Journal of Research in

Music Education
Volume 56 Number 1
Spring 2008 5-17

Vocal Improvisation and © 2008 MENC: The National

Association for Music Education
10.1177/0022429408322458
Creative Thinking by
Australian and American
University Jazz Singers
A Factor Analytic Study
Patrice Madura Ward-Steinman
Indiana University–Bloomington

In this study, the author investigated factors underlying vocal improvisation achieve-
ment and relationships with the singers’ musical background. Participants were 102
college students in Australia and the United States who performed 3 jazz improvisa-
tions and 1 free improvisation. Jazz improvisations were rated on rhythmic, tonal, and
creative thinking criteria; free improvisations were rated only on creativity criteria. The
results are as follows: (a) A significant difference was found between jazz and free
improvisation achievement; (b) extensive jazz experience, especially study and listen-
ing, was found to be significantly correlated with vocal improvisation achievement; (c)
3 factors were found to underlie jazz improvisation: jazz syntax, vocal creativity, and
tonal musicianship; and (d) 3 factors were found to underlie free improvisation: musi-
cal syntax, vocal creativity, and scat syllable creativity.

Keywords: improvisation; vocal jazz; creative thinking; jazz singing

Improvisation within the instrumental jazz ensemble has had a long and venerable
history but the frequency and sophistication of vocal jazz improvisation is much
more rare. Criticisms of vocal jazz improvisers have included the lack of knowledge
of jazz rhythmic and melodic language and of important historical figures in jazz
improvisation, the inability to hear and comprehend harmonic changes, and the inap-
propriate use of scat syllables (Aitken & Aebersold, 1983; Coker & Baker, 1981).
Although some argue that jazz singing is more about the subtle interpretation of the
melody and/or lyrics than instrumental-type bebop or even free improvisation, there
is little doubt that the brilliant improvisations of Ella Fitzgerald and Bobby McFerrin
compel the listener to wonder about the nature of this ability and its predictors.
Research activity on the topic of vocal jazz has increased in the past 15 years but
very little has focused on the nature of vocal improvisation skill. Madura (1996) iden-
tified three predictors of improvisation achievement in college-level jazz singers: jazz
theory knowledge, imitative ability, and jazz experience. General creativity (Torrance,
1990), instrument lessons, voice lessons, and gender were not related. Greenagle

5
6 Journal of Research in Music Education

(1995) studied jazz vocal majors and found that creativity (as measured on a
researcher-constructed instrument), self-ratings of improvisation skill, and jazz expe-
rience (listening to jazz, ensemble experience, and instrumental lessons) predicted
improvisation achievement. More research is needed to clarify the experiences that
predict vocal improvisation skill as well as the nature of improvisation itself.
Numerous studies have examined the essential evaluative criteria for instrumen-
tal jazz improvisation to determine whether it can be globally assessed or if discrete
abilities are at play. High intercorrelations among categories (e.g., technique, har-
monic awareness, phrasing, rhythmic feel, and style) have been found repeatedly in
instrumental (Burnsed & Price, 1984; May, 2003; Schilling, 1987) and vocal
(Madura, 1991) improvisation studies, which suggest that a global assessment may
be appropriate or that better judge training is needed. Pfenninger (1990), in turn,
used multiple hearings for judges and found three relatively discrete improvisation
dimensions: rhythm, tonal, and expression. Horowitz (1994) examined guitar impro-
visations and found three factors: musicianship, expression, and structure.
In an effort to identify convergent and divergent factors underlying vocal jazz
improvisation, Madura (1992) evaluated 101 singers’ improvisations over two stan-
dard jazz progressions. Three factors were found, accounting for 80% of the vari-
ance: a strong jazz rhythm factor; a smaller tonal factor dominated by correct notes
and good intonation; and an even smaller creative factor dominated by the use of
originality and variety in rhythm, melody, tone color, range, and dynamics. These
results suggest that divergent thinking was only a small part of vocal jazz improvi-
sation achievement, which raises questions regarding the balance between stylistic
restraints and musical freedom. Although improvisation is considered a creative
endeavor, perhaps for novices just beginning to internalize the complex language
rules of jazz, convergent thinking (stylistic appropriateness and correct notes and/or
intonation) dominated. On the other hand, perhaps the singers were not encouraged
to create varied and original improvisations. Levitin (2005) suggested that even
minor divergence from musical systems with tight restraints may be more important
and satisfying than complete innovations.
Webster (2002, pp. 28-29) stated that the “interplay between divergent and convergent
thinking is almost magical in scope and is at the center of creative thinking”; Sarath
(2002, p. 190) labeled the two “complementary forces” as structures (stylistic norms
involving repertory and technical, harmonic, rhythmic and melodic aspects) and
processes (“fluid, searching, at times risky, inventive excursions in which structural ele-
ments are manipulated and transformed”). Sarath explained that too much emphasis on
structure and “syntactic” parameters impedes the more creative “nonsyntactic” parame-
ters of dynamics, timbre, and range (p. 190). To take this one step further, the complete
elimination of stylistic expectations as in the case of free improvisation is considered the
optimal “creative music making” (Godfried, 1986, p. 397). Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to identify the factors underlying vocal improvisation, with a focus on the roles
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 7

