See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272085760

The current state of music therapy theory?

Article  in  Nordic Journal of Music Therapy · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 1,287

1 author:

Lars Ole Bonde

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Wagner's 'Ring' - music, culture, history View project

Playlists for therapy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lars Ole Bonde on 10 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE  CURRENT  STATE  OF  MUSIC  THERAPY  THEORY?  

KEN  AIGEN  (2014):  The  Study  of  Music  Therapy.  Current  Issues  and  Concepts.  

262  pages.  New  York  and  London:  Routledge.  

ABSTRACT  

Dr.  Ken  Aigen's  new  book  is  a  welcome  and  important  addition  to  the  scholarly  music  therapy  literature.    It  
presents,  discusses  and  synthesizes  topics  that  are  rarely  found  in  books  or  articles  -­‐  a  fine  quality  in  itself.  
Aigen's  ambition  is  to  introduce  music  therapy  theory  and  its  development  in  the  last  fifty  years  to  readers  
from  many  disciplines.  He  discusses  and  reflects  on  important  positions,  models  and  orientations  in  
contemporary  music  therapy  theory.    

In  the  essay,  major  themes  and  ideas  in  the  book  are  presented,  discussed  and  at  times  challenged  from  a  
European/Scandinavian  perspective.  

This  book  is  a  welcome  addition  to  the  scholarly  music  therapy  literature.  I  cannot  think  of  anything  similar,  
and  yet  it  is  obvious  that  such  a  book  is  needed.  It  presents,  discusses  and  synthesizes  topics  that  are  rarely  
found  in  existing  books  or  articles,  and  this  is  a  quality  in  itself.  Actually,  the  only  ‘old  and  remote  cousin’  I  
can  think  of,  is  Even  Ruud’s  Music  therapy  and  its  relationship  to  current  treatment  theories  (Ruud,  1977  
published  in  Oslo,  1980  in  the  US,  1991  in  German,  revised).  

The  book  presents  “issues  and  concepts”  in  music  therapy  theory  developed  over  many  decades,  however  
it  is  written  as  a  platform  for  reflection,  dialogue  and  debate  not  only  between  scholars  and  professionals  
within  the  field,  but  also  –  actually  primarily  –  as  an  invitation  to  an  interdisciplinary  discussion  of  how  
music  therapy  (and  other  health  professions)  can  contribute  to  modern  health  science  in  theory  and  
practice.  This  is  an  important  agenda,  and  Dr.  Aigen  has  chosen  topics  carefully  to  fit  his  aims.  The  topics  
include  1)  the  nature  of  music  therapy  and  the  understanding  of  music  as  its  therapeutic  medium,  2)  the  
relationship  between  music  therapy  and  historical  as  well  as  current  uses  of  music  in  human  wellbeing,  3)  
nonmusical  aspects  of  music  therapy  (verbal  dialogue  and  the  therapeutic  relationship),  4)  music  therapy  as  
related  to  other  uses  of  music  societies,  5)  psycho-­‐biological  concerns  in  music  therapy,  6)  the  development  
of  music  therapy  theory.  
These  topics  are  presented  and  discussed  in  six  parts,  each  composed  of  between  two  to  four  chapters.  
Aigen  is  a  well-­‐read  and  up-­‐to-­‐date  scholar,  so  there  is  plenty  of  inspiration  and  discussion  material  in  every  
part  and  chapter.  For  a  long-­‐term  reader  of  NJMT  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Aigen  reviews  several  
discussions  performed  in  the  journal  in  order  to  illuminate  important  meta-­‐theoretical  questions,  such  as:  
(1)  “Is  there  an  evolutionary  rationale  for  music  therapy?”  –  referring  to  the  debate  of  the  years  2000-­‐2001  
between  Grinde  (2000),  Christensen  (2000),  Dissanayake  (2001)  and  Kennair  (2001);  (2)  “Is  music  
expression  an  analogy  to  intra-­‐  and  interpersonal  processing?”  –  the  debate  between  Smeijsters  (2003,  
2005),  Aigen  (2006)  and  Bonde  (2007).  Aigen  loves  debate,  and  he  is  excellent  in  finding  poignant  
formulations  for  standpoints  that  are  not  always  easily  formulated  or  properly  distinguished.    

I  think  all  topics  are  well  chosen  as  related  to  the  dialogical  purpose  of  the  book,  the  intention  of  multi-­‐
disciplinary  exchange  and  understanding.    

