Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Timothy Newman,
W
AN INVESTIGATION INTO JAZZ IMPROVISERS’ COGNITION IN FAMILIAR AND
Department of Music
A THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Music in Jazz Performance in the
College of Arts and Communication
William Paterson University
May 2018
ProQuest Number: 10935850
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
W
IE
EV
ProQuest 10935850
Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
PR
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
W
IE
Copyright © 2018 by Seyeon Chang. All rights reserved.
EV
PR
iii
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine how jazz improvisers’ cognition changes when
performing with unfamiliar musicians, as compared to performing with musicians that are
familiar. A select sample of six improvisers was combined in different duo settings so that the
improvisers played with a familiar person and then an unfamiliar person. Right after performing,
participants were individually interviewed about their thoughts and immediate impressions of the
performance. In the later interview, participants discussed their thought processes with more
W
probing questions while reviewing the audio-visual recording. The qualitative data from the
interviews was collected, coded and analyzed. The analysis suggested thirteen focal terms
IE
highlighted by the participants as central to their experience of improvisation, among which were
agreement, openness, instinct, and consciousness. Agendas for future research involving
EV
improvisation and cognition are discussed.
PR
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Anton Vishio, Dr. Timothy Newman and Dr. Carol Frierson-Campbell as committee.
Dr. David Demsey, Dr. Michael Gordon and Joe McCaffrey as readers.
The six participants for the actual study and four participants for the pilot study.
W
KAIST friends including Youngsuk Kim, Jisup Shim and Seungki Kim.
Alumni in William Paterson University including Youngsun Hyun and Jinmi Kim.
EV
People in the United States including people in Cham Doen Presbyterian Church,
Rutherford Methodist Church, Charles, Derek Choi, Sammy, Jesus Tapia, Peter
PR
Musicians in the United States including Ginni Corsello, Danbee Lee and Justin Jones.
Professors in Mokwon University including Kyu Tae Kim and Jae Yeol Chung.
People in South Korea including Hyunjo Won, Dahae Kim, Chanyoung Kim, Habin Park,
Family including Heungmin Chang, Eunsook Cho, Serin Chang, Sehun Chang,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
CHAPTER:
W
Background 1
Problem Statement 2
Statement of Purpose 2
II RELATED LITERATURE
IE 4
Introduction 4
EV
Some Definitions of Improvisation 4
Group Interaction in Jazz Improvisation 5
Jazz Improvisation and Cognition 6
Interviews and Experiments 8
PR
III METHODS 10
IV RESULTS 17
Analysis I 17
Analysis II 21
Agreement 21
A Terrain of Openness 24
Musicality 26
Style 28
Continued
vi
Time-Feel 30
Material 31
Group Improvisation and Duo 32
Instrumentation 37
Atmosphere of the Place 39
Appreciation 40
Interaction 42
Instinct and Consciousness 45
State of Mind 49
W
Professionalism 54
Thought & Emotion 54
Further Studies 55
Conclusions IE 56
REFERNCES 58
EV
APPENDICES 62
A INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 62
Continued
vii
W
IE
EV
PR
1
CHAPTER I
Background
in the moment is a key element of improvisation (Lewis, 2012). Still, improvisation as practiced
W
in many traditions, including within jazz, is not unstructured; there are certain agreements, rules
controlled by a musician’s cognitive and perceptual abilities (Berkowitz, 2009). Just as there are
EV
some general rules when people freely communicate, so too improvisation is the freedom to
create spontaneously and communicatively within a structured system (Sawyer, 1999). In the
PR
process, musicians display and organize ideas that they have previously obtained (Lewis, 2012,
expressed with instruments or voices through creative processes responding to the conditions of
the moment. Several scholars, such as Jeff Pressing, Alfred Pike and Martin Norgaard, have
examined the processes of idea creation and cognition in improvisation, and studies of these have
even led to research on the neural process that may be behind them (Limb & Braun, 2008).
Yet most jazz improvisation happens not only individually but also socially, through
improvisation within a group context. Such research could take the shape of a variety of possible
research designs and models. In particular, different thought processes may appear depending on
with which other musicians and in what type of group setting the improvisers are playing.
Moreover, new individual processes may be developed during the group performances. This
study is designed to provide a perspective on the cognition utilized in specific types of group
improvisation settings.