of convergent and divergent thinking, as well as to identify relationships between partic-

ipants’ previous musical experiences and vocal improvisation skill.

Method

Participants
The sample included Australian and American college-level jazz singers.
Australia was chosen based on evidence of a vigorous and unique improvising musi-
cal culture (Dunbar-Hill & Gibson, 2004; Smith, 2005; Whiteoak, 1999). The total
sample size was 102, with participants enrolled in five universities in Australia (n =
62) and one in the United States (n = 40). The 62 Australian participants were vocal
improvisation students from five collegiate music schools in four different cities (n1 =
14, n2 = 16, n3 = 9, n4 = 12, n5 = 11). The 40 American participants were students
from a university that has consistently had “one of the top vocal jazz” programs in
the United States (Pisciotta, 1992, p. 135). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 34,
with a mean age of 21; 73 were women, and 28 were men. The imbalance in
numbers between male and female participants is more representative of vocal jazz
programs in Australia than in the United States. Of the participants, 96% were music
majors, and 84% were undergraduates enrolled in their first 3 years of college, with
the remaining in either their 4th year (post-BM in Australia) or graduate school.
I spent 1 to 2 full days at each of three schools in Australia during July of 2005,
meeting participants individually for approximately 10 minutes to record them
improvising and to collect the completed questionnaire and consent form. Two
research assistants recorded improvisations in the two other cities, and I completed
the data collection in the United States during the fall semester of 2005.

Measures
Participants were instructed to improvise to four tasks: 12-bar Blues in F (4 cho-
ruses), Rhythm Changes in D-flat (2 choruses), Summertime in d minor (3 choruses),
and a totally free improvisation. The first two were chosen because they are regarded
as being the two most important chord progressions in jazz, with the Blues being rel-
atively easy to improvise to because of familiarity and the “I’ve Got Rhythm”
Changes because “they are a challenge to any musician” and “lay an extremely
strong foundation for learning the hundreds of other songs in the jazz vocabulary”
(Aebersold, 1991, pp. 2-3). Summertime was added to examine how a participant
would improvise to a well-known jazz standard that is typically sung with lyrics.
These three tasks were accompanied by a recorded rhythm section from the Jamey
Aebersold Play-A-Long Book and CD Set (Aebersold, 1981, 1988, 1990). The free
improvisation task was unaccompanied, and the participant was asked to improvise
freely in any style or manner for as long as she or he liked. The addition of the free
8 Journal of Research in Music Education

improvisation task provided the opportunity to examine the creative improvisation

