Over the past few years, several important studies have examined how sound-before-symbol instruction affects beginning instrumentalists. The findings paint a consistent picture: when students learn to hear and understand music before they read it, they become better musicians across the board.
Jennifer Ausman’s 2022 literature review examined fourteen peer-reviewed studies on sound-before-symbol strategies in beginning band instruction. The research shows significant relationships between teaching methods like tonal pattern training by ear, improvisation, echo exercises, rote learning, and playing by ear with improved rhythmic accuracy, ear-playing skills, and sight-reading abilities (Ausman, 2022).
Here’s what stands out: rhythm skills develop more efficiently when students learn melodic and rhythmic patterns by ear before seeing them on paper. Studies by Azzara (1993), Baker and Green (2013), Kendall (1988), and McDonald (1991) all found that students taught patterns by rote before introducing notation scored considerably higher on rhythmic assessments than students who started with notation (Ausman, 2022).
The connection to sight-reading is equally strong. Multiple researchers found that students’ ability to play by ear directly correlates with their sight-reading skills. McPherson’s 1995 study of 101 high school clarinet and trumpet students found a significant positive correlation between sight-reading, improvisation, and playing by ear. When students can internalize music through aural skills, they develop the ability to “hear” what they see on the page—which is what sight-reading really requires (Ausman, 2022).
The relationship between music literacy and language literacy runs deeper than simple analogy. Melissa Brown’s research on instrumental music training and literacy found that music training affects how the brain processes sound and language. Brain scans from studies by Schlaug, Norton, Overy, and Winner showed actual structural changes in children’s brains after just one year of instrumental music training, with improvements in fine motor and auditory discrimination skills (Brown, n.d.).
Interestingly, these benefits appear specific to instrumental music education. Studies examining both band and choral programs found that students in quality instrumental programs showed better performance on standardized tests, while choral participation didn’t demonstrate the same effect. Johnson and Memmott’s 2006 examination of over 4,000 elementary and middle school students found that schools with excellent instrumental programs had students who performed 22% better on English tests than schools with lower-quality programs (Brown, n.d.).
The key factor? Quality of instruction matters tremendously. It’s not enough to simply offer instrumental music—the program needs to emphasize developing genuine music literacy skills.
Makenzie Davis’s work drawing parallels between literacy pedagogy and music instruction reveals just how similar these learning processes are. Both music and language learning follow the same developmental sequence: listening, speaking (or performing), reading, and writing. In language, children learn phonemes first—the sounds of language—before learning to associate those sounds with letters and words. The same should be true in music (Davis, 2019).
Edwin Gordon’s research on music development in children reinforces this point. As Davis explains, Gordon found that “the progression of learning music and spoken language is the same—listening, speaking, reading, and writing” (Davis, 2019, p. 5). Language and music both organize temporally, and experiences with music affect subcortical auditory processing in ways that extend beyond music into language domains.
This creates a powerful opportunity: when music teachers integrate literacy pedagogy into their instruction, they’re not abandoning music content—they’re teaching music more effectively while simultaneously supporting broader literacy development.
Katherine Herzberg’s research examined how graphic notation can serve as a tool for differentiated instruction while teaching music literacy. Rather than forcing all students to immediately decode standard notation, graphic notation allows students to represent sound in ways that match their current understanding (Herzberg, 2020).
Studies show that children don’t progress through notation systems in a strict hierarchy—they move back and forth between different types of representation as they develop. Young children might use pictorial representations (drawings of instruments or atmospheres), figural representations (shapes, spirals, arrows showing groupings of sounds), or metric representations (rhythms organized over a metrical pulse). Rather than viewing these as progressively “better,” research suggests they’re different tools that students add to their representational toolbox (Herzberg, 2020).
The crucial finding: students need significant aural preparation—hearing and understanding music silently when sounds aren’t actually present—before moving to any symbolic representation. Multiple studies confirmed that children who could aurally discriminate musical patterns were much better at reading graphic notation and, eventually, standard notation (Herzberg, 2020).
Haley Harrington’s examination of popular beginning band method books revealed a troubling pattern. Most method books emphasize learning to play through reading staff notation from day one, focusing on associating fingerings with notation rather than developing the ability to audiate—to hear music internally (Harrington, 2019).
