance, making the final prod-
uct much more satisfying.
(Reflection statements, 5/12)

How performing on iPad instruments differs from performing on

more traditional instruments?
John and Max both referenced the difference in ‘feel’ between traditional
keyboards and the GarageBand app’s keyboard. John stated, ‘it’s tougher to
get a feel for where notes are since you’re on a touchscreen. However, there
are also ways to “cheat,” with certain scales/modes made available’. Similarly,
Max wrote ‘the interface is set up in such a way that it is difficult to tell what
keys are where. On a real keyboard, you can feel where all of the black keys
are’. Tony asserted ‘the tone is good for keyboard, however other instruments
lack expression. It’s fun, but in most cases, not a viable means of performance’.
According to David,

While iPads have many capabilities in terms of MIDI and associated

music apps, real instruments are technically more practical, since scroll-
ing is required to access more pitches on the iPad. The iPads have a
slight delay between touch and MIDI sound creation; however, musi-
cians with good ears can easily overcome this issue.
(Reflection statements, 5/12)

Performing challenges encountered

The four performers cited a variety of performance challenges. According to
John, looking at the music while playing on the iPad was difficult – so he
memorized most of his part. Max asserted ‘the levels when switching between
instruments weren’t perfect, but not too bad’. Tony wrote of timing and
response issues, and that he learned to adapt as best he could. Finally, David
stated

The main challenges in rehearsing and performing this piece were solid-
ifying transitions between sections, testing balance, and synchronization
of the instruments. However, by writing out the form, having a sound
check well before the performance, and running the piece with amplifi-
cation a few times, we had no problem bringing the piece together.
(Reflection statements, 5/12)

Liked best and least about performing on iPads

John, Max and Tony reiterated that performing on the iPads was ‘fun’. In addi-
tion, John wrote that ‘the 12-bar blues and iPads are compatible’, but that he
disliked the ‘learningcurve’ for performing with a touch screen. Max added that
he felt the performance ‘conveyed some real possibilities the iPad has’, and
that he thinks iPads ‘can be used for people who have physical limitations’.

190  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

Max disliked feeling ‘slightly limited’ while performing on the iPad. He stated
that he would rather perform on ‘real instruments’, but would ‘rather play on
an iPad than on nothing at all’. In addition to reiterating that it was ‘really fun’,
Tony also reiterated that it was ‘very low stress’. He did not state any dislikes.
David liked best ‘learning more about the iPad and its capabilities, performing
the piece with great friends/musicians, and the piece’s educational and musi-
cal value’. He liked least ‘not having as much material to perform’ as he might
have liked, and that this was mainly ‘due to time constraints’ in his schedule
(Reflection statements, 5/12).
The predominant themes that emerged from the performers were that it
was fun to perform on the iPads, and that it was difficult to perform using the
iPad’s touchscreen.

Audience member perspectives

What it was like to be an audience member for a piece composed
for iPad instruments?
The most common response was ‘fun’, followed by ‘interesting’. Other adjec-
tives included ‘very enjoyable’, ‘exciting’ and ‘intriguing’. Additional comments
included that the iPads were ‘surprisingly similar to real instruments’; and ‘the
size of the instruments really drew my attention – it wasn’t as easy to see what
fingers and hands were doing as on traditional piano, bass, drums, etc.; so the
process had some mystery to it’ (Reflection statements, 5/12).

How listening to a performance of iPad instruments differs from

listening to a performance of more traditional instruments?
Several audience members mentioned the timbral quality and/or sound qual-
ity as being most different. Additional comments included

• ‘You lose all of the subtlety of timbres and the expressive elements’.
• ‘It definitely doesn’t have as much authenticity’.
• ‘I didn’t feel the same “fullness” of sound, but it was fun and upbeat’.
• ‘It takes away from watching the skill of performers because you
can’t see how they play’.
• ‘In principle, not much – since there’s a continuum from acoustic to
digital, and so much performing and recording uses a range of elec-
tronic options. The biggest difference is probably in the challenges
and limitations of the performer interface (the touchscreen)’.
(Reflection statements, 5/12)

Liked best and least about the iPad performance and/or

composition
The most often stated items liked best were that the performance was novel
and fun. Other comments included ‘I liked the creativity – the boys really
seemed to have fun with a novel idea’; ‘[i]t was fun as well as educational – it
really piqued my interest because it was so non-traditional’; and ‘[t]he music
itself was a straight-forward likable composition’. Items like least were the
loss of ‘subtlety of timbres and expressive elements’; the ‘routine, run-of-the-
mill MIDI instrument sounds’; and that the composition and performance
were not for ‘actual instruments’ (Reflection statements, 5/12).

www.intellectbooks.com  191
Patricia E. Riley

Reasons why audience members would come to a performance of a

piece composed for iPad instrument again
Other than that it was ‘fun’ and ‘cool’, responses included

• ‘It was much more expressive and realistic-sounding than I thought it

would be’.
• ‘Their [iPads’] potential as electronic sound controllers continues to be
discovered, so I’d show up to see what they’re doing next’.
• ‘I’m always intrigued to see what people are doing’.
• ‘It was really fun and exciting, yet had substance. The familiarity of the
device may make it so that a greater range of students participate in some-
thing like this’.