criteria (variety, originality, elaboration, and syntax) without consideration of the
stylistic constraints of the jazz language. The length of each jazz improvisation task
was just under 2 minutes, and the free improvisations ranged from a low of 26 sec-
onds to a high of 4½ minutes. Therefore, for each participant, more than 6 minutes
of improvisations were collected.
A Superscope PSD340 Music Practice CD Recording System was used to play
simultaneously the accompaniment CD on one drive and record the improvisations
on a second drive. An accidental deletion of two improvisations occurred. Rather
than delete the participant, it was decided to present an N of 102 for the Blues and
Rhythm Changes and an N of 101 for the Summertime and free improvisations. The
Superscope was also used to randomize the recordings to eliminate order effect and
then to produce three complete sets of CDs, each totaling 192 minutes of Blues, 193
minutes of Rhythm Changes, 173 minutes of Summertime, and 145 minutes of free
improvisations.
Vocal improvisation achievement was measured with the instrument I had devel-
oped previously (Madura, 1992, 1996) but which was slightly refined. The original
study assessed 19 criteria grouped into three dimensions, but this study assessed 24
criteria. All of the original 19 were retained except for “steady pulse,” which was
eliminated because the recorded accompaniment provided that pulse. The 18 items
that remained were the following: (a) rhythmic feel, language, variety, originality,
development, syntax (Torrance, 1990; Webster, 1994), and scat syllables; (b) tonal
language, variety, originality, development, syntax, intonation, correct notes, and
vocal timbre; and (c) expressive/creative variety of timbre, range, and dynamics. The
6 new items were the use of sophisticated harmonic techniques, variety and origi-
nality of scat syllables, vocal control, emotional substance (Berliner, 1994), and
originality of vocal timbre (Levitin, 2005). The free improvisation task was assessed
only on creativity criteria (all variety, originality, development and syntax items
from the jazz measure), fluency (Webster, 1994), and emotional substance.
A 6-point rating scale was used for each item, including extremely weak; does not
use at all (1), very weak; or almost no use of the criterion (2), moderately weak; or
infrequent use of the criterion (3), moderately good; or moderate use of the criterion
(4), very good; or frequent use of the criterion (5), and “outstanding; or optimal use
of the criterion (6).
Three judges, all professors and performers of jazz (vocal, saxophone, and trom-
bone, respectively) at a Midwestern university, participated in extensive training ses-
sions during the fall semester of 2005 and then rated the Improvisations between
January and September of 2006. The judges listened to each jazz improvisation four
times to assess accurately the 24 criteria, and they listened to each free improvisation
twice, requiring approximately 50 hours of intensely focused time for which they were
financially compensated. Cronbach’s alpha was computed to assess inter-rater reliabil-
ity for each dimension, task, and composite improvisation. Interjudge reliabilities for
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 9

the rhythmic, tonal, and creative dimensions ranged from .91 to .97. The composite
improvisation interjudge reliability was .97 for Blues, .98 for Rhythm Changes, .97 for
Summertime, and .99 for the composite of the three jazz tasks. Interjudge reliability
was .96 for the free improvisation.
The Musical Background Questionnaire (Madura, 1996) was used to assess the
extent of participants’ previous jazz and classical music experience and to determine
relationships between these experiences and effective vocal improvisation.
Participants used 6-point rating scales to indicate the extent of the following experi-
ences: (a) jazz instrumental lessons, (b) classical instrumental lessons, (c) jazz voice
lessons, (d) classical voice lessons, (e) vocal jazz ensemble experience, (f) jazz
improvisation study, (g) vocal jazz listening, (h) instrumental jazz listening, (i) jazz
recordings owned, (j) jazz performances attended, (k) jazz improvisation practice,
(l) time interested in jazz, (m) jazz heard in the home as a child, and (n) parents’ pref-
erence for jazz. The only added question was regarding jazz instrumental lessons.