The typical approach has students learning to “read music” during the weeks before their instruments arrive. But what they’re actually learning is to decode symbols and associate them with finger patterns. They’re not developing an internal sense of how music sounds, how patterns work, or how to anticipate what comes next. As Harrington points out, around 75% of US states require sight-reading as part of large ensemble assessment, yet current beginning band instruction doesn’t effectively build the foundation for that skill (Harrington, 2019).
The solution Harrington proposes draws on Edwin Gordon’s Music Learning Theory. Before introducing notation, students should learn tonal and rhythmic patterns aurally, develop the ability to audiate these patterns, and associate verbal labels with sounds. Only then should written symbols be introduced. This approach mirrors how children learn language—experiencing sounds, attaching meaning to them, and only later learning to read and write (Harrington, 2019).
The research converges on several clear implications for how we should approach beginning instrumental instruction:
Start with sound, not symbols. Students need extensive experience hearing, singing, and internalizing musical patterns before they see notation. This isn’t wasting time—it’s building the foundation for genuine music literacy.
Teach patterns, not just notes. Whether through tonal patterns in major and minor tonalities or rhythmic patterns with macrobeats and microbeats, students need to learn music as recognizable chunks of sound, not isolated notes. Gordon’s research on chunking shows that the brain processes and remembers information more effectively when it’s organized into patterns (Harrington, 2019).
Use multiple representation systems. Graphic notation isn’t a step to be abandoned—it’s a tool that helps students externalize their musical understanding. Allowing students to create their own representations reveals what they understand and helps teachers differentiate instruction effectively.
Integrate literacy pedagogy thoughtfully. Music teachers can support broader literacy development by drawing parallels between phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and composition across both domains. But this should enhance, not replace, quality music instruction (Davis, 2019).
Rethink the wait time. The period before students receive their instruments is an opportunity to establish aural skills, pattern recognition, and audiation abilities. This sets students up for success rather than just filling time with worksheet-based note reading.
Emphasize quality. Simply offering instrumental music isn’t enough. Programs need to focus on developing genuine music literacy through sound-before-symbol approaches, not just preparing for the next concert.
For too long, beginning band instruction has prioritized the immediate need to prepare for performances over the long-term goal of developing musically literate students. The research is clear: this approach shortchanges students. When they learn to hear music internally, recognize patterns, and develop aural skills before tackling notation, they become better sight-readers, more accurate rhythm players, and more capable ear-players.
This isn’t an argument against teaching notation—it’s an argument for teaching notation more effectively by ensuring students have the aural foundation to make sense of what they see on the page. Music literacy isn’t just about decoding symbols; it’s about understanding the sounds those symbols represent.
The good news is that we know how to do this better. Gordon’s Music Learning Theory provides a practical framework. The research on sound-before-symbol instruction offers clear evidence of effectiveness. What remains is for music educators to implement these approaches in their classrooms, even when method books and performance pressure push in other directions.
Our students deserve more than to be button pushers. They deserve to become truly musically literate—able to read, write, understand, and create music. And the research shows us how to get there.
Ausman, J. (2022). Sound before symbol strategies and beginning band performance skills. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 13(2), 103–108.
Brown, M. (n.d.). Prioritizing instrumental music education at the middle school level. Music and Literacy, 9–13.
Davis, M. M. (2019). Rhythms and reading: Applying literacy to the music classroom [Honors thesis, Eastern Kentucky University]. Encompass. https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses/613
Harrington, H. C. (2019). Teaching music literacy in beginning band: A review of method books and a proposed alternative method [Master’s thesis, Murray State University]. Murray State’s Digital Commons. https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/etd/132
Herzberg, K. (2020). Sound to symbol: Teaching music literacy [Master’s thesis, Concordia University, St. Paul]. DigitalCommons@CSP. https://digitalcommons.csp.edu/teacher-education_masters/33
Note: This synthesis draws on five research articles examining music literacy instruction, sound-before-symbol approaches, and the relationship between music education and broader literacy development. While individual studies are cited throughout, readers interested in the complete research base should consult the original articles listed in the references.