If you're a music therapist, you're all too familiar with the experience of having "the talk" with someone about what music therapy is - or, perhaps more applicably, what it isn't. Unlike other therapy professions that align their identity with their objectives - such as physical therapy improving movement or speech therapy addressing communication - music therapy is unique in that it defines itself by its medium rather than its outcome. This distinction carries profound implications for how we frame our work, educate the public, and advance our field.
How We Define Music Therapy
Music therapy’s goals are not inherently musical. In fact, we know they’re anything but. Be it for physical, psychological, social, or educational goals—music is simply the means, not the end. However, in our attempts to define our profession and distinguish ourselves from others, we often place emphasis on who delivers it rather than what it actually is. This leads to a circular definition:
“The clinical and evidence-based use of music interventions to accomplish individualized goals within a therapeutic relationship by a credentialed professional who has completed an approved music therapy program.”
To create a clearer definition, we should prioritize function over title. At its core, music therapy is a tripartite practice that consists of:
- The application of music-based interventions
- To address non-musical goals
- Within a therapeutic relationship
This definition captures the essence of music therapy regardless of who is delivering it. While credentialing plays a vital role in ensuring ethical and professional standards, it is ultimately effectiveness - not just credentials - that defines our impact. Credentialed music therapists are not the only ones using music therapeutically, but we are trained to maximize effectiveness, tailor interventions, and document impact in alignment with best practices
How Other Fields Define Themselves
Music therapy stands apart from nearly every other healthcare, mental health, and creative arts profession in how it defines itself. Most professions focus on what they do, not who is allowed to do it. Music therapy, however, builds credentialing directly into its definition, making it an outlier in the professional world.
Other therapy and healthcare professions define their work by function and impact rather than by restricting it to credentialed individuals. Below are some definitions from their respective professional organizations:
- Art Therapy (AATA Definition)
“Art therapy is a mental health profession that enriches the lives of individuals, families, and communities through active art-making, creative process, applied psychological theory, and human experience within a psychotherapeutic relationship.” (AATA)
- Occupational Therapy (AOTA Definition)
“The therapeutic use of everyday life activities (occupations) with individuals or groups for the purpose of enhancing or enabling participation in roles, habits, and routines in home, school, workplace, community, and other settings.” (AOTA)
- Counseling (ACA Definition)
“A professional relationship that empowers diverse individuals, families, and groups to accomplish mental health, wellness, education, and career goals.”(ACA)
I’ve included a more comprehensive list at the end of this article.
None of these professions limit their very definition to credentialed professionals, even though they all have rigorous training, licensing, and credentialing processes. Instead, they advocate for their credentials as the professional standard for practice.
The Music Therapy Problem
It strikes me as interesting that a field which utilizes one of the most diverse and accessible media is struggling to sustain itself. I believe that is because we are exclusionary in our very identity - by definition. This circular definition of how the field defines itself, along with the reasons for it, are what I call The Music Therapy Problem. And it is unique to the field. Furthermore, how we currently define music therapy also presents contradictions.
Consider this: Let’s say a board-certified music therapist’s credential expires today, but she continues providing the same interventions with the same intentions tomorrow. Is the care she’s providing no longer music therapy?
Or this: A volunteer in a nursing home leads a musical game with residents as an ice-breaker activity. A music therapist might say, “That’s not music therapy.” But if that same therapist were to use the exact game in a session - framing it as an intervention for rapport-building and mood elevation - does it suddenly become music therapy?
Most people in the field know the answers, but these questions are rarely addressed. That’s because the debate isn’t really about expanding access to music therapy. It’s about protecting the profession.
Many argue that licensure and board certification “protect the public.” But that argument doesn’t hold up very well. If someone is ineffective at music therapy, the harm is usually minimal. And if the focus were on outcomes rather than credentials, those who aren’t good at the work wouldn’t last long anyway.
Instead of defining music therapy by who can’t practice it, the focus should be on evidencing its impact. That is what will truly strengthen the field. Here’s why.
A Misstep in Our Efforts
Education, training, and credentialing are essential. They provide a structured framework for developing expertise, ensuring ethical practice, and maintaining professional standards. And the inclusion of the credential in the definition of music therapy was likely a deliberate decision to protect the field and help it stand out. Ironically, by separating ourselves from others who often appear to do exactly the same work, we’ve created an entirely new problem for ourselves: differentiation. And it’s backfired in magnificent fashion.