Results

Descriptive statistics were determined for all improvisation items, dimensions,

and composites (see Table 1). For the Blues task, item means ranged from a high of
4.46 for vocal range variety to a low of 2.34 for sophisticated harmonic use. In fact,
for all three jazz tasks, the highest mean was for range variety and the lowest for
sophisticated harmonic use. For the Free task, the highest mean was also for vocal
range and the lowest for fluency.
For Blues and Rhythm Changes, the highest dimension means were found for
rhythm (3.68 and 3.52, respectively) and the lowest for expression/creativity (3.41
and 3.37, respectively); for Summertime and the free improvisation, the highest
means were found for the expressive/creative dimension (3.73 and 3.98, respec-
tively), and the lowest for the tonal dimension (3.60 and 3.90, respectively). For the
four improvisation tasks, the highest composite mean was found for free improvisa-
tion (3.95), followed by Summertime (3.64), then the Blues (3.49), and last, Rhythm
Changes (3.43) (see Table 1).
Pearson correlations were computed to determine relationships between the
improvisation dimensions and tasks.1 All correlations were significant and ranged
from a high of .87 between the rhythm and tonal dimensions in the Blues to a low of
.49 between the creative dimension of the Blues and the tonal dimension of the
Rhythm Changes. The three jazz improvisation tasks were significantly correlated
(p < .001), ranging from a high of .82 between Rhythm Changes and Summertime
to a low of .74 between the Blues and Rhythm Changes. The strength of the inter-
correlations between the three jazz tasks suggested that they could be collapsed into
one composite jazz improvisation score; and given the lower correlations between
the separate jazz and free improvisation tasks (which ranged from .65 to .61), the
decision was made to treat the free improvisation task as a separate variable.
10 Journal of Research in Music Education

Table 1
Item, Dimension, and Task Ms and SDs for Blues and
Rhythm Changes (N = 102), and for Summertime and Free Tasks (N = 101)
Blues Rhythm Changes Summertime Free Task

Item M SD M SD M SD M SD

Rhythmic
Feel 4.09 0.95 3.91 0.99 4.02 0.90
Language 4.01 0.91 3.86 1.04 4.02 0.90
Variety 3.93 0.90 3.66 0.92 3.61 0.94 4.09 0.83
Originality 3.07 1.03 3.07 1.05 3.25 1.04 3.74 0.88
Development 3.28 0.93 3.31 0.90 3.35 0.93 3.83 0.87
Syntax 3.72 0.88 3.44 0.96 3.57 0.84 4.00 0.87
Scat/vocables 3.69 0.97 3.43 1.00 3.62 0.90
Composite 3.68 0.83 3.52 0.89 3.60 0.83 3.92 0.78
Tonal
Intonation 3.79 0.96 4.15 0.80 4.25 0.75
Vocal control 3.90 0.92 4.14 0.81 4.13 0.82
Vocal timbre 4.01 0.88 3.80 0.86 4.12 0.79
Correct notes 3.70 0.93 3.49 0.71 3.77 0.75
Language 3.29 1.05 3.10 1.01 3.36 0.92
Sophisticated harmonic use 2.34 1.17 2.40 1.02 2.63 1.13
Variety 3.47 0.92 3.35 0.92 3.52 0.94 3.92 0.81
Originality 2.94 0.10 3.02 1.13 3.32 1.16 3.82 0.98
Development 3.13 0.95 3.16 1.02 3.35 1.02 3.90 0.91
Syntax 3.60 1.00 3.31 0.99 3.55 1.06 3.95 0.91
Composite 3.42 0.84 3.39 0.80 3.60 0.81 3.90 0.82
Creative/expressive
Scat variety 3.32 0.95 3.21 0.89 3.32 0.81 3.97 0.98
Scat origin 2.80 1.01 2.98 0.95 3.21 0.92 3.76 1.09
Timbre variety 3.38 1.02 3.35 0.88 4.04 0.94 4.29 0.85
Timbre origin 3.23 0.97 3.59 0.94 4.13 0.87 4.50 0.73
Range variety 4.46 0.80 4.23 0.83 4.44 0.80 4.52 0.79
Dynamic variety 3.38 0.91 3.09 0.86 3.67 0.91 4.03 0.92
Emotional substance 3.30 1.00 3.14 1.07 3.29 1.06 3.77 0.93
Fluency 3.04 1.24
Composite 3.41 0.77 3.37 0.76 3.73 0.73 3.98 0.71
Composite tasks 3.49 0.75 3.43 0.78 3.64 0.74 3.95 0.70

