In this article we explore the role of pre-reflective, embodied, and interactive intentionality in joint musical performance. Putting together insights from phenomenology and current theories in cognitive science, we present a case study based on qualitative interviews with the Danish String Quartet (DSQ). A total of 12 hours of interviews was recorded, drawing on ethnography-related methodologies during tours with the DSQ in Denmark and England in 2012 and 2013, focusing mainly on their experience of perception, intentionality, absorption, selfhood and intersubjectivity. The analysis emerging from our data suggests that expert musicians’ experience of collective music-making is rooted in the dynamical patterns of perception and action that co-constitute the sonic environment(s) in which they are embedded, and that the role of attention and other reflective processes should therefore be reconsidered. In putting forward our view on ensemble cohesion, we challenge Keller’s and Seddon and Biasutti’s influential positions, maintaining that the cognitive processes at play in such intersubjective context are grounded in the concrete (inter)actions of the players, and are not reducible to processes and structures ‘in the head’. We argue that this is a significant step forward from more traditional accounts of joint musical performances, which often involve mental representations as principal explanatory tools – downplaying the embodied and participatory dimension of music-making – and we conclude that ensemble performance can take place without attention to either shared goals, or to the other ensemble musicians. We finally suggest that if other researchers want to understand what it is like to play with other musicians then they must shift their focus from Joint Musical Attention (JMA) to Joint Musical Experience (JME), facilitating the development of more ecologically valid models of collective musical performance.
AcottoE.AndreattaM. (2012). Between mind and mathematics: Different kinds of computational representations of music. Mathematics and Social Sciences, 199, 9–26.
2.
Allen-CollinsonJ. (2009). Sporting embodiment: Sports studies and the (continuing) promise of phenomenology. Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, 1(3), 279–296.
3.
BadinoL.D’AusilioA.GlowinskiD.CamurriA.FadigaL. (2014). Sensorimotor communication in professional quartets. Neuropsychologia, 55(1), 98–104.
4.
BastianP. (1987). Ind I Musikken: En Bog om Musik og Bevidsthed. Copenhagen, Denmark: Gyldendal/PubliMus.
5.
BerlinerP. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BiasuttiM. (2013). Orchestra rehearsal strategies: Conductor and performer views. Musicae Scientiae, 17(1), 57–71.
7.
BishopL.GoeblW. (2015). When they listen and when they watch: Pianists’ use of nonverbal audio and visual cues during duet performance. Musicae Scientiae, 19(1), 84–110.
8.
BrinkmannS.KvaleS. (2014). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
9.
CastellanoG.CamurriA.MortillaroM.SchererK.VolpeG. (2008). Expressive gesture and music: Analysis of emotional behaviour in music performance. Music Perception, 25(6), 103–119.
10.
ChemeroA. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
ClarkA. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
ClarkeE. (2005). Ways of listening: An ecological approach to the perception of musical meaning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
ColombettiG. (2014). The feeling body: Affective science meets the enactive mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
DavidsonJ. W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo musicians. Psychology of Music, 21, 103–113.
15.
DavidsonJ. W. (1994). What type of information is conveyed in the body movements of solo musician performers?Journal of Human Movement Studies, 6, 279–301.
16.
DavidsonJ. W. (2005). Bodily communication in musical performance in musical communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
DavidsonJ. W.GoodJ. M. M. (2002). Social and musical co-ordination between members of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30, 186–201.
18.
De JaegherH. (2009). Social understanding through direct perception? Yes, by interacting. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(2), 535–542.
19.
De JaegherH.Di PaoloE. A. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507.
20.
Di PaoloE.(2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452.
21.
DreyfusH. L. (2005). Overcoming the myth of the mental: How philosophers can profit from the phenomenology of everyday expertise. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 79, 47–63.
22.
DreyfusH. L. (2007). The return of the myth of the mental. Inquiry, 50(4), 352–365.
23.