Acting like board-certified music therapists are the only people who can engage in meaningful music-based interventions is like an ER doctor forbidding the world from practicing first aid. This approach distances us from the very thing that makes music therapy powerful—music itself. It also leads to unnecessary challenges in determining what constitutes "therapy" and what doesn’t. These distinctions are both limiting and counterproductive:
- Music therapists spend valuable time defending their inclusion in healthcare teams rather than emphasizing the undeniable therapeutic value of music itself.
- It inserts an artificial separation between credentialed music therapists and others who use music in therapeutic ways, even when they may be engaging in identical practices.
- It creates confusion about whether the effectiveness of music therapy comes from the intervention itself or from the credentials of the person facilitating it.
By alienating ourselves from others who bring music to clients - credentialed or not - we create factions within an already struggling sector of client care, when we should be aligning with anyone who contributes to our cause.
To make matters worse, music therapists frequently act as "practice police," reporting programs that label their work as "music therapy." The justification? Protecting the community. But which community? Ours. And so what? The program changes its name, and suddenly, it’s no longer a risk to the public? This kind of policing only creates further division and confusion, draining resources as we try to educate the public - not about the benefits of music therapy, but about why we are supposedly better at it. The best justification we have? We have a degree, completed an internship program, and hold a board certification. But credentials alone do not equate to effectiveness - outcomes do.
The reality is that music therapists, because of our training, are often the best at assessing client needs, designing and implementing interventions, adapting to individual client needs, collaborating with interdisciplinary teams, and documenting progress in a way that aligns with healthcare standards. That should be the focus - not aiming to distinguish ourselves from others using music in therapeutic ways, but highlighting our expertise in that very practice.
Demonstrating Effectiveness Rather Than Flaunting Credentials
The next step is finding ways to demonstrate effectiveness rather than simply showcasing our degrees and credentials. To do this, we need to:
- Show measurable outcomes through well-documented case studies and research.
- Engage in interdisciplinary collaboration to integrate music therapy into broader healthcare approaches.
- Develop stronger public education efforts that communicate not just what music therapy is, but how and why it work
If we shift our focus toward proving impact rather than defining boundaries, we create space for music therapy to expand, evolve, and solidify its place as an essential field in healthcare and beyond.
A Shift in Perspective
And herein lies perhaps our greatest opportunity: this redefined approach to music therapy is freeing.
By simplifying the question of what is and isn't music therapy, we remove unnecessary barriers that have historically constrained the field. Instead of defining ourselves by exclusion, we open the door to broader collaboration and integration into healthcare. This shift allows us to:
- Clarify professional boundaries by adhering to our code of ethics, standards of practice, and the tripartite framework.
- Welcome allied professionals and practitioners into the conversation, strengthening advocacy for the role of music in therapeutic settings.
- Encourage innovation by embracing emerging research, alternative approaches, and interdisciplinary applications
Rather than limiting ourselves to an exclusive identity, we create a flexible, evidence-based, and ethically grounded profession that is stronger because of its adaptability. As long as we adhere to professional standards and follow the tripartite formula, music therapy remains within our scope of practice.
Previously, we defined the scope of our role by credentialing and pre-established best practices. But the tripartite definition allows anything within its framework to be considered music therapy - opening doors for innovation and, ultimately, improved practices.
Where Credentialing and Licensure Still Matter
None of this is to say that credentialing and licensure don’t have a place - they absolutely do. Just as physical therapists, art therapists, and psychologists must be licensed to practice clinically, credentialed music therapists are best equipped to work ethically, safely, and effectively in clinical settings.
The problem isn’t credentialing itself - it’s the way the field defines its existence by credentialing rather than by function. Instead of arguing over who can do music therapy, we should be focusing on why board-certified music therapists are the best equipped to facilitate it in professional settings.
If uncredentialed music therapists are beating us out of a job or an opportunity, the default response shouldn't be to discredit them. It should be to illustrate how board-certified music therapists are superior. And if we can't, that's a big issue. Frankly, I believe we can, but we're not very good at it yet. And that's because we've been devoting our efforts simply to marketing the credential alone.
An Integrated Future
Music therapy shouldn’t be about defending professional territory - it’s about providing music-based interventions to improve people’s lives. And call me utilitarian, but the more access we can provide to effective care, the better.
The challenge before us is to refine our research, advocate for holistic measures of effectiveness, and educate interdisciplinary teams on the value of music therapy beyond what is immediately quantifiable. By doing so, we not only strengthen our profession but also ensure that music therapy remains an art form that helps those we serve in ways science is still learning to understand.
It’s not just the smart thing to do - it’s the right thing to do. By shifting our focus from protecting our own interests to increasing access and improving outcomes, we can redefine what it means to be a music therapist and expand the reach of music therapy to more people who need it. And what’s more? We won’t just grow as a profession; we’ll grow as therapists, too.
