My dissertation literature review has helped with my product development and applied research also as it looks in the area of music technology & music therapy which is the area that I am focussing on. My lit review has provided me with important statistics and facts as to why music therapists are not using music technology as much within the are as would be expected. My dissertation can be read below:
The use of Music Technology within Music Therapy
Introduction
This article will review literature, which looks into the use of music technology within the area of music therapy. The review will be split into key areas found within the literature, these will be, The History of Music Therapy, Traditional Techniques used Within Music Therapy, Technology within Music Therapy, How these new Technologies are being Utilized in Music Therapy, The Benefits of New Technologies in Music Therapy & The Disadvantages of New Technologies in Music Therapy.
A variety of literature will be discussed during this review including a total of five articles from journals and nine books.
The History of Music Therapy
Healing through music is a theory, which has existed for many thousands of years and most music therapy handbooks begin with a section upon ancient theories such as in Maranto’s introduction to, The Art and Science of Music Therapy, “the oldest account of medical practices, the Kahum papyrus [1800 BCE], provides an account of the use of incantations for healing, and references to the therapeutic uses of music are continually found throughout eastern and western history.” (1995.P.9) Darnley-Smith & Patey’s book, Music Therapy, includes a similar introduction, “As far as we can tell music probably existed as a form of healing in the most primitive of societies.” (2004. P.6) Suggesting these ancient theories played a key part in the development of music therapy.
Although healing through music has been in practice for many centauries, music therapy was only developed as a professional association within the UK in the 1950’s and is now seen as both an art and a science. (MARANTO. 1995. P.10) Music therapy has been described in many different ways, The Handbook of Music Therapy defines it as, “the use of sounds and music within an evolving relationship between client/patient and therapist to support and develop physical, mental, social, emotional and spiritual well being.” (BUNT. L. 2002. P10-11)
Traditional Techniques Used Within Music Therapy
The most common traditional methods used in music therapy seem to be improvisation, reception and composing, which are mentioned in both Maranto’s article (1995. P.10) and Bruscia’s book (1991, P.5.) both books also mention other methods such as performing (1995. P.10) & recreating (1991, P.5.) however these seem to be used less frequently as they are not mentioned in other literature.
These methods use mostly traditional instruments such as vocals, piano & drums (HANSER. S. B. 2005. P6-8) These methods have been tried and tested sufficiently by the music therapy profession over the past 60 years, meaning they have been well documented making them the preferred method of practice for the majority of trained music therapist and music therapy students.
Improvisation
Bruscia summarizes that during therapeutic improvisation the therapist will help to create an ongoing accompaniment, they may also incorporate a theme or idea to base the piece upon. The client may then choose an instrument to create a melody, rhythm or lyrics. The piece may be a solo or perhaps an ensemble with family members or other clients. (1991, P.5.) Hanser & Clair cite different ways in which the technique is used, such as call and response between therapist and client. (1995, P.350-351)
It has become apparent from these texts that improvisation plays a key role in music therapy and appears to be one of the most widely used techniques, “Free improvisation is a central part of music therapy. The benefits…are that techniques allow exploration of feeling and the communication of these feelings in a non-verbal way, thus bypassing the restrictions, inherent in spoken language…” (TOWSE. E. 1995. P.328)
Recreating
This is the technique of reproducing music, perhaps from notation or ear, by the client. This method could be used to provoke memory or perhaps as part of a performance. (BRUSCIA. 1991. P.5&6) Whilst this technique is not cited in Maranto’s article there is mention of methods which crossover with recreating such as performance. (1995. P.5)
Composing
This is the composition of song which may include lyrics, melody, rhythm etc that have been written by the client (BRUSCIA. 1991. P.5&6) The composition process may begin from improvisation and is often used as a means to discuss personal issues, express emotions & as a form of accomplishment. (HIBBEN. 1999. P.3)
Listening
Receptive music therapy involves the client listening to music for purposes such as relaxation, guided imagery, movement and painting. (BRUSCIA. 1991. P.5&6) “One of the most important parts of receptive music is that it is different from a creative activity which involves making something, and it is also different from entertainment, which is entirely passive.” (TOWSE. 1995. P.338) Towse goes on to say that music can offer something which other arts therapies cannot, which is to participate without having to be physically engaged. (1995. P.338)
Technology Within Music Therapy
Technology is now a part of everyday life for the majority of people, “With the current widespread diffusion and use of ICT in all domains of everyday life, ICTs are increasingly considered a fundamental and necessary resource for every European citizen.” (SILVERSTONE. R. 2005. P.21)
The invention of such devices as the internet & mobile phones has meant that for a lot of people many limitations were broken down and, with technology getting ever cheaper, many people are finding new independence, “…especially due to the accessibility of technology and the increasing numbers of adult clients who are utilizing various forms of technology to enhance their quality of life. This can be seen in the increasing numbers of older adults who are using social networking sites to communicate with old friends as well as the number of younger individuals using cell phones to text message and communicate with others.” (CEVASCO & HONG. 2009. P. 71)
It is therefore unsurprising that the health industry has also been affected by the invention of these new technologies, “Computer, electronic and digital technologies have become part of daily life both personal and professional. Technological applications are growing daily in health care, including computer mediated therapy, supervision, professional networking, research and distance learning.” (MALCHIODI. C.A. 2000. P. 9)
Technologies such as the Internet and computers are now being used everyday through out health care, for things such as research, communication between professionals and data input. However it has only recently been explored how these technologies could also benefit the client/patient.