FlyvbjergB. (2011). Case study. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY.S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
FoolenA.LüdtkeU.RacineT.ZlatevJ. (Eds.). (2012). Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
25.
GallagherS (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 535–543.
26.
GallagherS.HuttoD. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In ZlatevT.RacineT.SinhaC.ItkonenE. (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 17–38). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
27.
GallagherS.ZahaviD. (2008). The phenomenological mind. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
GalleseV. (2001). The “Shared Manifold” hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5–7), 33–50.
29.
GalleseV. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4, 23–48.
30.
GalleseV. (2009). Motor abstraction: A neuroscientific account of how action goals and intentions are mapped and understood. Psychological Research, 73, 486–498.
31.
GeevesAMcIlwainD.SuttonJ.ChristensenW. (2014). To think or not to think: The apparent paradox of expert skill in music performance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(6), 674–691.
32.
GiorgiA. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–260.
33.
GlowinskiD.GneccoG.PianoS.CamurriA. (2013, September). Expressive non-nerbal interaction in string quartet. Paper presented at the conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII 2013), Geneva, Switzerland.
34.
GlowinskiD.ManciniM.CowieR.CamurriA.ChiorriC.DohertyC. (2013). The movements made by performers in a skilled quartet: A distinctive pattern, and the function that it serves. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 841.
35.
GoldmanA. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Mindreading. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
GoldmanA.GalleseV. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 493–501.
37.
GratierM. (2008). Grounding in musical interaction: Evidence from jazz performances. Musicae Scientiae, 12(1, Suppl.), 71–110.
38.
HartE.Di BlasiZ. (2013). Combined flow in musical jam sessions: A pilot qualitative study. Psychology of Music43(2), 1–16. DOI:10.1177/0305735613502374
39.
HammersleyM.AtkinsonP. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
40.
HeideggerM. (1996). Being and time. Albany: State University of New York.
41.
HoggB. (2011). Enactive consciousness, intertextuality and musical free improvisation: Deconstructing mythologies and finding connections. In ClarkeD.ClarkeE. (Eds.), Music and consciousness: Philosophical, psychological, and cultural perspectives (pp. 79–94). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
HolmesP.HolmesC. (2013). The performer’s experience: A case for using qualitative (phenomenological) methodologies in music performance research. Musicae Scientiae, 17(1), 72–85.
43.
HøffdingS. (2014). What is skilled coping? Experts on expertise. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(9–10), 49–73.
44.
HøffdingS.MartinyK. (forthcoming). Framing a phenomenological interview: what, why and how. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-015-9433-z.
45.
HurlburtR. T. (with CoboR.). (2011). Multiple autonomous experience in a virtuoso musician. In Investigating pristine inner experience: Moments of truth (pp. 258–290). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
HurleyS. (1998). Consciousness in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
HuronD. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
HuttoD. (2011). Elementary mind minding, enactivist-style. In SeemannA. (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience (pp. 307–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
HuttoD.MyinE. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
JenseniusA. R.KvifteT.GodøyR. I. (2006). Towards a gesture description interchange format. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 176–179). Paris, France: IRCAM.
51.
KellerP. E. (2008). Joint action in music performance. In MorgantiF.CarassaA.RivaG. (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions (pp. 205–221). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
52.
KellerP. E.& AppelM. (2010). Individual differences, auditory imagery, and the coordination of body movements and sounds in musical ensembles. Music Perception, 28(1), 27–46.
53.
KellerP. E.KnoblichG.ReppB. H. (2007). Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: On the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 102–111.
54.
KellerP. E.NovembreG.LoehrJ. (in press). Musical ensemble performance: Representing self, other, and joint action outcomes. In CrossE. S.ObhiS. S. (Eds.), Shared representations: Sensorimotor foundations of social life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
KruegerJ. (2012). Seeing mind in action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 149–173.
56.
KruegerJ. (2014). Emotions and other minds. In CampeR.WeberJ. (Eds.), Interiority/exteriority: Rethinking emotion (pp. 323–349). New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
57.
