ABSTRACT
Course descriptors for higher education music degrees in the UK make considerable use of the words ‘creative’ and ‘creativity’. However, do benchmark statements referring to a ‘creative approach’ or studying in a ‘creative manner’ actually relate to true creative engagement, or are they merely a marketing ploy to soften an emphasis on studying music through ‘critical engagement’? Music itself appears to be an inherently creative art, concerned with composition and performance: activities directly connected with making and manipulating sound. Yet Schafer described creativity as ‘perhaps the most neglected subject in Western musical education’ (1976, p. ix). Performance, particularly if it involves the realisation of an existing score, can be controlled by strict parameters, not only those defined by the notation of the musical text, but also those surrounding the text and relating to issues of performance practice, acceptable norms of taste and style and institutional assessment. In fact, this kind of performance is often less about creation than about conforming. Paradoxically, music, so often used as a tool to unlock other kinds of creativity, is at risk of being largely re-creative, bound by constraints of scholarship and legacies of institutional tradition.