Problem Statement
W
Most of the current studies in improvisation and cognition have tended to center around
concepts and features of improvisation itself, or the creative processes and experiences of
IE
individual improvisers. Although improvisation—especially in jazz—is often performed in a
group setting, the processes of improvisation in group settings has received relatively little
EV
attention from formal scholarship. There have been few general studies on group processes in
improvisation (Campbell, 2010; Funk, Hengeveld, Frens & Rauterberg, 2013; Haeley, Leach &
PR
Bryan-Kinns, 2005; Hsieh, 2009; Monson, 2009; Sawyer, 1999, 2006, 2008; Wilson &
MacDonald, 2016). More specifically, the differences between jazz musicians’ cognitive
operations when improvising with people they know well, and those that occur when
improvising with people they don’t know or have never played with before, has not yet been the
subject of research.
Statement of Purpose
This qualitative study provides in-depth perspectives into the creative processes in group
improvisation. To focus on the processes of improvisation within a group, this paper investigates
3
how jazz musicians communicate or interact with one another while they are improvising, and
how that communication or interaction can be different in particular group settings. While it is
difficult to define the processes of improvisation within a group as a single concept, exploring
the experience of jazz musicians while improvising in a group setting will reveal important
aspects of the collaborative thinking processes of improvisers and can lead to a new horizon for
W
IE
EV
PR
4
CHAPTER II
RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Much academic writing exists that explores improvisation and creativity (Berkowitz,
2009, 2010; Borgo, 2005; Cobussen, 2017; Kratus, 1991, 1995; Pressing, 1984; 1987; 1988;
1998). The connection between improvisation and cognitive processes is an emerging field of
W
research that has been explored by such scholars as Jeff Pressing, Alfred Pike and Aaron Lee
Berkowitz. Also, some researchers like R. Keith Sawyer have been focused on improvisation not
IE
only as an individual performance but also as a collaborative activity, because in many cases,
reviewed. Topics within the literature include: 1) group interaction in jazz improvisation; 2) the
PR
relationship between jazz improvisation and cognition; 3) interviews and experiments related to
Improvisation has been defined from various perspectives by several scholars. Berkowitz
(2009) compares improvisation as defined by Carl Czerny in the 19th century and as defined by
the Grove Dictionary of Music in the present era. He argues that although it is slightly different
for different scholars, in general improvisation is defined as a kind of performance that requires
impromptu creativity and which is limited by consensus. In other words, there are constraints and
5
rules agreed upon and commonly observed by musicians while improvising (Berkowitz, 2009,
pp. 14-15). Also, Sawyer (2008) claims improvisation manifests an equilibrium between
“structure and freedom” (p. 50). This means that the improviser plays with unplanned selection
and unexpected direction, but not in an entirely random manner (Lewis, 2012, p. 4). Some
structure is in evidence even when performers attempt to play “free” improvisation because
musicians will always apply material of their own language and style into the improvisation, or
will play a phrase that has been practiced or experienced before even if they have not intended it
(Lewis, 2012, pp. 4-5). In addition, Cobussen (2017) argues that “improvisation has something to
W
do with providing space for originality, for newness, and for unexpectedness, and is thus
connected to creativity, inventiveness, and openness” (p. 37). These concepts and notions of
IE
improvisation are strongly connected with cognitive aspects.
EV
Group Interaction in Jazz Improvisation
Improvisation, especially jazz improvisation, often involves interaction with other people.
PR
In other words, jazz improvisation is not only the individual behavior but also the group
interaction. Hence, improvisation within a group context has also been proposed as a separate
collaborative process. A perspective especially relevant to this study is provided by Wilson &
MacDonald (2016, p. 1029). These authors have opened up several important lines of inquiry:
the study of whether an improviser responds to or maintains the existing direction when another
improviser starts a new direction while group playing; the study of novelty and diversity in group
improvisation; and the relationship between social context and individual and group
improvisations.
6
Sawyer (1999, 2006, 2008), who is actively studying creativity, learning, and
collaboration, and interaction. In particular, Sawyer (2006) focuses on analyzing the process of
conversation among musicians during jazz improvisation, and analyzes what constitutes a
balance between consistency and innovation among musicians while interacting through the
Monson (2009) devises the term intermusical relationships to describe the connections
between jazz musicians communicating and interacting with musical sounds through instruments
W
rather than words, and explores in depth how jazz experts communicate ideas through those
time. In recent years, many efforts have been made to establish through the field of music
PR
perception the relationship between creativity and music. Among these, research on jazz
improvisation and cognition has been a significant influence. The research of Jeff Pressing is
particularly relevant. He was a pioneer in the study of improvisation and cognition, and proposed
significant cognitive models in his paper Improvisation: Methods and Models (1988). Here,
Pressing suggested a computational theory and a cognitive model about the idea-generation
processes during improvisation. Pressing (1984, 1998) also presented important notions and
concepts such as referent, event, and motor programming to demonstrate the process of
improvisation. For instance, referent can be defined as particular musical elements or structures
that are applied as the foundation for improvisation (Berkowitz, 2009, p. 18). Pressing argued
7
that the referent can be the basic cornerstone for improvisation, and at the same time, it can be
used by people as an element upon which people improvise. Therefore, the procedure of studying
and playing the referent gives natural elements for the “improvisational knowledge base”
The referent is just part of the broader knowledge base essential for improvisation.