Aigen  has  his  personal,  specific  theoretical  and  practical  background,  namely  in  the  Nordoff-­‐Robbins  
tradition,  and  this  is  of  course  influencing  his  view  on  other  traditions  and  paradigms.  A  typical  section  
reads  like  this:  

“Psychoanalytic,  behavioral,  and  neurologically-­‐based  perspectives  on  music  in  music  therapy  have  in  
common  a  reductive  philosophical  stance  to  explanation.  […]  All  of  these  approaches  are  reductive  in  the  
sense  that  they  separate  a  phenomenon  into  its  components  and  speculate  on  how  the  constituents  
interact  in  order  to  explain  what  is  observed.  […]  In  contrast,  music-­‐based,  resource-­‐oriented,  and  
community  music  therapy  frameworks  approach  explanation  from  a  different  philosophical  position  that  
considers  clinical  music  something  that  arises  on  the  level  of  the  whole  person.”  (p.  47).  

The  polarities  here  are  representative  for  the  book  as  a  whole:  reductive/reductionist  versus  holistic  
positions,  components/variables  versus  the  whole/complete  phenomenon,  explanations  based  on  
experiments  or  non-­‐music  theory    versus  explanations  based  on  clinical  practice  or  music  theory.  Aigen  is  in  
favour  of  holism,  reflexiveness,  and  practice  -­‐  and  sceptical  towards  reductionism,  objectivism,  and  
experiments.  The  book  can  actually  be  read  with  this  set  of  polarities  as  its  primary  theme,  and  the  selected  
topics  as  variations  on  the  theme  as  related  to  the  nature  of  music,  music  and  health  practices,  theory  
development  etc.    

Sometimes  the  polarity  is  driven  as  far  as  here  (Aigen  quoting  his  own  2005  book):  “[…]  the  primary  
message  from  the  therapist  to  the  client  is  I  am  here  to  help  you  make  music,  rather  than  I  am  here  to  
change  you,  fix  you,  control  you,  or  heal  you”  (Aigen  2005,  p.  120,  quoted  from  2014,  p.116).  This  quote  is  
taken  from  the  chapter  on  the  therapeutic  relationship,  where  Aigen  really  spells  out  a  dichotomy  of  music-­‐
centered  and  psychodynamic  thinking.  Here  it  seems  to  me  that  Aigen  has  missed  important  elements  and  
developments  in  contemporary  psychotherapeutic/psychodynamic  thinking  which  is  unquestionably  
interpersonal  and  relational  in  nature,  elements  that  inform  contemporary  music  therapy  theory  and  
practice  a  lot  which  do  not  support  Aigen’s  dichotomies.  I  wonder  why  for  example  that  the  highly  
influential  Daniel  Stern  and  other  relational  theorists  are  mentioned  only  briefly  in  the  book  (in  chapter  
15)?  It  also  provokes  me  that  receptive  methods  are  absent  in  the  discussions  of  chapters  7  and  8  (Non-­‐
musical  aspects  of  music  therapy);  I  think  contemporary  GIM  theory  could  have  contributed  to  a  much  
more  integrative  view  on  what  role  verbalization  can  play  as  well  as  on  the  therapeutic  -­‐  and  musical  -­‐  
relationship.  
My  point  here  is  not  that  the  polarities  are  not  ‘correct’  or  irrelevant,  or  that  Aigen  is  heavily  biased  
towards  one  side,  but  I  find  this  mindset  somewhat  simplistic,  and  to  me  as  reader  they  have  some  
consequences:  1)  the  ever-­‐returning  appraisal  of  “music-­‐based,  resource-­‐oriented  and  community  music”  
frameworks,  positions  and  viewpoints  becomes  a  bit  redundant;  2)  possible  merits  of  other  frameworks  are  
not  really  represented  and  given  credit,  and  therefore  the  very  important  issue  –  at  least  to  me  –  of  how  
we  as  music  therapy  scholars,  educators  and  clinicians  deal  with  a  multi-­‐paradigmatic  situation  becomes  a  
bit  blurred.    

