A Comparison and Analysis of Published Lists of Recommended Wind Band Literature

Abstract

Abstract This study was second in a series examining wind band repertoire and lists of recommended literature. The researcher gathered published lists (N = 101) of recommended wind band literature which produced a collection of unique wind band titles (N = 6,496) and concomitant information regarding composers, arrangers, grade levels, and frequency counts. Analysis revealed significant differences among frequencies of wind band pieces appearing within sample which suggested varied levels of perceived importance ascribed to each piece. There were also significant differences among grade levels of wind band music which suggested a disproportionate representation of grade levels on published repertoire lists. Other findings suggested sufficient consistency among published lists to provide a basis for identifying a core wind band repertoire. Implications for wind band curricula, concert programming and future research were also explored. A Comparison and Analysis of Published Lists of Recommended Wind Band Literature Repertoire selection is perhaps one of most important curricular issues confronting music educators. Reynolds asserted that repertoire selection created the framework for an excellent music curriculum that fosters musical growth of our students (Reynolds, 2000, p.31). Other researchers seemed to agree on importance of judicious repertoire selection (Apfelstadt, 2000; Budiansky & Foley, 2005; Crocker, 2000; Hay ward, 2004; Persellin, 2000; Schupp, 1964; Weir, 1939). Some researchers suggested instrumental music educators consulted lists of recommended literature during repertoire selection process (Bauer, 1996; Carney, 2005; Young, 1998). Grant (1993) noted that reputable authorities often sanctioned literature lists and usually provided grade level information for included compositions. Halseth (1987) reported that College Band Directors National Association assembled repertoire lists while facilitating repertoire development. However, not all researchers agreed on value of literature lists versus other repertoire materials (Reames, 2001). Researchers also suggested curricular implications of literature lists. Saville stated educators often relied on preponderance of graded music lists to identify meritorious literature and that repertoire, became the textbook and curriculum for students (Saville, 1991, p.50). Ostling (1978) completed perhaps most often emulated study on artistic merits of wind band literature. Ostling surveyed 20 experts and used specific criteria to generate a list of nearly 200 works deemed to possess serious artistic merit. Gilbert (1992) used Ostling's methodology, but generated a slightly different list of works. Thomas (1998) focused only on grade level 3 and 4 pieces while Rhea (1999) studied grade level 3, 4, and 5 works from a prescribed music list. Honas (1996) also applied Ostling methodology to mixed-wind chamber compositions. Bellinger (2002) evaluated unaccompanied solo trumpet literature with an Ostling methodology while Baker (1997) modified Ostling methodology to determine a core repertoire for mixed- wind chamber ensembles. In addition to artistic merit, some studies focused on identifying essential or core repertoire (Anderson & Sevier, 1989; Kohut & Mohr-Sheahan, 1991; Peercy, 1958; Peterson, 1986; The basic band curriculum, 1987; The best band music, 1958; The Instrumentalist's basic library, 1979). Gaines (1997) concluded that a sample of high school band directors collectively could agree on core repertoire. Howard (2002) demonstrated similar findings for middle school repertoire. Olson (1982) invited eminent wind conductors to evaluate a list of works to determine which pieces merited inclusion in a defined and succinct list of core repertoire for wind ensembles. Holvik (1970) collected collegiate concert programs which spanned five years and investigated whether a core repertoire emerged based on frequency of performance. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.