associated knowledge base, built into long term memory[:]… materials, excerpts,
W
repertoire, subskills, perceptual strategies, problem-solving routines, hierarchical memory
structures and schemas, generalized motor programs, and more…[The knowledge base]
IE
encodes the history of compositional choices and predilections defining an individual’s
personal style… (Pressing, 1998, pp. 53-54 as cited by Berkowitz, 2009, p. 20).
EV
Therefore, the improviser’s knowledge base involves referents besides the kinds of
Many other scholars such as jazz musicians, psychologists, and brain scientists also have
studied improvisation and its cognitive processes. Sawyer (2000) introduces “the role of the
ready-made in improvisation” (p. 157), which means that jazz improvisers almost always play a
phrase or motif that they have already acquired. Also, Kratus (1991, 1995) defines idea-
generation in the process of learning improvisation as taking place over seven levels such as
In order to explore the relationships between improvisation and cognition, and between
collaboration and group interaction, several important qualitative and quantitative studies have
been conducted. The sources that adopt the methodology most similar to this study are Norgaard
(2011, 2013, 2016) and Mendonca & Wallace (2003). They interviewed jazz musicians to figure
out their improvisational thinking processes. In particular, they let participants describe their
thinking processes while listening to audio-visual recordings that were recorded when they were
improvising, which is similar to methods deployed in the current study (Norgaard, 2011, 2016;
W
Mendonça & Wallace, 2003). Other researchers such as Haeley & Bryan-Kinns (2005) and
Wilson & MacDonald (2016) explore the psychological phenomenon of free improvisation
IE
within group settings, using qualitative methodologies such as video and audio recording and
interview.
EV
Hsieh (2009) uses multi-methods such as self-case study, semi-structured interviews,
experimental work, observation and interview study to examine how improvisational skill is
PR
developed individually or within a group setting (p. 82). Also, the author elaborates various
strategies that can be used in related research by presenting specific purposes and
methodological issues using each method. White (2011) interviewed three well-known jazz
musicians about what happens visually while improvising, another source of evidence for
various kinds of social-cognitive processes. His doctoral dissertation is also a good reference for
both methodological and subject matter. In addition, Berliner’s 2009 book Thinking in Jazz: The
Infinite Art of Improvisation and Monson’s 2009 book Saying Something are comprehensive
sources in terms of methodology; both explore a research field similar to this study. Berliner and
Monson collected and analyzed interviews with prominent jazz musicians and have spent months
9
or years studying how jazz improvisation is created, communicated among musicians, and what
In addition, Limb and Braun (2008) used fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance
Imaging) as a tool to identify cognitive phenomena that occur in the brain while a musician is
improvising. Through their study, the researchers found that when musicians underwent neural
imaging in an fMRI while improvising, brain areas involved in language showed increased
activity. Their neuro-psychological study suggests that music is directly related to a language,
W
IE
EV
PR
10
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Pilot Study
A pilot study with four jazz improvisers was conducted before the main study. Two of the
participants were first year and second year graduate students, and other participants were
W
undergraduate students in jazz performance program at William Paterson University. Since I
assumed a duo format might be the most practical method for setting in terms of gathering
IE
participants and timewise, I formed four groups into duos, in two rounds. For the first round, the
four participants were formed in two groups in which each participant played duo with another
EV
musician they had played with previously. For the second round, I mixed all participants into
different duo groups in which the players had rarely played together before.
PR
For both rounds, I asked participants to improvise on two tunes, one a jazz blues, and the
other a piece of music they didn’t know. For the first round, all duos played a jazz blues that they
selected and a piece of newly composed music they hadn’t played previously. The new piece of
music was composed by a graduate students at William Paterson University, and I let
participants decide rhythm and tempo in their own. For the second round, all duos also played a
jazz blues that they selected and newly composed piece that they played at the first round.
