1 Howard, P., Holland, S. and Whitelock, D. (1994) Keyboard Harmony: some applications of computers in music education. In Musical Times, ISSN 0027 46666 Volume CXXXV No. 1817 pages 467- 471. Keyboard Harmony: Some Applications of Computers in Music Education Patricia Howard, Simon Holland† Denise Whitelock‡ Department of Music Department of Computer Science † Institute of Education Technology ‡ The Open University Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK {s.holland, d.m.whitelock@ open.ac.uk Some applications of computers in music teaching and a revolutionary new program, introduced by Patricia Howard, Simon Holland and Denise Whitelock. It is not only verbal coincidence that suggests a connection between learning harmony and using computers. Harmony (unlike counterpoint) has been traditionally taught as a keyboard skill, in the old sense of the word (harpsichords, organs, pianos); nowadays the keyboards of computers can be used analogously to build connections between hands and ears. One factor which divides many a student of harmony today from the professional apprentice or skilled amateur of two hundred years ago is a lack of instrumental fluency, and this is a problem which can to a great extent be solved by replacing one kind of keyboard with another. Beyond providing easy access to the sound of chords, however, computers can also teach. Interfaces have been developed which can test aural ability, correct basic errors in notation or, at a more sophisticated level, in part-writing demonstrate the ‘grammar’ of tonal harmony, guide the student towards the creation of stylistic chord progressions, and enable him or her to analyse passages of music presented wither aurally or visually. Computer software for music education has a short but rich history. In the 1980s, as computers proliferated in classrooms, hundreds of commercial programs were devised to tackle the relatively straightforward task s of teaching notation and testing aural recognition. Many of these programs were accurate but uninspired, and almost the most interesting aspect of them was their names – who would not rather be taught by Mr Metro Gnome than by the Interval Drillmaster?1 One of the most complete products for testing aural skills was GUIDO (Guided Units of Interactive Dictation Operations), 2 which offers graded dictation of intervals, melodies, single chords, harmonic progression and rhythms. The student’s response, recorded using letter names and symbols on a multiple-choice touch screen, is presented in staff notation, and played back. The ‘intelligent tutor’ corrects and grades the work. GUIDO has had innumerable imitators. A more unusual aural training product is The Music Room, 3 in which the student has to tune a piccolo, violin, trumpet, saxophone, cello and tuba (thus working in a variety of registers and timbres) by matching the instrumental note with a given tuning note and keying in instructions to ‘lengthen tube’ or ‘tighten string’. The program incorporates an interactive tutorial on the mechanics of tuning, and the student is assessed for speed and accuracy. Teaching the writing of music in the context of period-style exercises has presented far greater problems because of the more flexible nature of the ‘rules’.4 It is not