To determine whether the composite mean of the three jazz tasks was signifi-
cantly different from the free task mean (see Table 1), a paired t test was performed.
Results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between the free
and jazz improvisation tasks (t = –7.61.34, df = 100, p < .001.). Participants scored
higher on the totally free task (M = 3.95, SD = .70) than on the structured jazz tasks
(M = 3.52, SD = .70).
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 11

Table 2
Pearson Correlations Between Musical Background and Jazz and Free
Improvisation Composites (N = 101/102)
Item Jazz Improvisation Free Improvisation

Gender –.08 –.04

Years of jazz lessons: instrument .15 .16
Years of classical lessons: instrument .07 .09
Years of jazz lessons: voice .43** .30**
Years of classical lessons: voice –.05 –.22*
Years in vocal jazz ensemble .28** .04
Years of jazz improvisation study .43** .27**
Hours of listening to vocal jazz .12 .12
Hours of listening to instrumental jazz .29** .33**
Number of jazz CDs owned .25* .23*
Number of jazz concerts attended .35** .38**
Hours of jazz improvisational practice .29** .32**
Age when first interested in jazz .41** .35**
Frequency of jazz listening as child .22* .16
Parents’ preference for jazz .15 .29**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Relationships between the Musical Background Questionnaire items and impro-

visation achievement were examined through descriptive statistics and correlation
procedures. For musical experience, means ranged from a high of 4.06 for frequency
of live jazz concert attendance (indicating “once a month”) to a low of 1.43 for years
of instrumental jazz lessons (indicating “one month to one year”). Significant corre-
lations between musical experience and improvisation achievement (see Table 2)
ranged from a high of .43 (p < .01) for both jazz voice lessons and jazz improvisa-
tion lessons, to a low of –.22 (p < .05) between classical voice lessons and free
improvisation achievement. No significant correlations were found for improvisation
achievement and the following: gender, classical instrumental lessons, jazz instru-
mental lessons, and vocal jazz listening.
Intercorrelations between the jazz experience items ranged from a high of .81
between jazz voice lessons and jazz improvisation lessons to a low of .20 between
jazz improvisation lessons and vocal jazz listening. A composite jazz experience
variable was created based on significant (p < .05) intercorrelations between the
experiences, which included jazz voice lessons, jazz improvisation lessons, jazz
improvisation practice, vocal jazz listening, instrumental jazz listening, jazz CDs
owned, jazz concerts attended, and time interested in jazz. The resulting jazz expe-
rience composite was found to correlate significantly (p < .001) with both the jazz
(r = .46) and free (r = 41) improvisation composites.
To examine the factors underlying vocal jazz improvisation, the 24 evaluative cri-
teria were submitted to maximum likelihood with varimax factor analysis. Three
12 Journal of Research in Music Education