For  example,  I  don’t  find  the  constant  critique  of  ‘the  medical  model’  (belonging  to  the  objectivist  
paradigm)  up  to  date.  Contemporary  medicine,  medical  science  and  health  care  is  not  so  exclusively  based  
on  a  (post)positivist,  reductionist  ground  as  it  seems  in  the  book.  Contemporary  medical  practice,  at  least  in  
Northern  Europe,  is  much  more  integrative  (in  some  hospitals  even  holistic),  and  the  bio-­‐psycho-­‐social    
paradigm  often  met  in  medicine  has  even  been  completed  by  a  spiritual  dimension  in  the  latest  years  
(examples  of  this  tendency  towards  integration  of  several  perspectives  in  a  patient-­‐oriented  clinical  
practice  are:  the  Calgary-­‐Cambridge  Model  of  Communication  in  Medicine  from  2005,  the  Danish  National  
Health  Board’s  new  Guidelines  for  palliative  care,  and  the  (European)  movement  of  Integrative  Medicine).  
Of  course,  the  bio-­‐psycho-­‐social  paradigm  can  be  questioned  as  fundamentally  reductionist  and  
pathogenetic,  as  opposed  to  other  paradigms  such  as  the  “historical  ontology”  paradigm  (Helle-­‐Valle,  
2014).  However,  I  see  it  also  as  an  opening  towards  a  broader  understanding  of  the  sick  person,  more  or  
less  related  to  WHO’s  (1948)  older  and  controversial  definition  of  health  as  a  broad  and  multi-­‐faceted  
balance  between  all  important  aspects  of  life,  and  not  just  a  black/white  dichotomy  of  illness/health  with  
focus  on  the  body  only.  Ideas  of  health  as  performance  (Aldridge,  1996),  health  as  sense  of  coherence  
(Antonovsky,  1987),  health  as  a  balance  of  personal  resources  (Ruud,  2010,  positive  psychology  and  health  
psychology)  have  followed  up  and  qualified  this  view  of  health  that  fits  so  well  with  contemporary  music  
therapy.  Today,  I  think  the  paradigmatic  challenge  is  mostly  found  in  the  field  of  research,  where  music  
therapy  researchers  in  the  medical  field  are  certainly  challenged  by  the  Cochrane  hierarchy  and  the  
Evidence  gospel.  I  miss  this  distinction  in  Aigen’s  book  since  I  am  always  looking  for  orientations  that  may  
serve  and  help  us  in  dealing  with  these  dilemmas  and  somewhat  contradictory  elements  in  contemporary  
medicine.  

I  may  be  more  acquainted  with  the  European  than  the  American  music  therapy  traditions.  As  a  reader,  I  see  
that  Aigen  has  a  broad  overview  of  the  American  literature,  but  when  it  comes  to  Europe,  he  leans  heavily  
on  scholars  from  his  own  tradition  and  those  he  favours  –  the  rich  literature  on  Nordoff-­‐Robbins  music  
therapy  and  Community  Music  Therapy,  with  prominent  authors  like  Ansdell,  Pavlicevic,  Stige,  Ruud,  
Rolvsjord,  Garred,  Aasgaard  –  and  of  course  also  to  American  colleagues  including  Turry  and  Lee,  and  to  his  
own  many  weighty  contributions.  This  is  all  very  well  presented,  but  I  wonder  if  the  arguments  had  been  
different  with  inclusion  of  more  international  authors  outside  NRMT  and  CoMT?    The  only  European  
scholars  outside  these  models/orientations  I  can  find  in  the  book  are  Henk  Smeijsters,  Elaine  Streeter  and  
Mary  Priestley  (and  maybe  Jane  Edwards,  if  she  represents  Ireland).  The  three  first  represent  positions  that  
Aigen  criticize  -­‐  they  are  included  because  they  “belong”  to  the  ‘negative’  side  of  the  polarities  mentioned  
above.  If  I  take  a  comparative  look  at  another  recent  publication,  Kevin  Kirkland’s  (2013)  International  
Dictionary  of  Music  Therapy,  I  find  a  lot  of  non-­‐American  contributors  who  represent  frameworks  and  
positions  that  cannot  so  easily  be  arranged  in  the  polarity/dichotomy,  e.g.  David  Aldridge,  Claudio  
Cominardi,  Jos  De  Backer,  Hanne  Mette  Ridder  and  Thomas  Wosch.  I  could  add  scholars  such  as  Gro  
Trondalen,  Jaakko  Erkkilä,  Christian  Gold  and  Susanne  Metzner,  and  also  my  Danish  colleagues  Inge  
Nygaard  Pedersen  and  Tony  Wigram  –  just  to  point  at  people  who  have  published  interesting  research  and  
important  theoretical  ideas  in  English  that  could  have  given  the  discussion  more  nuances,  and  maybe  a  
different  direction.    

