Group musical improvisation is a unique psychological phenomenon. Cognitive literature on jazz musicians argues that creativity in improvisation is constrained by stylistic conventions and facility with existing musical elements. However the expanding field of free improvisation is predicated on avoiding idiomatic expectations and familiar material. To model musical improvisation in its widest sense, 15 diverse free improvisers were video recorded performing in trios, and interviewed in-depth while reviewing the recording. Improvisers chose on an iterative basis whether to maintain what they were doing or change, either to initiate a new direction or to respond to another improviser. Responses were subjectively understood to adopt, augment or contrast the contributions of others. These choices were based on evaluative dimensions of texture, rate of initiatives, and degrees of novelty and diversity, as well as structural and practical concerns and experience of enjoyment. Improvisers did not perceive consistent agency for themselves while improvising, and their evaluations were influenced by constructions of the social context. Results highlight that new material is generated at a variable rate by any one individual during this collaborative creativity, and indicate that constraints on choices to cope with high cognitive demands are subjective and situation-specific rather than objective.
ArcherM. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BaileyD. (1993). Improvisation: Its nature and practice in music. Boston, MA: Da Capo.
3.
BanisterP.BurmanE.ParkerI.TaylorM.TindallC. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative methods in psychology. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
4.
BarbourR. S. (2005). Making sense of focus groups. Medical Education, 39(7), 742–750. doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2929.2005.02200.x
5.
BastienD. T.HostagerT. J. (1988). Jazz as a process of organizational innovation. Communication Research, 15(5), 582–602.
6.
BiasuttiM.FrezzaL. (2009). Dimensions of music improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 232–242.
7.
Bryan-KinnsN. (2013). Mutual engagement and collocation with shared representations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(1), 76–90. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.02.004
ClarkeE.DoffmanM.LimL. (2013). Distributed creativity and ecological dynamics: A case study of Liza Lim’s ‘Tongue of the Invisible’. Music and Letters, 94(4), 628–663. doi: 10.1093/ml/gct118
10.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
11.
DoffmanM. (2009). Making it groove! Entrainment, participation and discrepancy in the “conversation” of a jazz trio. Language & History, 52(1), 130–147. doi: doi:10.1179/175975309X452012
12.
DoffmanM. (2011). Jammin’ an ending: Creativity, knowledge, and conduct among jazz musicians. Twentieth-Century Music, 8(02), 203–225. doi: doi:10.1017/S1478572212000084
13.
DonnayG. F.RankinS. K.Lopez-GonzalezM.JiradejvongP.LimbC. J. (2014). Neural substrates of interactive musical improvisation: An fMRI study of “trading fours” in jazz. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88665. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088665
14.
FayN.GarrodS.CarlettaJ. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486.
15.
FonteynM. E.KuipersB.GrobeS. J. (1993). A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 3(4), 430–441. doi: 10.1177/104973239300300403
16.
HallamE.IngoldT. (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation: Oxford, UK: Berg.
17.
HenwoodK.PidgeonN. (2004). Grounded theory in psychological research. In CamicP. M.RhodesJ. E.YardleyL. (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 131–156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
JensenK.MarchettiE. (2010). A meta-study of musicians’ non-verbal interaction. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 6(5), 1–12.
19.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (2002). How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception, 19(3), 415–442.
20.
KarauS. J.WilliamsK. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.65.4.681
21.
KennyB. J.GellrichM. (2002). Improvisation. In McPhersonR. P. G. E. (Ed.), The science & psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 117–134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
LewisG. E. (2002). Improvised music after 1950: Afrological and Eurological perspectives. Black Music Research Journal, 22, 215–246. doi: 10.2307/1519950
24.
LimbC. J.BraunA. R. (2008). Neural substrates of spontaneous musical performance: An fMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001679
25.
LinsonA.DobbynC.LaneyR. (2012, May/June). Critical issues in evaluating freely improvising interactive music systems. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Computational Creativity, Dublin, Ireland.
26.
LinsonA.DobbynC.LaneyR. (2013). A parsimonious cognitive architecture for human-computer interactive musical free improvisation. In ChellaA.PirroneR.SorbelloR.JóhannsdóttirK. R. (Eds.), Biologically inspired cognitive architectures 2012 (pp. 219–224). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
27.
MacDonaldR. A.WilsonG. B. (2006). Constructions of jazz: How jazz musicians present their collaborative musical practice. Musicae Scientiae, 10(1), 59–83. doi: 10.1177/102986490601000104
28.
MacDonaldR. A.WilsonG. B. (2014a). Billy Connolly, Daniel Barenboim, Willie Wonka, Jazz Bastards and the universality of improvisation. In PiekutB.LewisG. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of critical improvisation studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
MacDonaldR. A.WilsonG. B. (2014b). Musical improvisation and health: A review. Psychology of Well-Being, 4(1), 20. doi: 10.1186/s13612-014-0020-9
30.
MacDonaldR. A.WilsonG. B.MiellD. (2012). Improvisation as a creative process within contemporary music. In HargreavesD. J.MiellD.MacDonaldR. A. R. (Eds.), Musical imaginations: Multidisciplinary perspectives on creativity, performance and perception (pp. 242–255). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
McPhersonM.LimbC. (2013). Difficulties in the neuroscience of creativity: Jazz improvisation and the scientific method. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1303, 80–83. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12174
32.
MonsonI. (1996). Saying something: Jazz improvisation and interaction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
NorgaardM. (2011). Descriptions of improvisational thinking by artist-level jazz musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 109–127. doi: 10.1177/0022429411405669
34.
NymanM. (1999). Experimental music: Cage and beyond (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
OrneM. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. doi: 10.1037/h0043424
36.
PressingJ. (1998). Psychological constraints on improvisational expertise and communication. In NettlB.RussellM. (Eds.), In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation (pp. 47–67). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
SawyerR. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. doi: 10.1177/0305735606061850
38.
SchoberM. F.SpiroN. (2014). Jazz improvisers’ shared understanding: A case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00808
39.
SchützM. (2012, July). Improvisation in jazz:“Stream of ideas”-analysis of jazz piano-improvisations. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition & 8th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, Thessaloniki, Greece.
40.
SeddonF. A. (2005). Modes of communication during jazz improvisation. British Journal of Music Education, 22(01), 47–61. doi:10.1017/S0265051704005984
41.
WigramT. (2004). Improvisation: Methods and techniques for music therapy clinicians, educators, and students. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
42.
WilsonG. B.MacDonaldR. A. (2005). The meaning of the blues: Musical identities in talk about jazz. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 341–363.
43.
WilsonG. B.MacDonaldR. A. (2012). The sign of silence: Negotiating musical identities in an improvising ensemble. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 558–573. doi: 10.1177/0305735612449506
44.
WopereisI. G.StoyanovS.KirschnerP. A.Van MerriënboerJ. J. (2013). What makes a good musical improviser? An expert view on improvisational expertise. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 23(4), 222–235. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000021
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