factors were revealed by the scree test to have eigenvalues above 1.00. Orthogonal
rotations were then performed, and after 12 iterations, three factors remained. Factor 1
accounted for 40% of the total variance (jazz syntax, dominated by rhythm); Factor 2
accounted for an additional 23% (vocal creativity); and Factor 3 accounted for an
additional 21% (tonal musicianship). Thus, the three factors accounted for 84% of
the total variance in vocal jazz improvisation, with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling
adequacy of .94. It should be noted that maximum likelihood oblimin verified the
three factors and the overall variance.
Table 3 presents the factor structure matrix produced by the rotation. Most of the
items were found to be factor complex; that is, they had salient loadings in excess of
.40 (Gorsuch, 1983) on at least two factors. The best marker variable for Factor 1 (jazz
syntax) was rhythmic jazz language, which had a loading of .85, and was a factor-
simple item. Other factor-simple items loading on Factor 1 were rhythmic develop-
ment at .82, melodic variety at .77, and appropriate jazz scat syllables at .74. Other
rhythm items, although not factor simple, loaded highly on Factor 1. They included
rhythmic variety (.82), rhythmic syntax (.81), rhythmic originality (.79), and jazz
rhythmic feel (.66). Several of the tonal items also had salient loadings on Factor 1,
including a high of .79 for sophisticated harmonic language, but all were factor com-
plex. Factor 1 appears to represent jazz syntax and language but dominated by rhythm.
Factor 2 (vocal creativity) was best represented by four factor simple items: vocal
tone color originality (.84), vocal tone color variety (.84), dynamic variety (.71), and
vocal range variety (.57). Factor-complex items with strong loadings include scat
syllable originality (.74) and variety (.65), with other salient loadings including
rhythmic variety and originality, and melodic originality. Factor 2 represents origi-
nality and variety (terms associated with creative or divergent thinking) of timbre,
dynamics, range, syllables, rhythm, and melody.
Factor 3 (tonal musicianship) was represented best by two factor-simple items,
intonation (.80) and vocal control (.73). Other dominant but factor-complex loadings
include correct notes (.76), melodic syntax (.65), and appropriate jazz tone color
(.57). These are the more convergent aspects of tonal improvisation.
To examine the factors underlying free improvisation, the 16 creativity criteria
(all variety, originality, development, syntax, and fluency items) plus emotional sub-
stance were submitted to factor analysis (see Table 4). Three factors were again
revealed by the scree test after orthogonal rotations and six iterations. The three fac-
tors underlying free improvisation accounted for 71% of the variance.
Factor 1, accounting for 31%, was best represented by four factor simple items:
melodic development (.88), melodic syntax (.79), melodic variety (.77), and rhyth-
mic syntax (.68). Other strong but factor-complex items included rhythmic develop-
ment (.74), melodic originality (.70) and emotional substance (.66). Factor 1 appears
to represent the development and syntax of musical ideas, especially melodic.
Factor 2, accounting for 21% of the variance, is best represented by two factor-
simple items, vocal tone color variety (.81) and dynamic variety (.75), and two
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 13

Table 3
Factor Analysis for Combined Jazz Improvisation Tasks:
Blues, Rhythm Changes, and Summertime (N = 101/102)
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Rhythmic jazz feel .659 .337 .498

Rhythmic jazz language .847 .323 .265
Rhythmic variety .818 .504 .082
Rhythmic originality .790 .536 .151
Rhythmic development .818 .396 .286
Rhythmic syntax .814 .272 .403
Jazz scat syllables .743 .364 .351
Intonation .205 .210 .796
Correct notes .541 .173 .757
Jazz vocal tone color .536 .418 .571
Jazz tonal language .789 .209 .504
Sophisticated harmonic use .794 .178 .475
Melodic variety .773 .390 .388
Melodic originality .743 .431 .411
Melodic development .739 .307 .495
Melodic syntax .657 .263 .650
Scat syllable variety .557 .647 .050
Scat syllable originality .456 .744 .125
Vocal tone color variety .296 .838 .339
Vocal tone color originality .264 .841 .350
Vocal range variety .285 .570 .167
Dynamic variety .144 .712 .371
Vocal control .236 .382 .734
Emotional substance .659 .415 .607

Note: Boldface indicates salient loadings in excess of .40.

factor-complex items, vocal tone color originality (.64) and range variety (.54),
emphasizing the manipulation of nonsyntactic aspects of free improvisation.
Factor 3 accounts for 18% of the variance and is represented by two factor-simple
items: scat syllable variety (.88) and scat syllable originality (.79). Other salient
loadings include rhythmic originality (.57), rhythmic variety (.55), and rhythmic devel-
opment (.42), emphasizing the relationship between scat syllables and rhythms used.

Discussion

For this sample of 102 college-level jazz singers from Australia and the United
States, the highest composite mean was found for free improvisation, followed by
Summertime, then the Blues, and last, Rhythm Changes. These results are not surpris-
ing given that the free improvisation had no imposed structural or stylistic parameters,
14 Journal of Research in Music Education

Table 4
Factor Analysis for Free Improvisation Task (N = 101)
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Melodic variety .768 .313 .303