Telehealth
Telehealth appears to be the most successful form of using these new communication technologies within health care to date. Telehealth uses telecommunications to provide health assessments, diagnosis, consultations etc. Services such as E-Therapy, communication between client and professional via the Internet, and WedCounseling, counseling via the Internet, have now become an alternative means of receiving therapy. (MALCHIODI. C.A. 2000. P.16)
It is something which has been explored in the field of music therapy, however only vaguely, meaning it has not yet been possible to know the full extent of benefits this service may be able to offer to the therapy. Minimal documentation can be found upon the subject with Krout, Baker & Muhlberger’s article upon Information Sharing being the most detailed. In the article they discuss the results of an experiment, in which music therapy students met over Skype and carried out songwriting sessions. (2010, P.80)
The results achieved from this experiment were promising, participants commented that their experience of collaborating over Skpye was not overly different from doing so face to face, “It didn’t matter whether this process was taking place face to face or Skype to Skype – the collaboration process felt very similar.” (2010, P. 83)
There were also some difficulties experienced such as, signal loss, which was found to be disrupting to the session; playing and singing in time together, was also not possible. It was also discussed that rapport may not develop with the client as quickly as it would during a face to face session, due to the misjudgment of facial expressions. (2010. P. 83, 84)
However with technology developing at an extraordinary rate it is extremely likely that the difficulties experienced during this study will soon be non-existent. Whilst telehealth will never replace in-person therapy it can offer an alternative and open the door to therapy to clients who before may not have been able to experience it due to their circumstances, as Krout, Baker & Muhlberger’s quote “It should be noted that the purpose of the study was not to investigate replacing face to face, in person songwriting…it was to begin to develop protocols that might be replicated in the future with clients who do not have access to in-person music therapy.” (2010, P.80) Malchiodi makes a similar point, “While in-person therapy is still the preferred relationship health care professionals…are realizing that there are advantages to online interventions and communication in certain cases.” (2000. P.14) She goes on to state the benefits for those with, “Physical, geographical or lifestyle limitations” (2000. P.14).
Musical Interfaces Used Within Music Therapy
Music technology has been used within the area of music therapy for some decades now. Several pieces of equipment are being used which were primarily created for general music making, but went on to be adapted to fit the area. Others have been specifically created for primary use within music therapy. Below is a list and brief description of the technology currently being used in music therapy (MAGEE. 2006. P.142) (HUNT, KIRK & NEIGHBOUR. 2004. P.52):
Soundbeam
Created in the late 80’s, Soundbeam uses movement sensors to translate gesture into sound. The sensors can be set to pick up certain types of movement, for instance if the user is limited to the movement of one finger the sensor can be set to a minimal range, however if the user is able to move a wheel chair it can be set to larger range.
