Overview:

During my placement at Greenacres, I encountered a number of challenges which shaped me as a community music practitioner, allowing me to develop skills and understanding in this field. We delivered ten weekly, hour-long sessions for residents of Greenacres, an elderly care home in Leeds. The group was made up of a wide cross-section of residents with varying accessibility requirements, presenting different challenges. The project was delivered as part of a team of three students, each with equal input to devise and deliver sessions; our main goal was to create fun and engaging sessions for the residents. Before starting our project, we met with our placement coordinator, who talked us through previous projects, which had been successful due to the connection between residents and practitioners and the lasting memories created. Highlights included a scrapbook of the project and percussion games. We underpinned our project with the SoundSense (2026) code of practice, alongside a collaborative learning approach within a workshop environment to ensure active pursuit of equality and involvement beyond preconceived limitations (Higgins, 2012, p. 145). Procter’s (2001) principles of hearing minds and radical hearts were also crucial in the application of our theoretical understanding. 

Initial Plan:

We wanted to create a meaningful difference to the residents’ lives, with an awareness that many struggled with dementia or similar difficulties. We attempted a project focused on reminiscence and aural history (Appendix A). Our first session allowed us to build a rapport with the group and gather information to put together prompts for our reminiscence sessions (Appendix B). Our welcome song was too difficult for the group (see video WK1 0:00). Our goal had been to create a song that was less childlike than typical community music songs to avoid patronising the residents. However, the rhythmic ideas were too complex and lacked the accessibility needed for a group where many people had hearing difficulties or cognitive challenges. We had much more success with our call and response song as it allowed people to join in at the level they were comfortable and was less exposing than singling out individual residents to contribute (see video WK1 1:00). This collaborative activity had the added benefit of increasing reward, facilitating friendship, and providing joy through working together (Sultan et al., 2020). The session also presented an unusual challenge as a resident crashed his electric wheelchair into a member of the group while we were singing (see video WK1 0:18). This demonstrated the uncertainty of the setting. We needed to be prepared for unexpected scenarios, ready to continue delivering sessions around them. Improvisation would be key to leading the sessions, to meet the changing needs and environment within the group (Brinck and Tanggaard, 2016). The music sharing from the residents contained a poignant moment where a resident sang along to her favourite song (see video WK1 0:32). This was meaningful as she had complex care needs and was often left out in other activities, leaving her generally disengaged and regularly asleep.

The spontaneous applause that erupted from her peers highlighted several things to us:

• The close-knit community in the home
• The importance of inclusion and accessibility
• The joy which making music together can bring, through experimenting and exploring in a non-judgemental environment (Paolantonio et al., 2020). 

Change in Approach:

Although some elements of this session were successful, we decided that the project needed to be grounded in simpler activities that all residents could engage with. We therefore decided to abandon our initial plan and use the next few weeks to trial different activities in search of an approach which would align with our goals of fun and engagement, with accessibility as a primary focus (Appendix C).

In week two, we encountered a number of accessibility requirements:

• Residents struggled to read the bingo cards due to small fonts.
• Residents struggled to hear the songs.
• Volume was restricted to avoid overstimulating residents.
• Some couldn’t manipulate a pencil to mark their card.
• Some couldn’t vocalise to shout ‘BINGO’.

Despite this, the activity was a success, and the room was buzzing with conversation, laughter, and fun (see video WK2 0:31). However, this highlighted that the most accessible activities would be those that took place in a group setting rather than relying on independent contributions. This approach allowed us to utilise the strongest contributors to increase achievement of less able residents (Linchevski and Kutscher, 1998). During the bingo (Appendix D), we had the opportunity to chat to the son of a resident who expressed his gratitude to us (see video WK2 0:18), underlining the importance of the project. Merriam (1964) suggests music is indispensable to society, and the role it played in this society was integral in uplifting residents’ moods. In this session, residents enjoyed some performance-based activities, eager to observe us performing whilst getting involved in a secondary role. Although they were familiar with some sing-alongs, many residents struggled to join in, so we decided lyric sheets would be a good device to support them. Solo piano (see video WK2 0:00) was too meandering for an opening activity; we decided in future it would be more appropriate as a cooldown. We hoped to incorporate something we were passionate about with a jazz performance; however, lots of the residents were uninterested, and some expressed a dislike for jazz, so we decided not to pursue this further.