Melodic originality .696 .439 .300
Melodic development .877 .195 .268
Melodic syntax .792 .251 .107
Rhythmic variety .541 .351 .549
Rhythmic originality .460 .414 .572
Rhythmic development .739 .220 .424
Rhythmic syntax .683 .322 .371
Vocal timbre variety .338 .812 .277
Vocal timbre originality .449 .643 .318
Scat/vocable variety .331 .271 .875
Scat/vocable originality .242 .356 .787
Vocal range variety .196 .540 .202
Dynamic variety .123 .749 .199
Emotional substance .657 .517 .235
Fluency .223 .389 .125

Note: Boldface indicates salient loadings in excess of .40.

that Summertime is a familiar standard song to most singers, and that the Blues and
Rhythm Changes are more instrumentally, rather than vocally, conceived.
For the Blues and Rhythm Changes, the lowest dimension means were found for cre-
ativity/expression, suggesting that the more challenging harmonic structures impeded
singers’ expressivity (Sarath, 2002). On the other hand, for the well-known song
Summertime, the highest mean was found for the creative/expressive dimension, sug-
gesting that lyrics and/or familiarity enhance creative improvisation. The highest item
mean across all four improvisation tasks was the use of a varied vocal range, and the
lowest mean for the three jazz tasks was the use of sophisticated harmonies, a weakness
earlier identified by Coker and Baker (1981) and Aitken and Aebersold (1983).
Previous research has identified jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, and jazz
experience as predictors of improvisation achievement in college-level jazz singers
(Greenagle, 1995; Madura, 1996). In this study, specific jazz experiences (including
jazz voice lessons, improvisation lessons, jazz listening, and time interested in jazz)
were found to relate significantly to vocal improvisation achievement. No significant
positive relationships were found between vocal improvisation skill and classical
voice lessons, classical instrument lessons, or gender; in fact, a significant negative
correlation was found between extensive classical voice lessons and free improvisa-
tion skill. Also, while jazz instrumental lessons have long been considered, both
anecdotally and in research (Greenagle, 1995), to be an important predictor of vocal
jazz improvisation skill, no significant correlation was found in this study.
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 15

These results suggest that extensive voice lessons in jazz style, improvisation
lessons and practice, and live and recorded jazz listening are a potent blend of expe-
riences to assist in developing effective jazz and free vocal improvisation skill.
Although instrumental jazz musicians regularly engage in these types of activities,
many aspiring jazz vocalists (and their teachers) are classically trained and lack
these essential experiences, resulting in the criticisms cited earlier by renowned jazz
pedagogues Coker and Baker (1981) and Aitken and Aebersold (1983).
To examine the factors underlying vocal improvisation, and particularly the role
of creative thinking in improvisation, I conducted factor analyses of jazz and free
vocal improvisation. The following three factors underlying vocal jazz improvisation
were identified: (a) jazz syntax, dominated by rhythm; (b) vocal creativity; and (c) tonal
musicianship. These three factors are similar to those found by Madura (1992) and
Horowitz (1994), and they include both divergent and convergent thinking as Sarath
(2002) and Webster (2006) described, with Factor 2 (vocal creativity) clearly repre-
senting the divergent nonsyntactic aspects of improvisation and Factor 3 clearly rep-
resenting the convergent aspects of musicianship. The interplay between the
convergent and divergent aspects within Factor 1 (jazz syntax) remains elusive and
requires further investigation, as encouraged by Webster (2002). However, with 84%
explained variance in this study, the nature of the constructs underlying vocal jazz
improvisation begins to emerge clearly.
The free improvisations were evaluated only for the creativity criteria of fluency,
variety, originality, elaboration, and syntax. The three factors found were (a) melodic
syntax, (b) vocal creativity, and (c) scat syllable variety and originality. The first two
factors are similar to those found in the jazz improvisation tasks, but with the com-
plete elimination of stylistic expectations (Godfried, 1986) a new factor emerged
that represents the creative use of syllables and associated rhythms. Because sylla-
bles are unique and necessary to vocal improvisation, these results suggest that var-
ied and original syllables may be integral to an effective vocal improvisation.
The factors underlying vocal improvisation suggest important teaching strategies
and assessment categories. Immersion in the study and practice of jazz and musical
syntax (language and structure) and good musicianship (intonation, vocal control,
and correct notes) are paramount. In addition, guidance to create variety through
manipulation of dynamics, range, vocal tone color, syllables, melodies, and rhythms,
and to explore one’s own unique voice is encouraged. The internalization of the lan-
guage of jazz requires many years of disciplined study and cannot be underesti-
mated, but the “more creative” (Sarath, 2002, p. 190), or at least the more vocally
expressive, aspects of improvisation may provide the necessary enjoyment and moti-
vation for more musicians to engage in the art of vocal improvisation.