Soundbeam appears to be one of the most popular pieces of technology being used in Music therapy, as Magee’s found in her study, “This reveals a clear majority of technology users’ experience with electronic musical equipment using MIDI generated sounds triggered by specialist input devices such as Soundbeam (n=26)” (2006. P. 142)
MidiGrid
MidiGrid is a piece of computer software also created in the late 80’s (HUNT & KIRK. 2003. P. 135), which displays a grid of boxes upon the screen, each grid contains a different, instrument or note etc, clicking upon the grid with a computer mouse can trigger the sounds. (HUNT, KIRK & NEIGHBOUR. 2004. P.51)
MidiGrid is not mentioned in any of the articles, which carried out surveys with music therapists, suggesting it has received minimal use. However in the article, Multiple Interfaces for Music Therapy, it discusses how MidiGrid has been expanded to become more identifiable as a musical instrument whilst still remaining accessible to severely impaired users. (HUNT, KIRK & NEIGHBOUR. 2004. P.52)
MidiCreator
Developed shortly after the MidiGrid, this device converts signals received via sensors, these could be pressure, distance or direction sensors etc. The program will then send out a Midi message of notes or chords in response. (HUNT, KIRK & NEIGHBOUR. 2004. P.52)
In Magee’s survey, mentioned above, Midicreator is averagely used half as much by music therapists as Soundbeam, despite this it is still the second most frequently used piece of technology within the practice. (2006. P. 142)
Adapted Musical Instruments
Adapted instruments are used with people who have physical disabilities, which may prohibit them from playing a traditional instrument. Crowe and Rio state in their article that adapted musical instruments are one of the most extensively explored areas of music technology within the music therapy practice. (2004 P.291-292) They also help individuals to actively participate in music making which they may have been unable to partake in before. (2004. P.301) However examples of these adaptations within literature appear to remain unexplored.
Other
Magee’s survey, which looks into the technology being used by music therapists also lists other technologies which have been used such as Electronic & Midi instruments, Recording equipment, Amplification & Vibroacoustic equipment however they were substantially and variably less. (2006. P. 142)
Crowe and Rio however state an apposing argument in their article, “The use of midi capability has been explored extensively as a tool in music therapy practice and research.” (2004. P.293) They also state that the American Music Therapy Association’s entry requirements for 2003 request a basic knowledge of the midi keyboard. (2004. P.283)
In Hunt, Kirk & Neighbour’s article they discuss instruments which they were in the process of creating, such as the Audiovisual drum. The drum would react when played not only with sound but also with a image projected from the inside of the drum onto the skin. (2004. P.53) However there appears to be no further publications upon the instrument.
From the above we can see that the development of new technologies within music therapy seemed to peek in the late 80’s early 90’s however there have been minimal developments since. (MAGEE & BURLAND. 2006. P.34) We will go on to discuss this later in The Disadvantages of New Technologies in Music Therapy.
How these new Technologies are being utilized in Music Therapy
Music technology within music therapy has focused primarily upon people with severe physical disabilities, as Magee and Burland noticed during their study in 2006. (P.38) However Hunt’s et al research makes it apparent that there has been clear benefits gained by physically disabled clients who are using technology as it has enabled them to receive therapy that they may have otherwise been unable too have. (2004. P.50)
A study, carried out by Magee in which surveys were sent out to the Association of Professional Music Therapists, gathered results which estimated that on average only 7.2% of the entire music therapy profession, at the time of data collection, had at some stage used electronic music technologies within clinical practice. (2006. P.142) Cevasco & Hong conducted a similar survey receiving comparable results, “Based on the results of this survey, MTSI (Music Therapy Students and Interns) have greater accessibility to technology than the MT-BC’s (Music Therapist – Board Certified)…however they are not using these devices as much for clinical use.” (2009. p.71)
What is particularly interesting from Cevasco & Hongs results is that MTSI’s who are currently under going what should be the most up to date training and have access to the latest technology, are in fact using the technology a lot less than MT-BC’s, who may have been practicing in the area for sometime and quite possibly have received their training many years ago. This brings into question the training that MTSI’s are receiving in the technological area of music therapy.