New Structure:

In week three, our project started to take shape as we landed on two strong activities (Appendix E). The percussion activity was well received; some residents were reluctant to contribute but grew in confidence as others joined in (see video WK3 0:00). The focus of this activity was to build confidence and encourage self-expression as a possible route of catharsis for suffering residents had experienced (Sandbank 2006). This was a great moment as it was one of the first times we’d engaged the group in co-musicking, creating a shared history which was truly unique to each individual experience in the room (Higgins, 2012, pg. 121). This was evidently enjoyable for the group from the smiles and laughter of residents, punctuated by a resident’s refusal to give back her shaker. Although this was difficult to manage, it was a huge positive as she did not initially want a shaker but by the end of the session insisted on keeping it (see video WK3 1:11). To prevent this positive experience turning into a battle, we left the shaker to be collected later when her interest had moved on.

The percussion instruments presented challenges surrounding accessibility, particularly for those with low or no motor function:

• Larger shakers and drums were too big or heavy.
• Not everyone had a suitable instrument.

Some residents preferred having percussion played to them; alongside this, we ensured a broader range of percussion was available in future to allow us to accommodate all requirements. Another limitation of the percussion was our delivery, which lacked direction and quickly became repetitive; we decided to incorporate more games to provide structure in future.

The lyric sheets for the songs had large fonts to make them easy to read; this provided its own difficulties (see video WK3 0:23):

• Each song required multiple sheets, which was confusing for residents.
• Some residents didn’t have the motor control to hold and turn pages, meaning they required 1-1 support.
• Significant set-up time.
• Waiting for us to hand out sheets reduced concentration.

When we repeated the sing-alongs the following week (Appendix F), we decided to do so without lyrics, which was much more successful. The repertoire was tailored towards familiar songs, so the residents could still join in without the pressure of following lyric sheets. This also freed up their hands to play percussion, which was a great decision, allowing residents who were reluctant or unable to sing to still participate (see video WK5 0:26). We ended week three with solo classical piano, which worked much better at the end of sessions (see video WK3 0:54).

Project Development:

By the halfway point of our project, we had fallen into a well-structured weekly session (Appendix G). Games provided structure to the percussion activity, and we benefitted from the presence of some students on college placement, whose contributions supported the residents (see video WK5 0:00). Our improvisational approach created a mistake-free environment, allowing residents to make independent contributions and conclusions about what playing in this setting meant (Higgins, 2012, pg. 98). This was a huge success in terms of engagement as residents became confident to set their own beat or pulse up, which we would then support, culminating in a brilliant moment in week eight when a resident led the room in a percussion jam. This was particularly meaningful as she didn’t speak English and couldn’t communicate with us; furthermore, she was initially very shy to be observed and resistant to her contributions being highlighted. This moment emphasised the shared language of music and how enjoyable the group found the percussion activities. The success of this activity relied on our approach to facilitation, with the only certainty being a starting point, with unconditional hospitality to venture into the unknown from that point (Higgins, 2012, pg. 147). We also added percussion to our sing-alongs, which gave residents multiple ways to get involved, allowing all residents to engage in musicking. The main limitation of the sessions at this point was a lack of clear progression; when we lost momentum, we would move between activities randomly (Appendix H).

We decided to incorporate a songwriting activity to address this and give us a final goal, involving the residents and carers as much as possible in the writing process. We hoped the song could act as a documentation of the community’s stories and a demonstration of their inclusivity (Higgins and Bartleet, 2012). We incorporated discussions around their lives over the next three weeks (Appendix I), with some residents happy to share everything, where others had little to say or struggled to understand (see video WK7 0:00). We also encountered difficulties surrounding language barriers, as well as the French resident; another had very limited English. We tried using Google Translate to communicate (see video WK7 0:22). One resident did not want to engage and seemed uncomfortable having conversations; however, the other enjoyed chatting, and it was nice to engage with him one-to-one despite limited lyrical contributions. This discussion went on for too long as some residents lost interest, and both residents with English as a second language left the session early (see video WK7 0:39). The mixed response made it apparent to us that we would have to do the writing ourselves, instead of using the discussions as inspiration. The next week, we began teaching the group lyrics (Appendix J), but it was clear that the residents struggled with this. We decided to repeat lines which the residents would find easier to join in with, leaving the verses to be performed by us (Appendix K). By the end of the penultimate session, it was clear that the residents struggled with lyric learning, and we would need to find another way for them to join in (see video WK9 0:31). We added a percussion jam, allowing us to incorporate their strengths into the final performance. This also helped us work around the language barriers as we connected through music. The addition of the songwriting activity provided further structure to the sessions and prevented us from flitting between activities (Appendix L). It was overall a strong ending to the project and left us with a finished song to share as we intended. Towards the end of the project, our confidence in delivery also increased significantly; this was noticeable in the engagement we received in return. Clearly, our confidence rubbed off on the residents, as they were more willing to get involved in activities. 