Note
1. The complete table of correlation coefficients is available from the author upon request.
16 Journal of Research in Music Education

References
Aebersold, J. (1981). All-time standards (vol. 25). New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.
Aebersold, J. (1988). Blues in all keys (vol. 42). New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.
Aebersold, J. (1990). I got rhythm (vol. 47). New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.
Aitken, G., & Aebersold, J. (1983). Vocal jazz improvisation: An instrumental approach. Jazz Educators
Journal, 16(1), 8-10.
Berliner, P. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burnsed, V., & Price, H. E. (1984). Improvisation and evaluation. Jazz Research Papers, 4, 35-42.
Coker, P., & Baker, D. (1981). Vocal improvisation: An instrumental approach. Miami: Columbia.
Dunbar-Hill, P., & Gibson, C. (2004). Deadly sounds, deadly places: Contemporary Aboriginal music in
Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
Godfried, W. R. (1986). Improvisation and Jan Broeckx’s theses on “Reason, Music and Emotion.” In
L. Apostel, H. Sabbe, & F. Vandamme (Eds.), Reason, emotion and music: Towards a common struc-
ture for arts, sciences and philosophies, based on a conceptual framework for the description of music
(pp. 395-404). Ghent, Belgium: Communication & Cognition.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenagel, D. J. (1995). Jazz vocal improvisation skills: An analysis of selected predictors. Jazz Research
Papers, 15, 69-79.
Horowitz, R. A. (1994). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation performance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 55(11), 3443. (AAT 9511046)
Levitin, D. J. (2005, April). Creativity under constraints: Popular music from 1954-2004. Paper presented
at the SEMPRE Conference: Musical Creativity in Culture and Mind, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, UK.
Madura, P. D. (1991). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation ability and selected performer char-
acteristics: An exploratory study. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 3, 42-53.
Madura, P. D. (1992). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge,
imitative ability, previous musical experiences, general creativity, and gender. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53(12), 4245A (UMI No. 9307490)
Madura, P. D. (1996). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge,
imitative ability, musical experience, creativity, and gender. Journal of Research in Music Education,
44, 252-267.
May, L. F. (2003). Factors and abilities influencing achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 245-258.
Pfenninger, R. C. (1990). The development and validation of three rating scales for the objective mea-
surement of jazz improvisation achievement. Unpublished master’s thesis, Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA.
Pisciotta, E. M. (1992). The history of jazz choir in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 53(11), 3821 (UMI No. 9239641)
Sarath, E. (2002). Improvisation and curricular reform. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new
handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 188-198). New York: Oxford.
Schilling, R. (1987). The feasibility of objective diagnostic measurement of jazz improvisation achieve-
ment. Jazz Research Papers, 7, 149-158.
Smith, G. (2005). Singing Australian: A history of folk and country music. North Melbourne: Pluto.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel.
Webster, P. (2002). Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In T. Sullivan, & L. Willingham,
(Eds.), Creativity and music education (pp. 16-33). Edmonton, AB: Canadian Music Educators’
Association.
 Ward-Steinman / Vocal Improvisation and Creative Thinking 17

Whiteoak, J. (1999). Playing ad lib: Improvisatory music in Australia 1836-1970. Sydney: Currency
Press.

Patrice Madura Ward-Steinman is professor of music at the Music Education Department, Jacobs
School of Music, Indiana University–Bloomington. Her research interests include improvisation, vocal
jazz, and creative thinking.

Submitted November 13, 2006; accepted March 8, 2007.