In Crowe and Rios article it becomes apparent that The American Music Therapy Association’s entry requirements are outdated, they state that only a basic knowledge of the midi keyboard is needed and the only understanding of computers required is in research methods. These requirements were taken from 2003, due to lack of recent references however the technological requirements are still particularly low considering the technology available at that time, as Crowe and Rio go onto state, “Given the amount of technological support now available to practicing music therapists theses standards constitute a minimal requirement.” (2004. P.284)
Magee and Burland found that, “The participants in this study had mostly developed skills in doing this work through a combination of learning from multidisciplinary colleagues, applying concepts from relevant treatment models and trial and error in use of the equipment.” (2006. P.33) Showing a definitive lack of training in the area of music technology within music therapy, which Magee found to be one of the main causes for the lack of technology being used within the area. (2006. P.142)
However despite there currently being no clear training or process set by organizations for using music technology within the area, Magee and Burland found during their study that a process has become apparent to those therapist’s who are using technology in their practice, ”There is a clear process which needs to be followed when using Electronic music technologies (EMT’S) in clinical work with clients with complex problems. This includes establishing an understanding of the clients movement patterns in order to choose appropriate input devices and the musical sound which can be created.” (2006. P.56)
Magee and Burland also state steps, which should be followed when using music technology, these include confirming the client understands that they are making the sounds heard, correct positioning and proficient planning. (2006. P.29)
There have also been other developments in the area including Hunt’s et al research and developments into user centered design’s, “With many recent projects, the main aim is to develop technological systems that help people to “lose themselves” in artistic or emotional expression – in other words for the quality of interaction to be so high that users aren’t aware that they’re using technology.” (HUNT et al. 2004. P.51) Hunt’s et al approach could potentially make using technology in therapeutically practice much easier, not only for the client but also for the therapist, which may lower the need for such extensive training.
The Benefits of New Technologies in Music Therapy
Despite there being a lack of music technology used in music therapy, those who have partaken in its use have seen clear benefits.
One of the main benefits, which become apparent in several texts, is how music technology allows access to music therapy for severely physically disabled clients who would otherwise be unable to receive it; “Music technology can give people access to music (and thus music therapy) by providing a means of transducing limited physical gestures into musical expression.” (HUNT et al. 2004. P.50) Magee and Burland state a similar finding in their article, “Client gains include access to music making when this might not otherwise be possible and enhanced opportunities for both musical expression and for self awareness.” (2006. P.6)
Crowe and Rio also state that music technology gives physically disabled clients, who are unable to communicate, an opportunity to do so. (2004. P.301) And Hunt et al also expresses how technology enables, “Access to real time sound control for those with limited movement.”(2004. P.50)
However due to the focus of music technology in music therapy being heavily based on severely physically disabled clients, it has led to neglect of research and development into how technology in music therapy can also be of benefit to less physically disabled clients. (MAGEE. 2006. P.143) We shall look into this further in The Disadvantages of Music Technology within Music Therapy.
Technology within therapy has also provided great benefit to children and adolescents, as Hunt et al states, “Traditional instruments are related to strict training, which can be off putting for young people…Mary Abbotson…has worked with special-needs teenagers where the attraction of a “music computer” was the only thing that initially kept them in the music therapy room” (2004. P.51
Vibroacoustic therapy, which was mentioned above as a less frequently used form of technology within music therapy, uses technology to affect the sound waves of physical matter, such as the human body. This helps to deal with pain management by, as Crowe and Rio cite the work of McClellan (1988), “restoration of the entire body to its natural vibratory rate.” (2004. P.53) However as we saw from the statistics, this therapy is currently not being widely used within the area, and crosses over heavily with science. (SKILLE & WIGRAM. 1995. P.23)
Similar benefits seem to resonate throughout different texts such as Crowe and Rio’s article which states “increased motivation, participation, self-esteem, expression, and social interaction due to the use of technology in music therapy”. (P.302 & 303) Magee and Burland discuss the same benefits within their text with particular focus upon the empowerment gained by the client through technology enabling independence and therefore enhancing quality of life. (2006. P.6 & 8 ) Crowe and Rio state a similar point, of how technology has offered clients great control over themselves and environment, which has proved to be particularly liberating for the client. (2004. P.294)
Magee and Burland also state how the use of technology in music therapy is bringing new opportunities to the practice enabling it to build networks with other related areas, “Applying EMT’s also Enhances opportunities for working with other members of the multidisciplinary team and assists with integrating music therapy into the broader therapy program.” (2006. P.33-34)
The Disadvantages of New Technologies in Music Therapy
It has become apparent throughout this review that technology within music therapy is not being utilized as much as would be expected in the 21st centaury, we shall now explore possible reasons for why this is occurring.