KurosawaK.DavidsonJ. (2005). Nonverbal behaviours in popular music performance: A case study of The Corrs. Musicae Scientiae, 9(1), 111–136.
58.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interview - Introduktion til et håndværk. Copenhagen: Gyldendal Academic.
59.
LegrandD. (2013a). The patient’s voice in psychoanalysis, narrative medicine and patient-based research. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University, 62, 29–38.
60.
LegrandD. (2013b). I am listening to you. Recherches en Psychoanalyse, 16, 133–143.
61.
LegrandD.RavnS. (2009). Perceiving subjectivity in bodily movement: The case of dancers. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 389–408.
62.
LegrandD. (2007). Pre-reflective self-consciousness: On being bodily in the world. Janus Head9(2), 493–519.
63.
LemanM. (2007). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
LemanM.NavedaL. (2010). Basic gestures as spatiotemporal reference frames for repetitive dance/music patterns in Samba and Charleston. Music Perception, 28(1), 71–91.
65.
LerdahlF.JackendoffR. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66.
LoehrJ. D.PalmerC. (2011). Temporal coordination between performing musicians. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 2153–2167.
67.
MacRitchieJ.BuckB.BaileyN. J. (2013). Inferring musical structure through bodily gestures. Musicae Scientiae, 17(1), 86–108.
68.
MaesP-J.LemanM.PalmerC.WanderleyM. M. (2014). Action-based effects on music perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–14.
69.
MaesP-J.Van DyckE.LesaffreM.LemanM. (2014). The coupling of action and perception in musical meaning formation. Music Perception, 32(1), 67–84.
70.
MartinyK. (2015). How to develop a phenomenological model of disability. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11019–015–9625-x
71.
MatyjaJ.SchiavioA. (2013). Enactive music cognition: Background and research themes. Constructivist Foundations, 8(3), 351–357.
72.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. In CohenS.WartofskyM. W. (Eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel.
73.
McGuinessA. (2013). Self-consciousness in musical performance. In ClaytonM.DueckB.LeanteL. (Eds.), Experience and meaning in music performance (pp. 108–134). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
74.
McGuinessA.OveryK. (2011). Music, consciousness and the brain: Music as shared experience of an embodied present. In ClarkeE. F.ClarkeD. (Eds.), Music and consciousness: Philosophical, psychological and cultural perspectives (pp. 245–262). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
75.
MeinertzA. (2008). Erik Bruhn, billedet indendi. Copenhagen, Denmark: Schønbergs Forlag.
Merleau-PontyM. (2002). Phenomenology of perception (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
78.
MonteroB. (2010). Does bodily awareness interfere with highly skilled movement?Inquiry, 53(2), 105–122.
79.
MonteroB. (in press). The myth of “just do it”: Thought and effort in expert action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
80.
NisbettR. E.WilsonT. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
81.
NoëA. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
82.
NovembreG.KellerP. E. (2014). A conceptual review on action-perception coupling in the musicians’ brain: What is it good for?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 603.
83.
PacherieE. (2012). The phenomenology of joint action: Self-agency vs. joint-agency. In SeemannA. (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments (pp. 343–389). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
84.
PapiotisP.MarchiniM.Perez-CarrilloA.MaestreE. (2014). Measuring ensemble interdependence in a string quartet through analysis of multidimensional performance data. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 963.
85.
PetitmenginC.RemillieuxA.CahourB.Carter-ThomasS. (2013). A gap in Nisbett and Wilson’s findings? A first-person access to our cognitive processes. Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 654–669. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.02.004
86.
Phillips-SilverJ.KellerP. E. (2012). Searching for roots of entrainment and joint action in early musical interactions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 26.
87.
RagertM.SchroederT.KellerP. E. (2013). Knowing too little or too much: The effects of familiarity with a co-performer’s part on interpersonal coordination in musical ensembles. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 368.