For  me  as  a  music  therapy  scholar,  some  of  the  most  interesting  topics  were  found  at  the  end  of  the  book,  
in  the  last  two  chapters.  The  “Overview  of  current  music  therapy  frameworks”  (chapter  16)  identifies  three  
stages  in  the  development  of  theory-­‐based  music  therapy  models,  and  the  final  chapter  (17)  presents  “A  
comparative  analysis”  of  the  frameworks  presented  in  chapter  16.    

Aigen  identifies  “Three  stages  of  development  in  models  of  music  therapy  and  associated  theory”  (p.  218).  
In  the  first  stage  (1945-­‐64),  theoretical  ideas  were,  according  to  Aigen,  imported  primarily  from  psychology,  
and  the  connection  between  theory  and  practice  was  weak.  In  the  second  stage  (1965-­‐81),  original  theory  
was  formulated  and  treatment  models  like  NRMT,  AMT,  GIM  and  Benenzon  MT  stand  out  as  “fully  
developed  models  of  music  therapy  including  clinical  practices,  methods  of  training,  and  a  supportive  
clinical  framework”  (p.  218).  As  a  very  original  contribution,  Aigen  has  identified  13  “Stage    Three  Music  
Therapy  Orientations”    (1982-­‐present),  including  (in  chronological  order):  Field  of  Play  (Kenny)  –  Biomedical  
MT  (Taylor)  –  Neurological  MT  (Thaut)  –  Culture-­‐centered  MT  (Stige)  –  Aesthetic  MT  (Lee)  –  Community  MT  
(Pavlicevic  &  Ansdell),  Complexity-­‐Based  MT  (Crowe)  –  Analogy-­‐Based  MT  (Smeijsters)  –  Dialogical  MT  
(Garred)  –  Feminist  MT  (Hadley)  –  Resource-­‐oriented  MT  (Rolvsjord)  –  Humanities-­‐oriented  MT  (Ruud).    

There  is  not  much  scholarly  documentation  to  support  Aigen’s  characteristics  of  stage  one  and  two.  There  
are  no  references  to  the  claim  that  “In  the  first  stage,  theories  imported  from  clinical  psychology  tended  to  
predominate,  first  psychoanalysis  in  the  1950s  through  the  late  1960s  and  then  behavioral  learning  theory  
in  the  late  1960s  and  on.”  (p.  218).  This  may  be  true  in  an  American  context,  however,  Aigen  mentions  
William  Sears  as  an  important  ‘exception’.  In  Europe  there  were  just  as  important  influences  from  
medicine,  anthropology,  ethnomusicology  and  philosophy;  it  was  not  only  clinical  psychology.    The  four  
models  chosen  to  represent  stage  2  can  also  be  questioned.  At  the  Music  Therapy  World  Conference  in  
Washington  1999  five  models  were  presented  as  “internationally  well-­‐known”  –  Behavioral  Music  Therapy  
was  the  fifth  (Wigram,  Pedersen  &  Bonde,  2002).  In  Europe,  other  “model  candidates”  could  be  Juliette  
Alvin’s  Free  Improvisation  Therapy,  Christoph  Schwabe’s  Regulative  Music  Therapy  and  Alfred  Schmölz’s  
Austrian  model.  

In  contrast,  stage  three  is  based  on  many  references  and  arguments.  The  difference  between  (stage  two)  
models  and  (stage  three)  orientations  is  explained  carefully:  “I  call  them  orientations  because  they  are  
tendencies  of  thought.  They  offer  a  mode  of  expressing,  describing,  and  explaining  the  value  of  existing  
music  therapy  practices.  Comprising  values,  concepts,  and  overt  philosophical  foundations,  they  cannot  be  
described  merely  as  theories,  although  they  do  contain  theoretical  constructs;  because  they  do  not  contain  
specific  interventions,  procedures  and  goals,  the  term  models  would  not  be  appropriate.”  (p.  223)  