The only, somewhat negative response was, ‘I might – you can always
learn something’ (Reflection statements, 5/12).
Predominant themes that emerged from the audience members were that
the performance was fun and interesting. Drawbacks were the performance
limitations of the iPad instruments, and the less-than-desirable timbral quality
of the iPad instruments, compared to more traditional instruments.

Discussion
The purpose of this research was to explore the composer, performer and
audience member perspectives of a music composition created specifically for
performance on iPads. Research questions were:

• Is composing and performing music created specifically for iPad instru-

ments an aesthetically satisfying and valuable activity?
• Is attending a performance of music created specifically for iPad instru-
ments and performed on iPads an aesthetically satisfying and valuable
activity?

Based on the results of this research, it appears that composing and

performing music created specifically for iPad instruments is a somewhat
aesthetically satisfying and valuable activity. The themes that emerged from
the composers were that composing for iPad performance was fun and enjoya-
ble, but the limitations of the iPad instruments were a drawback – most specif-
ically that multiple octaves could not be accessed on the GarageBand app’s
keyboard without scrolling, and that performance difficulties were posed by
the smaller keyboard. David, however, also stated ‘despite these shortcomings,
there are a wide variety of instrument sounds available on the GarageBand
app, providing students as well as composers with a plethora of enjoyable
options for musical experimentation and growth’. Additionally, David stated
that he very much liked composing for the iPad instruments, that he was
‘pleasantly surprised by the wide variety of features and capabilities of the
GarageBand app’, that he was looking forward to experimenting with other
apps that would provide him with additional compositional tools, and that he
planned to compose for iPad instruments again in the near future (Reflection
statements, 5/12). These statements indicate a certain degree of value and
aesthetic satisfaction in composing for iPad performance.
Themes that emerged from the performers were that it was fun to perform
on the iPads, but that it was difficult to perform using the iPad’s touchscreen.

192  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

Max found value in that iPads could be useful for persons with physical limita-
tions, and that it is better to perform on an iPad than not perform at all. David
emphasized the composition’s ‘educational and musical value’ (Reflection
statement, 5/12). These statements also indicate a certain degree of value and
aesthetic satisfaction inherent in performing on iPads.
Attending a performance of music created specifically for iPad instruments
and performed on iPads also appears to be a somewhat aesthetically satisfy-
ing and valuable activity. Predominant themes that emerged from the audi-
ence members were that the performance was fun and interesting. Drawbacks
were the performance limitations of the iPad instruments, and the less-than-
desirable timbral quality of the iPad instruments, compared to more traditional
instruments. Additional positive comments included that the performance
was ‘very enjoyable’, ‘exciting’ and ‘intriguing’; that the iPads were ‘surprisingly
similar to real instruments’; and that ‘it was much more expressive and realis-
tic-sounding than I thought it would be’ (Reflection statements, 5/12). All but
one of the audience member participants stated that they would come to a
performance of a piece composed for iPad instruments again. The remaining
audience member participant was less committal, stating that he ‘might’ come
again to a performance of a piece composed for iPad instruments. As with the
composers’ and performers’ statements, these audience member statements
also indicate a certain degree of value and aesthetic satisfaction associated
with attending a performance of music created specifically for iPad instru-
ments and performed on iPads.
The data in this study were also somewhat consistent with existing
research. Max stated that iPads could be useful for persons with physical limi-
tations, which is similar to Shah (2011), who stated that the touchscreen design
and screen size of iPads and other tablet computers are well suited for special
needs students with poor fine-motor skills or vision. Inconsistent with Shah
(2011) is that an emergent theme in the current research was the difficulty of
performing using the iPad’s touchscreen. It needs to be taken into account,
however, that Shah was not studying use of the touchscreen for perform-
ing on the iPad’s musical instruments; nor were either study researching the
difference between special needs students’ performing on the iPads musical
instruments as compared to performing on more traditional instruments.

Conclusions
Analysis of participant reflection statements has revealed that composing for,
and performing on iPad instruments, and attending a performance of music
created specifically for iPads are somewhat aesthetically satisfying and valu-
able activities. Predominant themes in this research include that composing
for iPad performance was fun and enjoyable, but the limitations of the iPad
instruments were a drawback; that performing on the iPads was fun, but it was
difficult to perform using the touchscreen; and that attending a performance
of music created for iPads was fun and interesting, but the performance limita-
tions of the iPad instruments were a drawback. Implications for the profession
are that music educators should consider engaging their students in compos-
ing, performing and attending performances of music created specifically for
iPads. In an environment where technology appears to be valued and acces-
sible, and budget cuts for music programmes prevalent (limiting the purchase
and/or upkeep of more traditional musical instruments), creating and perform-
ing music on iPads could well be a satisfying and valuable alternative.