The main reason which seems to arise throughout different texts is the lack of training available for both qualified music therapists and music therapy students, Crowe and Rio cite, “As a professional discipline, music therapy has not extensively addressed the issue of educating students in technology pertinent to music therapy practice.” (2004. P.283) Magee presents a similar verdict in her article, ”The findings reveal that the primary barrier from incorporating these tools involves a lack of training at an introductory level and skills development at a more advance level.” (MAGEE. 2006. P.139)
Magee and Burland also state that Britain in particular has been criticized for being slow in the introduction of music technology within music therapy. (2006. P.10) Cevasco & Hong also found concerning results, “Many MT-BC’s stated they did not even know what types of technology existed for use in music therapy.” (2009. P.71-72) Suggesting that training in music technology is an issue, which urgently needs addressing by music therapy courses and boards.
Magee also specifies in her article that training should concentrate on how to appropriately include music technologies within a therapeutic environment and explain the benefits involved for the client. (2006. P.139) From Magee’s text it becomes apparent that many music therapists believe technology can only be used with clients who suffer from profound physical disabilities. (2006. P.143) This is an issue which should also be addressed in the training process.
Another issue which emerged from several texts is the quality of sound and control experienced when using music technologies in practice, for instance Hunt et al quotes, “They also cite a lack of control subtlety, and timbre that “wore thin” after much use” (2004. P.52) Magee and Burland found similar results in their study, “the existing tools lack the facility to control subtle manipulation of components resulting in favored synthesized timbres ‘wearing thin’ after repeated use.” (2006. P.34)
Hunt et al goes on to mention a possible solution being developed; new piece of music technology, designed specifically for music therapy, Ensemble is a program, which loads midi sounds into the music software Reaktor, enabling them to be continuously manipulated, therefore taking old sounds and creating new dimensions. (2004. P.52)
Hunt et al continues to say, “This approach will open new interactive sound and image worlds and developments in the practice of therapy, which aren’t so much limited by the clients capability but by the creativity shown in designing the new instruments and supporting tool kits and our willingness to use them in practice.” (2004. P.58) Magee and Burland make a similar argument, “Greater interdisciplinary collaboration in the development of appropriate tools is required” (2006. P.33) Magee also address’ how many therapists stopped using technology in their practice due to equipment breaking and not having sufficient skills or support to repair them. (2006. P.143)
Suggesting that the engineers involved in the creation of future technology for music therapy purposes, must take great consideration in the practicalities and usability of the products they design and engaging in a close partnership with practicing music therapists could prove to be beneficial. Magee and Burland mention guidelines for future technology for music therapy is their article, “There is the aim to create EMT’s which are able to provide a comparable variety of shape, sound and playing techniques to that provided by acoustic instruments, with particular consideration of timber control & adequate tactile feedback. There is also recognition that tools must be reliable and not overly complex.” (2006. P.34)
Other points expressed were the preference of direct contact and physical engagement which traditional instruments offer. (MAGEE. 2006. P.143) Magee and Burland mention a similar concern; “There are aesthetic and therapeutic benefits of acoustic instruments which are limitations when it comes to EMT’s…particularly in terms of visual appearance. Acoustic instruments have greater evocative capabilities because of their multisensory appearance.” (2006. P.27)
Cost is another key concern which music therapists have when using technology, as Cevasco & Hong quote, “Some of the MT-BC’s mentioned that the cost of technology was especially difficult for music therapists…Others indicated an interest in obtaining grants to purchase technology and wanted further information on how to find the funding in order to include current technology in their clinical practice.” (2009. P.72) Magee makes a similar observation, “Practical issues emerged as the most common contributing factor preventing the use of electronic technologies, including access to and a lack of space for such equipment, not having enough time to set up the equipment within the clinical workload and difficulties mobilizing the equipment.” (2006. P.142)
Conclusion Of Literature
It has become apparent from this review that the literature available upon the subject is extremely limited and much of it is outdated, many of the articles used in this review concluded similarly, such as Magee’s paper, “More detailed investigation of existing applications of electronic music technologies in music therapy practice is warranted, particularly into technologies which incorporate specialist input devices.” (2006. P.144)
Therefore it is essential to extend upon the methods used to gather further research. Other methods such as the Internet, TV programs and holding interviews, where possible, with individuals who have shown clear involvement in the area, should all be explored.