Outcomes:

Our main goal of engagement was achieved, and it was nice that our final session was our highest attended, highlighting the increasing enjoyability of the project as we developed as practitioners (Appendix M). The activities were well delivered with instruments tailored towards residents’ needs, with residents singing, dancing, and playing along (see video WK10 0:00). The residents clearly enjoyed the song we wrote and joined us in the percussion section (see video WK10 0:35). Despite our vision being more of a group sing-along, it was great to see the residents appreciating what we had prepared; hopefully, the song was successful in stimulating memories and providing relief from current ailments (Higgins, 2012, p. 114). Our return to the call-and-response song from week one evidenced how much we had developed over the project (see video WK10 1:12), and our performance of ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ allowed us to incorporate jazz in a more accessible way. This was met with percussion participation from the residents (see video WK10 1:25), a lovely final moment, demonstrating the progress we’d made musically.

By the final session, despite ongoing challenges, we had a well-structured and delivered session. This was aided by the large group, as we struggled to engage smaller groups; however, the penultimate week highlighted that with confidence and engaged residents, a strong session was still possible (see video WK9 0:00). This partly came down to our improved delivery; we learnt over the project that percussion worked better with expressive physical direction; we also came prepared with a wider range of instruments and an understanding of the access requirements of residents (see videos WK8 0:00 and WK5 0:49). This improved preparation also benefitted the sing-alongs; with the use of a djembe, it was easier to latch onto rhythms played by the residents, simultaneously keeping the pulse for the accompanist(s) (see video WK6 0:00). We would’ve benefited from more preparation in the early sessions, which at times were delivered poorly. We could’ve turned some strong ideas into successful activities with more work. Stronger delivery of the early sing-alongs would’ve also led to more participation, as many residents were thrown off by incorrect melodies or deviations from their expectation of the accompaniment. Most importantly, we developed an understanding of the flow of sessions and when activities were most appropriate, learning that residents were often too fatigued for percussion at the end, and that the session flowed better opening with these high-energy activities and closing with something performance-focused.

Learning Points:

Overall, this project has greatly improved my skill set as a community music practitioner, leaving me with a number of key learning points:

• Confidence and preparation lead to high engagement. 
• Structure is key. Group sessions opening with high-energy activities and closing with something calming are highly beneficial.
• Tailoring activities to a group’s ability level is crucial, and it is better to build from an easy starting point than start with complicated or difficult activities.
• Accessibility is crucial to a session’s success, and considering all requirements is vital to inclusivity.
• Community music is a great tool for uplifting mood, improving cognition, and increasing confidence.
• Community music can transcend language barriers and involve people in groups they are otherwise isolated from.
• The relationships built in community music groups are fundamental and as important as any goals or outcomes (see video WK10 1:50).
• Sessions should be tailored specifically to group desires and needs, curated alongside them.
• More feedback should’ve been gathered to improve the success of activities and sessions.

With this developed skill set and understanding, I feel I am much more capable of designing and delivering community music sessions in a group setting. In the future, I would have a better understanding of what activities are most successful in groups of older people and also have the skills to engage and excite a group for any project. 

Bibliography:

Brinck, L., Tanggaard, L., (2016) Embracing the unpredictable. Leadership, learning, changing practice. Human Resource Development International, 19 (5), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1141607

Higgins, L., (2012) Community music in theory and in practice. Oxford University Press

Higgins, L., Bartleet, B.L. (2012) The community musician and school music education. The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Oxford University Press

Linchevski, L., Kutscher, B., (1998) Tell me with whom you’re learning and I’ll tell you how much you’ve learned: mixed-ability versus same-ability grouping in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29 (5), 533-554 https://doi.org/10.2307/749732

Merriam, A.P., (1964) The anthropology of music. Northwestern University Press

Paolantonio, P., Cavalli, S., Biasutti, M., Pedrazzani, C., Williamon, A., (2020) Art of ages: the effects of group music making on the wellbeing of nursing home residents. Frontiers Psychology, 11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575161

Procter, S. (2001) Empowering and enabling: improvisational music therapy in non-medical mental health provision. Voices: a World Forum for Music Therapy, 1 (2) https://doi.org/10.15845/voices.v1i2.58

Sandbank, G., (2006) Community music in the rehabilitation of youngsters at risk. Creating Partnerships, Making Links and Promoting Change, 122-127

Soundsense (2026) The music education code of practice for music practitioners. https://www.soundsense.org/developing-practice/professional-conduct [Accessed: 30 Apr 2026]

Sultan, S., Hussain, I., Kanwal, F., (2020) Individual versus collaborative learning: a strategy for promoting social skills and academic confidence among students. IUB Journal of Educational Research, 23 (1) https://jer.iub.edu.pk/journals/JER-Vol-23.No-1/13.pdf [Accessed: 30 Apr 2026]