In  the  next  step  Aigen  analyzes  the  Orientations  by  characteristics,  namely:  “Reflecting  Practice?”  –  “No  
Clinical  Model?”  –  “Emphasis  on  Music?”  –  “Integrative  focus?”  –  “Critiques  medical  model?”  –  “Emphasis  
on  context?”  In  the  third  and  final  step  of  analysis  Aigen  groups  the  orientations  as  (1)  “Providing  support  
for  existing  practice”  (Aigen,  Garred,  Kenny,  Pavlicevic  &  Ansdell,  Rolvsjord,  Smeijsters,  Stige);  (2)  
“Providing  foundations  for  new  practices”  (Crowe,  Hadley,  Lee,  Ruud,  Taylor);  (3)  “Providing  foundations  
for  a  new  clinical  model”  (Thaut).  In  the  comparative  analysis  (ch.  17)  Aigen  groups  the  orientations  in  a  
new  way,  namely  “according  to  the  degree  to  which  the  qualities  of  music  as  music  are  drawn  upon  in  an  
explanatory  capacity”  (p.  239):  (1)  Music  as  a  core  organizing  element  (Aigen,Lee,  Pavlicevic,  Ansdell);  (2)  
Music  as  an  important  element  that  exists  in  combination  with  other  equal  commitments  (Crowe,  Garred,  
Kenny,  Taylor,  Thaut);  (3)  Music  requires  enhanced  attention  but  without  a  particularly  unique  role  (Hadley,  
Rolvsjord,  Ruud,  Smeijsters,  Stige).  

This  is  a  highly  original  way  of  looking  at  MT  Theory  history  and  development,  and  as  an  example  of  how  
skilled  Aigen  performs  this  analysis  I  would  like  to  quote  his  summary  on  the  difference  between  the  four  
stage  two  models  and  the  thirteen  stage  three  orientations:    “All  but  one  [Thaut]  of  the  contemporary  
frameworks  […]  purport  to  establish  connections  among  seemingly  disparate  practices  and  to  provide  
conceptual  support  for  clinical  work  in  a  way  that  cuts  across  traditional  divisions  such  as  client  population,  
disabling  condition,  milieu  of  therapy,  or  intervention“  (p.  225).  Another  striking  observation  is  that  the  
stage  two  models  were  created  outside  academic  institutions,  while  all  stage  three  orientations  are  
developed  by  academic  scholars  –  namely  as  frameworks  that  (also)  suit  training  in  different  clinical  models  
and  techniques.  

The  overview  in  the  final  chapters  is  very  useful  and  also  thought-­‐provoking.  Aigen  demonstrates  in  a  very  
persuasive  way  that  there  is  no  need  for  new  ‘models’,  and  that  new  theories  (new  ‘orientations’)  are  not  
meant  as  backup  for  new  clinical  models  (with  Michael  Thaut’s  Neurological  MT  as  the  only  exception).  In  
my  personal  perspective,  these  orientations  are  interesting,  relevant  and  maybe  also  necessary,  yet  I  have  a  
rather  different  agenda  that  I  wish  Aigen’s  book  could  have  helped  me  clarify.  –  I  am  experienced  in  two  of  
the  ‘stage  two  models’  and  well  informed  about  almost  all  the  ‘stage  three  orientations’.  However,  that  
does  not  help  me  very  much  when  I  want  to  collaborate  with  clinicians  and  researchers  based  in  a  bio-­‐
medical  (or  even  bio-­‐psycho-­‐social)  paradigm  –  and  this  is  really  where  I  see  music  therapy  going  these  
years  in  Europe  (promising,  potential  expansion  in  the  fields  of  medicine  and  mental  health).  In  research,  
we  have  developed  strategies  for  mixed  methods  studies  that  work  well  in  these  contexts  (Aigen  knows  
that;  he  has  reviewed  the  research  extensively  in  Aigen,  2008).  We  also  need  theoretical  and  meta-­‐
theoretical  foundation  for  those  strategies,  and  personally,  I  have  found  a  useable  and  flexible  foundational  
theory  in  the  great  pragmatic  tradition  of  Dewey  and  others.  It  informs  my  theoretical  thinking  as  well  as  
my  research  collaborations  with  colleagues  from  other  professions.  Dewey  is  mentioned  a  few  times  in  the  
book,  and  he  is  central  to  Aigen’s  own  Music-­‐centered  orientation  (Aigen,  2005).  On  p.  64  I  learn  that  Aigen  
finds  Dewey’s  agenda  relevant  to  music  therapy,  and  I  agree.  But  Pragmatism  does  not  seem  to  play  the  
same  role  for  Aigen  as  it  does  for  me  and  many  of  my  colleagues,  and  ‘pragmatism’  is  not  an  indexed  
concept  in  the  book.  Just  very  briefly,  I  understand  pragmatism  as  one  of  several  philosophical  assumptions  
about  the  nature  of  reality  (other  examples  include  critical  realism,  transformative-­‐emancipatory  and  
dialectic  stances),  that  allows  the  researcher  to  use  multiple  approaches  to  address  the  study  of  issues  
formulated  in  undogmatic  and  person-­‐oriented  research  questions  (Bradt,  Burns  &  Creswell,  2013).  