Magee suggests an area for further research in other therapeutic professions, “The issue of training and support in the application of electronic assistive technologies reflect key topics for concern across the wider allied health professions at the current time…” (2006. P.144) And Malchiodi’s book, Art Therapy and Computer Technology, discussed above, talks of the use of digital media within Art Therapy, “I am always exploring what media do, how they affect us differently, what qualities they convey, how they influence the circulation of energy in spaces and in people and how new media and new interactions among existing media improves practice.” (2000. P.88)
Suggesting other art therapies may be able to offer an alternative view on technology within therapy, which could prove to be extremely beneficial to its development within music therapy. Therefore meaning further investigation into how technology is being used within art therapies is required.
Other areas that also require further research are; where technology works best within music therapy, training on technology within music therapy, techniques that could and are being used with technology in music therapy, current technological developments taking place within music therapy, other technological developments which could be used in music therapy but are not currently and where the future of music technology and music therapy may lead.
Further areas of interest may become apparent along the line of research and should also be addressed appropriately to ensure maximum and up to date knowledge of the subject before a clear conclusion can be drawn.
Bibliography
Books
MARANTO. C.D. 1995. Foreword. In: WIGRAM. T. SAPERSTON. B & WEST. R. The Art and Science of Music Therapy: A Handbook. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. P.5,9 & 10
DARNLEY-SMITH. R & PATEY. H.M. 2004. Music Therapy: Creative Therapies In Practice. London: SAGE Publications. P.6.
BUNT. L & HOSKYNS. S 2002. The Handbook of Music Therapy. East Sussex: Brunner Routledge. P10-11
BRUSCIA. K. E. 1991. Case Studies in Music Therapy. Gilsum: Barcelona Publishers. P.5&6
HANSER. S. B. 2005. The New Music Therapists Handbook. Second Edition. Boston: Berklee Press. P. 6-8
HANSER. S. B & CLAIR. A.A. Retrieving the Losses of Alzheimer’s Disease for patients and Care- Givers with the Aid of Music. In: WIGRAM. T. SAPERSTON. B & WEST. R. The Art and Science of Music Therapy: A Handbook. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. P.350-351.
TOWSE. E. 1995. Listening and Accepting. In: WIGRAM. T. SAPERSTON. B & WEST. R. The Art and Science of Music Therapy: A Handbook. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. P.328 & 338
HIBBEN. J. 1999. Inside Music Therapy: Client Experiences. Gilsum: Barcelona Publishers. P.3
SILVERSTONE. R. 2005. Media Technology and Everyday Life in Europe: From Information to Communication. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. P.21
MALCHIODI. C.A. 2000. Art Therapy & Computer Technology: A Virtual Studio of Possibilities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publisher LTD. P. 9, 14, 16, 88
MAGEE. W. L. & BURLAND. K. 2006. Exploring the use of Electronic Music Technologies In Clinical Music Therapy: Establishing Definitions and Scope of Practice: Final Report. Leeds: Institute of Neuropalliative Rehabilitation. P.6, 8, 10, 27, 29, 33, 34, 38, 56
SKILLE. O & WIGRAM. T. The Effect of Music, Vocalisation and Vibration on Brain and Muscle Tissue: Studies in Vibroacoustic Therapy. In: WIGRAM. T. SAPERSTON. B & WEST. R. The Art and Science of Music Therapy: A Handbook. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. P.23.
Journals
CEVASCO. A & HONG. A. 2009. Utilizing technology in clinical practice: A comparison of board certified music therapists and music therapy students. Music Therapy Perspectives. Volume 29. P.71, 72
KROUT. R. E. BAKER. F.A & MUHLBERGER. R. 2010. Information Sharing: Designing, piloting and evaluating an online collaborative song writing environment and protocol using Skype technology. Music Therapy Perspectives. Volume. 28. P.80, 83 & 84
MAGEE. W. L. 2006. Electronic Technologies in Clinical Music Therapy: A Survey of Practice and Attitudes. Technology and Disabilities. Volume 18. P.139, 142, 143, 144
HUNT. A. KIRK. R & NEIGHBOUR. M. 2004. Multimedia Interfaces For Music Therapy. IEEE Multimedia. Volume 11:3. P.50, 51, 52, 53, 58
CROWE. B. J & RIO. R. 2004. Implications of Technology In Music Therapy Practice & Research For Music Therapy Education: A Review of Literature. The Journal of Music Therapy. Volume 41:4. P.283, 284, 291,292, 293, 294, 301, 302, 303
A Soundscape Of My Life 