Limits...
Jazz improvisers' shared understanding: a case study.

Schober MF, Spiro N - Front Psychol (2014)

Bottom Line: Performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated more often than statements by their performing partner and the expert listener; their overall level of agreement with each other was greater than chance but moderate to low, with disagreements about the quality of one of the performances and about who was responsible for it.The quality of the performances combined with the disparities in agreement suggest that, at least in this case study, fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential for successful improvisation.The fact that the performers endorsed an expert listener's statements more than their partner's argues against a simple notion that performers' interpretations are always privileged relative to an outsider's.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT
To what extent and in what arenas do collaborating musicians need to understand what they are doing in the same way? Two experienced jazz musicians who had never previously played together played three improvisations on a jazz standard ("It Could Happen to You") on either side of a visual barrier. They were then immediately interviewed separately about the performances, their musical intentions, and their judgments of their partner's musical intentions, both from memory and prompted with the audiorecordings of the performances. Statements from both (audiorecorded) interviews as well as statements from an expert listener were extracted and anonymized. Two months later, the performers listened to the recordings and rated the extent to which they endorsed each statement. Performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated more often than statements by their performing partner and the expert listener; their overall level of agreement with each other was greater than chance but moderate to low, with disagreements about the quality of one of the performances and about who was responsible for it. The quality of the performances combined with the disparities in agreement suggest that, at least in this case study, fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential for successful improvisation. The fact that the performers endorsed an expert listener's statements more than their partner's argues against a simple notion that performers' interpretations are always privileged relative to an outsider's.

No MeSH data available.


Start of questionnaire part (b)—generalizable statements that could apply to all three performances.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126153&req=5

Figure 1: Start of questionnaire part (b)—generalizable statements that could apply to all three performances.

Mentions: The questionnaire presented each statement for rating on a five point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The questionnaire consisted of five parts: (a) global statements about players and performances; (b) generalizable statements that could apply to more than one performance; (c) specific statements that concerned just one performance; and (d) questions about the experience of completing the questionnaire (e.g., “Did you find yourself remembering how you felt at the time or thinking about how you feel about things now when listening or a bit of both?”). For statements in (b), the questionnaire asked participants to rate the extent to which they endorsed each statement for each of the three performances (see Figure 1) so that the questionnaire ended up requiring 217 separate ratings of the statements about the performances.


Jazz improvisers' shared understanding: a case study.

Schober MF, Spiro N - Front Psychol (2014)

Start of questionnaire part (b)—generalizable statements that could apply to all three performances.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4126153&req=5

Figure 1: Start of questionnaire part (b)—generalizable statements that could apply to all three performances.
Mentions: The questionnaire presented each statement for rating on a five point scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). The questionnaire consisted of five parts: (a) global statements about players and performances; (b) generalizable statements that could apply to more than one performance; (c) specific statements that concerned just one performance; and (d) questions about the experience of completing the questionnaire (e.g., “Did you find yourself remembering how you felt at the time or thinking about how you feel about things now when listening or a bit of both?”). For statements in (b), the questionnaire asked participants to rate the extent to which they endorsed each statement for each of the three performances (see Figure 1) so that the questionnaire ended up requiring 217 separate ratings of the statements about the performances.

Bottom Line: Performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated more often than statements by their performing partner and the expert listener; their overall level of agreement with each other was greater than chance but moderate to low, with disagreements about the quality of one of the performances and about who was responsible for it.The quality of the performances combined with the disparities in agreement suggest that, at least in this case study, fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential for successful improvisation.The fact that the performers endorsed an expert listener's statements more than their partner's argues against a simple notion that performers' interpretations are always privileged relative to an outsider's.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research New York, NY, USA.

ABSTRACT
To what extent and in what arenas do collaborating musicians need to understand what they are doing in the same way? Two experienced jazz musicians who had never previously played together played three improvisations on a jazz standard ("It Could Happen to You") on either side of a visual barrier. They were then immediately interviewed separately about the performances, their musical intentions, and their judgments of their partner's musical intentions, both from memory and prompted with the audiorecordings of the performances. Statements from both (audiorecorded) interviews as well as statements from an expert listener were extracted and anonymized. Two months later, the performers listened to the recordings and rated the extent to which they endorsed each statement. Performers endorsed statements they themselves had generated more often than statements by their performing partner and the expert listener; their overall level of agreement with each other was greater than chance but moderate to low, with disagreements about the quality of one of the performances and about who was responsible for it. The quality of the performances combined with the disparities in agreement suggest that, at least in this case study, fully shared understanding of what happened is not essential for successful improvisation. The fact that the performers endorsed an expert listener's statements more than their partner's argues against a simple notion that performers' interpretations are always privileged relative to an outsider's.

No MeSH data available.