Coming  back  to  the  thirteen  orientations,  I  wonder  if  other  contemporary  frameworks  are  missing,  maybe  
just  because  they  are  not  given  any  name  that  could  be  used  to  promote  them,  or  because  they  are  not  
published  in  a  book  with  a  specific/specifying  title.  Just  to  give  an  example,  I  could  propose  that  the  
framework  for  the  training  program  in  Aalborg  where  I  teach  (described  extensively  in  Wigram,  Pedersen  &  
Bonde,  2002)  could  be  labelled  “Self-­‐experience  based  music  therapy”.  It’s  specific  –  and  still  highly  
controversial  –  principle  is  that  a  music  therapist  must  go  through  a  personal  music  therapy  process  in  
order  to  establish  a  well-­‐grounded  professional  identity.  Not  as  a  dogma  originating  in  psychoanalysis,  but  
as  a  sound  psycho-­‐musical  principle  for  any  MT  practice.  I  think  this  ‘orientation’  would  tick  four  or  five  of  
the  characteristics  in  Aigen’s  model,  however  it  represents  a  quite  different  type  of  orientation,  that  may  
be  more  common  in  Europe  than  in  America:  A  pragmatic  synthesis  of  ideas  from  psychodynamic,  
humanistic,  music-­‐  and  resource-­‐oriented  frameworks.  But  I  wonder  why  such  an  integrative  framework  
falls  outside  Aigen’s  definition  –  could  it  be  because  he  considers  it  ‘eclectic’?  

The  last  topic  I  will  address  here  is  the  question  of  diagnosis-­‐specific  versus  non-­‐specific  manuals  of  MT.  
Aigen  is  skeptical  towards  specific  manuals  based  on  criteria  of  indications  and  specific  interventions.  He  
underlines  that  music  therapy  can  offer  –  afford  –  non-­‐specific  elements,  procedures  and  experiences  
lacking  in  or  excluded  from  specific  manuals.  I  think  this  is  an  important  dilemma  in  contemporary  music  
therapy  (theory  as  well  as  practice),  and  I  just  want  to  mention  that  there  is  a  very  interesting  development  
going  on  in  the  Nordic  countries,  promoting  a  new  way  of  developing  and  thinking  ‘manuals’,  not  based  on  
criteria  of  indications,  but  on  a  careful  distinction  between  unique,  essential,  acceptable  and  non-­‐
acceptable  principles  in  music  therapy  with  a  specific  clinical  target  group.  Authors  including  Rolvsjord,  
Gold,  Erkkilä,  Hannibal  and  Pedersen  have  developed  important  ideas  that  may  overcome  the  traditional  
dichotomy  (Rolvsjord,  Gold  &  Stige,  2005;  Pedersen,  2013;  Geretsegger  et  al.,  2014).  In  a  broader  
perspective,  these  types  of  manuals  are  in  line  with  the  principles  of  pragmatic  trials  (vs.  explanatory  trials  
with  very  strict  intervention  manuals),  as  described  in  the  PRECIS  indicator  (Thorpe  et  al.,  2009).  This  is  a  
way  of  thinking  in  continua,  not  dichotomies.  

In  conclusion,  I  want  to  thank  Ken  Aigen  for  producing  such  a  unique,  essential,  stimulating  and  thought-­‐
provoking  book.  I  hope  it  will  be  used  and  discussed  a  lot  both  inside  music  therapy  and  in  interdisciplinary  
contexts.  The  present  essay  is  intended  to  stimulate  the  debate  within  the  profession.  Aigen’s  book  
deserves  such  a  debate.  

References

Aigen, K. (2005). Music-centered music therapy. Gilsum NH: Barcelona Publishers.

Aigen, K. (2006). Theoretical issues in considering music as a therapeutic medium. Book essay on music

as therapy: A dialogical perspective by Rudy Garred. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 15(2), 154-

166.