I planned to carry out two sets of interviews. For the first set, participants were supposed
to individually interviewed right after performing in the familiar duos. Participants were asked
two initial questions: 1) What were your immediate impressions? and, 2) What did you feel in
11
terms of interaction with the person familiar to you? After these initial questions, participants
were given interview papers to answer further questions. The interview questions were made
based on the research design and also personal performance experiences. Multiple-choice
questions were included in the interview papers. After the pilot study, I gathered comments from
all participants.
Some issues emerged during the pilot study. First, there was a problem of time
management. in terms of using the recording studio. There was a time limitation to use the
recording studio, therefore I had to interview some participants after every round of
W
performances. Second, participants commented about the newly composed tune. According to
participants, when they played the newly composed tune for both rounds, it was no longer a new
IE
tune at the second round because they already knew the form and melody of the tune. Third,
participants suggested modifying some of the interview questions. Based on the issues and
EV
comments from participants of the pilot study, procedures and some of the interview questions
were modified.
PR
Main Study
For the full study, six jazz improvisers were participants. Four of the participants were
well-known jazz musicians on the New York scene, and others were outstanding students in the
jazz performance program at William Paterson University. Table I shows each participant’s
instrument, status and years of experience with jazz improvisation at the time of the study. Six
duo groups were formed in two rounds. For the first round, the six participants were formed in
three duos, with each participant paired with another musician they knew and had played with
previously. Table II shows the duo settings for the first round. For the second round, all
12
participants were mixed into another three duo groups; this time, the players in each duo had
never played together before. Table III shows the duo settings for the second round. All
recording was made of each performance. The protocol of the study was approved by the
Institutional Review Board of the University. The protocol can be found in Appendix I.
For both rounds, participants were asked to improvise on two tunes, one a jazz standard,
and the other a piece of music they didn’t know. For the first round, all duos played a jazz
standard that they selected and a piece of newly composed music they hadn’t encountered
W
previously. The new piece of music was composed by one of the graduate students at William
Paterson University, and each group decided rhythm and tempo on their own. For the second
IE
round, all duos also played a jazz standard that they selected and a newly composed piece,
different from the first round, that they hadn’t encountered previously. The new piece of music
EV
was composed by a jazz guitarist from South Korea, and each group decided rhythm and tempo
on their own. All participants performed in a large ensemble room, and the same newly
PR
composed pieces were used for all the participant duos in each round. An audio-visual recording
There were three sets of interviews. For the first set, participants were individually
interviewed right after performing in the familiar duos. Participants were asked two initial
questions: 1) What were your immediate impressions? and, 2) Did you have any expectations of
experience
W
6 years professional experience
Duo Participant
1 A
2 C
3 E
F
14
Duo Participant
1 B
2 C
3 A
W
After the initial two questions, participants were given interview papers to answer
IE
questions in writing. Multiple-choice questions were included in the interview papers. The
following questions guided the first interview; they can also be found in Appendix II.
EV
1-1. Did you feel a connection with the other musician while improvising?
1-4. Did you feel that the other improviser was able to quickly interpret and engage with your
ideas/playing?
1-5. What communication techniques did you use while performing with other improviser?
That is, what were the methods of non-musical communication you used during your
performance?
1-6. What specific interactions did you expect from the other improviser while you were
performing?
1-7. Were there differences in the way you interpreted the familiar material compared to the
15
new material?
The second interview followed the ‘unfamiliar’ duo. After the same initial questions
exploring immediate impressions, the interview papers were used with the same questions above,
2-1. Did you feel a connection with the other musician while improvising?
2-4. Did you feel that the other improviser was able to quickly interpret and engage with your
W
ideas/playing?
2-5. What communication techniques did you use while performing with the other
IE
improviser? That is, what were the methods of non-musical communication you used
performing?
PR
2-7. Were there differences in the way you interpreted the familiar material compared to the
new material?
2-8. Did you feel any differences between improvising with familiar person and person you
A few weeks later, a third set of interviews was carried out with each participant. For this
set, the audio-video recordings of both duo performances and also interview papers were
reviewed by the participants as memory aids to help them recall some of their thinking processes
16
while improvising. I recorded both their comments while viewing the video as well as my
interview with them after viewing the video. At the conclusion of the interviews, the resulting
qualitative data was transcribed from the audio-recording file. Then, the data were coded through
the software MAXQDA, which has a convenient design for qualitative analysis.
W
IE
EV
PR