88.
RavnS.ChristensenM. K. (2014). Listening to the body? How phenomenological insights can be used to explore a golfer’s experience of the physicality of her body. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 6(4), 462–477.
89.
RavnS.HansenH. P. (2013). How to explore dancers’ sense experiences? A study of how multi-sited fieldwork and phenomenology can be combined. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 5(2), 196–213.
90.
ReppB. H.SuY.-H. (2013). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006–2012). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 403–452.
91.
ReybrouckM. (2006). Music cognition and the bodily approach: Musical instruments as tools for musical semantics. Contemporary Music Review, 25, 59–68.
92.
ReybrouckM. (2012). Musical sense-making and the concept of affordance: An ecosemiotic and experiential approach. Biosemiotics, 5, 391–409.
93.
RizzolattiG.SinigagliaC. (2008). Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions and emotions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
94.
RowlandsM. (1999). The body in mind: Understanding cognitive processes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
95.
SartreJ-P. (2003). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. (Original work published 1943)
96.
SawyerR. K. (2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34, 148–165.
97.
SchiavioA. (2012). Constituting the musical object: A neurophenomenological perspective on musical research. Teorema, 13(3), 63–80.
98.
SchiavioA. (2014a). Music in (en)action: Sense-making and neurophenomenology of musical experience (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Sheffield, UK.
SchiavioA.CumminsF. (2015). An inter(en)active approach to musical agency and learning. In TimmersR.DibbenN.EitanZ.GranotR.MetcalfeT.SchiavioA.WilliamsonV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on the Multimodal Experience of Music. Sheffield, UK: The University of Sheffield.
101.
SchiavioA.MeninD. (2013). Embodied music cognition and the mediation technology: A critical review. Psychology of Music, 41(6), 804–814.
102.
SchiavioA.MeninD.MatyjaJ. (2014). Music in the flesh: Embodied simulation in musical understanding. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind and Brain, 24(4), 340–343.
103.
SchoberM.SpiroN. (2014). Jazz improvisers’ shared understanding: A case study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 808. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00808
104.
SchöglerB. (1999–2000). Studying temporal co-ordination in jazz duets. Musicae Scientiae, 3(1, Suppl.), 75–91.
105.
SeddonF.BiasuttiM. (2009). Modes of communication between members of a string quartet. Small Group Research, 40(2), 115–137.
106.
SlobodaJ. A. (1985). The musical mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
109.
SuttonJ.McIlwainD.ChristensenW.GeevesA. (2011). Applying intelligence to the reflexes: Embodied skills and habits between Dreyfus and Descartes. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 42(1), 78–103.
110.
TanS. L.PfordrescherP.HarréR. (2010). Psychology of music: From sound to significance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
111.
ThelenE.SmithL.B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
112.
ThompsonE. (2005). Sensorimotor subjectivity and the enactive approach to experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 407–427.
113.
ThompsonE. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
114.
ThompsonE.StapletonM. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23–30.
115.
Van GelderT. (1995). What might cognition be, if not computation?Journal of Philosophy, 92(7),345–381.
116.
Van ManenM. (1990). Researching lived experience. New York: State University of New York Press.
117.
VarelaF. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.
118.
VarelaF.RoschE.ThompsonE. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
WilliamonA.DavidsonJ. (2002). Exploring co-performer communication. Musicae Scientiae, 6(1), 53–72.
121.
WindsorW. L.de BézenacC. (2012). Music and affordances. Musicae Scientiae, 16(1), 102–120.
122.
ZahaviD. (2010). Empathy, embodiment and interpersonal understanding: From Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry, 53(3), 285–306.
123.
ZahaviD. (2014). Self and other: Exploring subjectivity, Empathy, and shame. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
124.
ZahaviD.OvergaardS. (2012). Empathy without isomorphism: A phenomenological account. In DecetyJ. (Ed.), Empathy: From bench to bedside (pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