www.intellectbooks.com  193
Patricia E. Riley

REFERENCES
Burton, Suzanne L. and Pearsall, Aimee (2016), ‘Music-based iPad app prefe-
rences of young children’, Research Studies in Music Education, 38:1, pp.
75–91.
Chen, Chi Wai Jason (2015), ‘Mobile learning: Using application “auralbook” to
learn aural skills’, International Journal of Music Education, 33:2, pp. 244–59.
Crichton, Susan, Pegler, Karen and White, Duncan (2012), ‘Personal devices in
public settings: Lessons learned from an iPod touch/iPad project’, Electronic
Journal of e-Learning, 10:1, pp. 23–31.
Criswell, Chad (2011), ‘Technology on the horizon’, Teaching Music, 18:5, pp.
30–33.
Demski, Jennifer (2011), ‘ELL to go’, T.H.E.Journal, 38:5, pp. 28–32.
Galuszka, Peter (2005), ‘Technology’s latest wave’, Black Issues in Higher
Education, 22:2, pp. 24–28.
Gawelek, Mary  Ann, Spataro, Mary and Komarny, Phil (2011), ‘Mobile pers-
pectives: On iPads—why mobile?’, EDUCAUSE Review, 46:2, pp. 28–30.
Hiller, Ashleigh, Greher, Gena, Queenan, Alexa, Marshall, Savannah and
Kopec, Justin (2016), ‘Music, technology and adolescents with autism spec-
trum disorders: The effectiveness of the touch screen interface’, Music
Education Research, 11:3, pp. 269–82.
Huang, Yueh-Min, Liang, Tsung-Ho, Su, Yen-Ning and Chen, Nian-Shing
(2012), ‘Empowering personalized learning with an interactive e-book
learning system for elementary school students’, Educational Technology
Research and Development, 60:4, pp. 703–22.
Kagohara, Debora  M., Sigafoos, Jeff, Achmadi, Donna, O’Reilly, Mark and
Lancioni, Giulio (2012), ‘Teaching children with autism spectrum disorders
to check the spelling of words’, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6:1,
pp. 304–10.
Kuzmich, John (2012), ‘Using the iPad in music education’, School Band &
Orchestra, 15, pp. 42–46, https://search.proquest.com/docview/1018566969
?accountid=14679. Accessed 1 December 2018.
McClanahan, Barbara, Williams, Kristen, Kennedy, Ed and Tate, Susan (2012),
‘A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improve-
ment’, TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 56:3,
pp. 20–28.
Murray, Orrin  T. and Olcese, Nicole  R. (2011), ‘Teaching and learning with
iPads, ready or not?’, TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 55:6, pp. 42–48.
Nelson, Deborah (2013), ‘Professional notes: Reaching all students via techno-
logy’, Music Educators Journal, 100:1, pp. 26–29.
Oliver, Beverley and Goerke, Veronica (2007), ‘Australian undergraduates’ use
and ownership of emerging technologies: Implications and opportuni-
ties for creating engaging learning experiences for the net generation’,
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23:2, pp. 171–86.
Parslow, Graham  R. (2010), ‘Commentary: Tablet PCs – lightweights with a
teaching punch’, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38:5, pp.
339–40.
Patton, Michael Quinn (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd
ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peluso, Deanna C. (2012), ‘The fast-paced iPad revolution: Can educators stay
up to date and relevant about these ubiquitous devices?’, British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43:4, pp. 125–27.

194  Journal of Music, Technology & Education

 Music composition for iPad performance

Randles, Clint (2013), ‘Being an iPadist’, General Music Today, 27:1, pp. 48–51.
Riley, Patricia Elaine (2016), ‘iPad apps for creating in your general music clas-
sroom’, General Music Today, 29:2, pp. 4–13.
Shah, Nirvi (2011), ‘Special education pupils find learning tool in iPad applica-
tions’, Education Week, 30:22, p. 1.
Waters, John K. (2010), ‘Enter the iPad (or not?)’, T.H.E.Journal, 37:6, pp. 38–40.
Williams, David  A. (2014), ‘Another perspective: The iPad is a REAL musical
instrument’, Music Educators Journal, 101:1, pp. 93–98.
Wise, Stewart, Greenwood, Janinka and Davis, Niki (2011), ‘Teachers’ use of
digital technology in secondary music education: Illustrations of changing
classrooms’, British Journal of Music Education, 28:2, pp. 117–34.

SUGGESTED CITATION
Riley, P. E. (2018), ‘Music composition for iPad performance: Examining pers-
pectives’, Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 11:2, pp. 183–195, doi:
10.1386/jmte.11.2.183_1

CONTRIBUTOR DETAILS
Dr Patricia Riley is associate chair of the Department of Music and Dance.
She is a versatile educator, with teaching experience in instrumental, vocal
and general music at the college, high school, middle school and elementary
school levels. Prior to coming to the University of Vermont, she served for
four years on the music education faculty at The Crane School of Music, State
University of New York at Potsdam. Her public school experience includes
twelve years in the Poultney (VT) School District, and eight years in school
districts in New Jersey.
E-mail: patricia.riley@uvm.edu

Patricia E. Riley has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

www.intellectbooks.com  195
Copyright of Journal of Music, Technology & Education is the property of Intellect Ltd. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.