In this comparison of Seth Pendergast's “Creative Music-Making with Digital Audio Workstation” and A.P. Bell’s “Can We Afford These Affordances? GarageBand and the Double-Edged Sword of the Digital Audio Workstation,” we see two perspectives on digital audio workstations (DAWs) and their influence on music education. Both authors acknowledge DAWs as powerful tools for facilitating creative music-making, but they diverge in their treatment of DAWs’ impact and the inherent limitations of the technology in educational contexts.

 

Tone and Implied Objective

 

Pendergast’s tone is optimistic and pragmatic, emphasizing DAWs’ potential to broaden students’ creative engagement and musicianship in a music education setting. His primary objective is to make DAWs accessible and meaningful for music teachers, especially those with limited experience in music technology. Through practical guidance, Pendergast argues for the “hyphenated musicianship” model, encouraging students to assume multiple roles within music production—such as composer, producer, and engineer. By advocating for hands-on learning projects with DAWs, he aims to help teachers create an inclusive, hybrid approach that fosters “multifaceted musicianship.”

 

Bell, in contrast, adopts a critical and contemplative tone. Rather than viewing DAWs solely as tools to expand creativity, he explores the potential constraints imposed by technology, arguing that the benefits of DAWs come with “affordances” that may shape, limit, or even obscure musical learning and expression. His main objective is to shed light on the unintended effects of DAWs on music education by scrutinizing what these technologies reveal and conceal. Bell’s view highlights the responsibility of educators to question how DAWs shape students' understanding of music and warns against becoming overly reliant on technology without considering its filtering effects on pedagogy and creativity.

 

Use of Scholarship

 

Pendergast draws from practical and instructional frameworks, with references to scholars who advocate for a hands-on approach to music education. He uses Webster’s creative thinking model to structure his recommendations for DAW-based learning, suggesting it as a scaffold for teachers to follow. For instance, he references “enabling skills” and “enabling conditions” as essential to DAW music-making, underlining the importance of developing students’ technical and creative abilities alongside a supportive environment. This framework provides a scholarly foundation that justifies his instructional model, emphasizing that DAWs can fulfill a pedagogical role in cultivating technical competence and creative confidence.

 

Bell’s analysis is grounded in critical theory and draws from educational scholars like Brown and Dillon, using their perspectives to examine the technological mediation of music education. By focusing on what DAWs reveal and conceal, Bell argues that DAWs do not merely facilitate music-making but also guide it within specific constraints, often dictated by software design. His use of terms like “presumptions, privileges, provisions, protections, and preventions” illustrates how DAWs impose inherent structures that influence user behavior, serving as both an aid and a limitation to creative freedom. Bell’s approach places DAWs within a larger discussion of technology’s role in shaping human experience and learning, aligning with critical pedagogy’s emphasis on reflexive and conscious engagement with educational tools.

 

Key Takeaways

 

Both authors emphasize the educational potential of DAWs but underscore different aspects of their application. Pendergast’s takeaway is that DAWs, when used creatively, can bridge diverse musical roles and support a hybrid instructional approach that enhances students’ musicianship. By following structured, project-based learning, teachers can introduce DAWs even in classrooms where resources or technological expertise may be limited. His practical takeaway encourages educators to demystify DAWs for students, making digital music-making a staple in music education that develops both technical and creative skills.

 

Bell’s takeaway, however, calls for a cautious approach, reminding educators that DAWs are not neutral tools but are designed with embedded assumptions that influence musical output. He challenges educators to reflect critically on the pedagogical impact of DAWs and to recognize when they might limit expression or understanding. For instance, Bell suggests that teachers consider whether using DAWs like GarageBand reinforces specific styles of music-making while marginalizing others. His takeaway emphasizes the importance of interrogating the pedagogical implications of DAWs, as software choices could unintentionally narrow students’ creative possibilities.

 

Comparative Analysis

 

Pendergast’s framework emphasizes the empowerment of students as creators, focusing on the inclusive aspect of DAWs that enable students to take on various musical roles. His approach is forward-looking, suggesting that with DAWs, music education can evolve to meet students' technological interests, promoting an adaptable and skill-diverse musicianship. The concept of “hyphenated musicianship” reinforces this, encouraging students to learn by blending multiple roles—composer, producer, performer—within the DAW. The enabling conditions in Pendergast’s model underscore the importance of recognizing students' backgrounds, prior experiences, and cultural contexts, suggesting that these elements be integrated into DAW projects to make music-making relatable and accessible.

 

Bell’s perspective, while less instructional, emphasizes the ethical responsibility of educators to consider technology’s hidden limitations. His critique of DAWs as “double-edged swords” points to the risk of DAWs becoming prescriptive tools that condition students into certain music-making conventions. He proposes that teachers need to be vigilant about the constraints of DAWs, considering what features might unintentionally narrow students’ scope of musical expression. Bell’s emphasis on “presumptions” and “provisions” underlines his call for an ethical, critical approach to technology in the classroom, warning that DAWs, while powerful, should not replace fundamental music skills but rather supplement them thoughtfully.

 

In synthesizing both articles, Pendergast’s optimistic embrace of DAWs as tools for engagement and creative development in music education contrasts with Bell’s call for critical examination of the underlying structures of DAW technology. While Pendergast is focused on the “how” of using DAWs in the classroom, Bell is focused on the “why”—why we use DAWs, and why we must be mindful of their influence on music-making. Together, these perspectives present a balanced view for music educators: DAWs can undoubtedly enhance creativity and engagement, but only when educators remain critical of their potential to channel creativity within the framework established by software developers.

 

Ultimately, Pendergast and Bell provide complementary insights for music educators. Pendergast’s work offers a guide for teachers eager to introduce DAWs to their students, promoting an inclusive, multifaceted approach to musicianship. Bell, meanwhile, urges educators to think critically about the values that DAWs might implicitly convey and to consider whether these values align with their pedagogical goals. For educators, the synthesis of these two perspectives could lead to a more thoughtful, intentional use of DAWs, leveraging their creative potential while remaining aware of their potential constraints. This balanced approach could foster a more expansive, reflective, and empowering music education experience for students, accommodating both the practical benefits and the critical considerations of digital music-making tools.