Aigen, K. (2008). An analysis of qualitative music therapy research Reports 1987–2006: Doctoral

studies. The Arts in Psychotherapy 35(4): 251-261.

Aldridge, D. (1996). Music Therapy Research: From out of the Silence. London: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San
Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Bonde, L. O. (2002). Theoretical foundations of music therapy: Music as analogy and metaphor. In T.

Wigram, I. N. Pedersen & L. O. Bonde (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to music therapy (T. Wigram, I

N Pedersen, L O Bonde). (2nd ed., pp. 97-111). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bonde, L. O. (2003). Introduction to "forms of feeling and forms of perception": Analogy - A core

concept. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 12(1), 69-70.

Bonde, L. O. (2007). Music as metaphor and analogy. A book-essay. Nordic Journal of Music

Therapy, 16(1), 60-81.

Bradt, J., Burns, D.S. & Creswell, J.W. (2013). Mixed Methods research in Music Therapy research.

Journal of Music Therapy 50(20): 123-148.

Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the medical interview – communication process (n.d.). http://www.gp-

training.net/training/communication_skills/calgary/guide.htm

Christensen. E. (2000). Music precedes language. Comments on Grinde’s article. Nordic Journal of Music

Therapy 9(2).

Dissanayake, E. (2001). An ethological view on music and its relevance to music therapy. Nordic Journal

of Music Therapy 10(2).

Geretsegger, M., Holck, U., & Gold, C. (2012). Randomised controlled trial of improvisational music

therapy's effectiveness for children with autism spectrum disorders (TIME-A): Study protocol. BMC

Pediatrics, 12, 2.

Grinde, B. (2000). A biological perspective on music apprieciation. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy 9(2):

18-27

Helle-Valle, A. (2014). How do we understand childrens’ restlessness? A critique of the biopsychosocial

model and ADHD as the dominating perspective in current understanding and treatment. Voices: A
 World Forum for Music Therapy 14(1). Retrieved from

https://voices.no/index.php/voices/article/view/741/634

Integrative medicine: Dr. Peter Fisher’s address to the British Parliament’s Helath Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhealth/401/401we05.htm

Kennair, E.O. (2000). Developing Minds for Pathology and Musicality: The Role of Theory of Development
of Personality and Pathology in Clinical Thinking Illustrated by the Effect of Taking an Evolutionary
Perspective. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy 9(1): 26-37.

Kirkland, K. (ed.) (2013). International Dictionary of Music Therapy. London & New York: Routledge.

Pedersen. I. N. (2013). Music therapy in psychiatry today – do we need specialization based on the

reduction of diagnosis-specific symptoms or on the overall development of patients' resources? Or

do we need both? Nordic Journal of Music Therapy (online publication before print). DOI:

10.1080/08098131.2013.790917

Rolvsjord, R., Gold, C. & Stige, B. (2005) Research Rigour and Therapeutic Flexibility: Rationale for a

Therapy Manual Developed for a Randomised Controlled Trial. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy

14(1): 14-26.

Ruud, E. (1977). Music therapy and its relationship to current treatment theories. (with preface in

Norwegian). Oslo: E. Ruud.

Ruud, E. (1980). Music therapy and its relationship to current treatment theories. St. Louis, MO:

Magnamusic-Baton.

Ruud, E. & Mahns, W. (1991). Meta-Musiktherapie. Wege zur einer Theorie der Musiktherapie. Oslo:

Norsk Musikkforlag.

Ruud, E. (2010). Music therapy: a perspective from the humanities. Gilsum, N.H.: Barcelona Publishers.

Smeijsters, H. (2003). Forms of felling and forms of perception: The fundamentals of analogy in music

therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 12(1), 71-85.

Smeijsters, H. (2005). Sounding the self: Analogy in improvisational music therapy. Gilsum NH:

Barcelona Publishers.
 Thorpe, K.E.; Zwarenstein, M.; Oxman, A.D.; Treweek, S.; Furberg, C.D.; Altman, D.G.; Tunis, S.;

Bergel, E.; Harvey, I.; Magid, D.J. (2009). A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator

summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Volume 62,

Issue 5, Pages 464-475

Wigram, T.; Pedersen, I. N. & L. O. Bonde (Eds.) (2002). A comprehensive guide to music

therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers

View publication stats