Sponsoring Committee: Project Advisor Dr. Anton Vishio, Dr.

Timothy Newman,

Dr. Carol Frierson-Campbell, Dr. David Demsey, Dr. Michael Gordon

W
AN INVESTIGATION INTO JAZZ IMPROVISERS’ COGNITION IN FAMILIAR AND

UNFAMILIAR GROUP SETTINGS

IE
EV
Seyeon Chang
장세연

Program in Jazz Performance

PR

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

I would love to give my deepest gratitude to:

Dr. Anton Vishio, Dr. Timothy Newman and Dr. Carol Frierson-Campbell as committee.

Dr. David Demsey, Dr. Michael Gordon and Joe McCaffrey as readers.

Brian Dacey, Jake Michaud and Henryk Kress as editors.

The six participants for the actual study and four participants for the pilot study.

Joe Lovano, Aaron Goldberg and Cecil Bridgewater.

W
KAIST friends including Youngsuk Kim, Jisup Shim and Seungki Kim.

Teachers including Dr. Phil and Hoyeon Choi.

IE
Professors in William Paterson University including Bill Charlap and Pete McGuiness.

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

Shin-Young Lee, Seungjoo Lee, Kyungmi Moon and Aarim Ryu.

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.

Alumni in Mokwon University including Joonhyung Lee and Chankyeong Song.

People in South Korea including Hyunjo Won, Dahae Kim, Chanyoung Kim, Habin Park,

Dowan Kim, Yeondam Lee and Eunseong Park.

Family including Heungmin Chang, Eunsook Cho, Serin Chang, Sehun Chang,

Younghee Kim and Taehwa Chang.

The unconditional love of God.

 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

CHAPTER:

I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

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

Methods and Procedures 10

Pilot Study 10
Main Study 11

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

V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 52

Familiarity & Unfamiliarity 52

Compatibility & Incompatibility 53

W
Professionalism 54
Thought & Emotion 54
Further Studies 55
Conclusions IE 56

REFERNCES 58
EV
APPENDICES 62

A INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS 62

Transcript with participant A – 1 62

PR

Transcript with participant A – 2 63

Transcript with participant A – 3 65
Transcript with participant B – 1 76
Transcript with participant B – 2 77
Transcript with participant B – 3 78
Transcript with participant C – 1 88
Transcript with participant C – 2 90
Transcript with participant C – 3 91
Transcript with participant D – 1 102
Transcript with participant D – 2 103
Transcript with participant D – 3 104
Transcript with participant E – 1 115
Transcript with participant E – 2 116
Transcript with participant E – 3 117

Continued
 vii

Transcript with participant F – 1 129

Transcript with participant F – 2 130
Transcript with participant F – 3 131

B CONSENT FORMS 142

First interview questions 143

Second interview questions 145

W
IE
EV
PR
 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Background

Improvisation is, in essence, the process of creating new ideas in response to an

environment or situation. It is also a matter of attitude: the willingness to extemporize something

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

and conventions of communication in improvisation (Berkowitz, 2009, p. 15). The structure is

IE
determined by musical elements such as rhythm, harmony and the form of the tunes, and can be

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,

p. 4; Pressing, 1987, 1998a).

Although improvisation takes place within the framework of various constraints, it is

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

interaction with other people. To investigate this interaction, it is important to do research on

 2

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

further research connecting improvisation and cognitive science.

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,

improvisation happens within many different group settings.

EV
In this chapter, several prominent studies related to three important categories were

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

the topic. First, we review some definitions of improvisation.

Some Definitions of Improvisation

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

psychological phenomenon. Some scholars have begun to explore improvisation as a

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, has recently been interested in the relationship between improvisation,

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

language of jazz (p. 150).

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

concepts during group improvisation.

IE
Jazz Improvisation and Cognition
EV
In the field of cognition, creativity and memory processes have been studied for some

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”

(Pressing, 1998, p. 52 as cited by Berkowitz, 2009, pp. 19-20).

The referent is just part of the broader knowledge base essential for improvisation.

Pressing defined the knowledge base as follows:

Improvisational fluency arises from the creation, maintenance and enrichment of an

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

expressive elements that are recognized in performance.

PR

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

exploration, process-oriented improvisation, and product-oriented improvisation and presents a

practical model of how to approach each level in terms of teaching improvisation.

 8

Interviews and Experiments

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

cultural meanings and ideologies they reveal.

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,

and that eventually a neurological foundation common to both might be discovered.

W
IE
EV
PR
 10

CHAPTER III

METHODS

Methods and Procedures

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

participants performed in a recording studio in William Paterson University, and an audio-visual

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

was made of each performance.

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

some musical interactions before improvising or while improvising?

 13

Table I. Participant details.

Participant Instrument Status Notes

A Alto saxophone Professional Over 20 years professional

B Contrabass Professional experience

Over 20 years professional

experience

C Vibraphone/Drums Professional Over 20 years professional

D Guitar Professional experience

W
6 years professional experience

E Tenor Saxophone Graduate Student 2nd year in WPU M.M. in Jazz

IE Composition & Arranging

F Drums Undergraduate Senior in WPU B.M. in Jazz

EV
Student Performance
PR

Table II. Settings for the First Round

Duo Participant

1 A

2 C

3 E

F
 14

Table III. Settings for the Second Round

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?

1-2. How quickly were you able to respond to each other?

PR

1-3. Were your responses instinctive, or consciously considered?

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,

plus two additional ones:

2-1. Did you feel a connection with the other musician while improvising?

2-2. How quickly were you able to respond to each other?

2-3. Were your responses instinctive, or consciously considered?

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

during your performance?

EV
2-6. What specific interactions did you expect from the other improviser while you were

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

played with for the first time?

2-9. In which duo did you feel more comfortable?

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