Category: Science/Technology

Weekend Picks

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

Here’s another link dump of music related stuff on the web for your surfing pleasure this weekend.

The Many Killers of the Music Industry, by Tim Cushing writing for TechDirt. It’s in two parts, The Analog Era and The Digital Era.

Looking for a pithy quote from a jazz musician to win that online argument you’ve been having? Look no further, you can find it here. “What I’m dealing with is so vast and great that it can’t be called the truth. It’s above the truth.” – Sun Ra

Are you a contemporary classical composer and need to put together a composer’s statement? Don’t fret, you can use the The Contemporary Classical Composer’s Bullshit Generator to throw one together in no time. “Unlike traditional improvisations, I aim to develop illusions, including a highly polyrhythmic arrangement that explores all notions of progressive noises.”

And lastly, take a few minutes and watch the story of Harry, a racist barber in the 1930s whose life changes after the arrival of  a magical trumpet.

Swing of Change from Swing of Change on Vimeo.

Research on Neck Dilation in Wind Musicians

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

I always find the intersection between science and art interesting. If you have a few minutes please consider filling out an anonymous survey to help conduct research into how a neck puff affects wind musicians.

Donald Reinhardt wrote about a neck puff in the Encyclopedia of the Pivot System. He felt that was a particularly bad problem to have and was caused by one of or a combination of the following.

  1. Bottling up the air and delaying the initial attack.
  2. Protruding the abdominal regions while ascending.
  3. Overbreathing.
  4. Too much embouchure compression causing the air to bottle up at the lips.
  5. Arching the tongue at the wrong level for the pitch being played.
  6. Poor embouchure development
  7. A too small and too shallow mouthpiece for the player.

Reinhardt put together an exercise he recommended to help players reduce or eliminate a neck puff. He wrote:

  1. Compress your lips so that they are touching very lightly. Slowly push your compressed embouchure formation as far forward and away from your teeth as possible; then, bring your compressed embouchure formation back as far as possible into an exaggerated smiling position. Your neck muscles should retain excessive tension throughout the forward and backward motion. Execute a normal inhalation. Repeat this entire process about ten times. Increase this total by adding two or more repeats every day or so.
  2. Slowly open your mouth as far as possible and make certain that tension can be felt in your neck muscles. Bite down slowly and deliberately and retain the muscular tension in your neck throughout. Do not permit your teeth to clash together while closing them. Execute a normal inhalation. Repeat this entire process about ten times. Increase this total by adding two or more repeats every day or so.
  3. Slowly push your jaw as far forward as you possibly can without straining. retain this protruded jaw position with the prescribed neck tension for a few seconds – then rest for several moments. Execute a normal inhalation.  Repeat this entire process about ten times. Increase this total by adding two or more repeats every day or so.

– Donald S. Rienhardt, Encyclopedia of the Pivot System, p. 69

It only takes a few minutes at most to complete the survey, so please help the cause and fill it out. Even if you’ve never had problems with a neck puff before.

Can You Tell the Strad?

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

An old one, but a good example of how even experts fool themselves. Get a room full of concert violinists and have them play 6 different instruments. 3 would by “old Italian” instruments by Stradivari and Guarneri. 3 were modern instruments. Do you think that the professionals would be able to tell the modern instruments from the older ones? Research designer Claudia Fritz set up her experiment to test just that.

When Fritz asked the players which violins they’d like to take home, almost two-thirds chose a violin that turned out to be new. She’s found the same in tests with other musical instruments. “I haven’t found any consistency whatsoever,” she says. “Never. People don’t agree. They just like different things.”

It’s another example of how hard it is to be objective when judging something musical. We all have different tastes and different ways of thinking about music and this helps define our subjective musical experiences. It’s almost impossible to separate ourselves from our preferences and expectations. For Fritz, this opens up a different area to explore.

“People looked at the violin, tried to understand how it vibrates, what are the mechanics behind it,” she says of past research. “But nobody has really looked at the human side.” She says her research is aimed at determining how people choose what they like, and what criteria they use.

If our cognitive biases influence us so much as to how we talk about our equipment, how much of how we discuss practice methods and pedagogical materials is similarly biased? A couple of days ago I discussed a device that is supposed to help brass players develop a better embouchure. Is an individual’s success with such a device also going to depend on their expectations and beliefs?

It would be nice to believe that we are able to rise above these tendencies, but the research shows that we really can’t help it. A humbling thought.

On Metronome Practice and Logic Based Teaching Methods

~ wilktone ~ 26 Comments

Back in September I wrote a post here on Practicing with a Metronome in response to a blog post by Mike Longo entitled Should You Practice Jazz With A Metronome? While I agree with many of Mike’s points about the cons of metronome practice, my main criticism is his emphatic dismissal of any metronome use at all limits teachers and students by  completely removing a potentially useful tool from their bag of tricks.

Since then, Mike and a couple of others (including at least one student of Mike’s) have stopped by with comments to try to further debate the idea that metronome practice will always produce a soulless and stiff feeling pulse. Since many of their comments really don’t address the points I was trying to make and also rely on some fallacious logic, I wanted to write a new post to try to discuss this further. So while this post is superficially about metronome practice, it’s really more about the inconsistent logic we often use to determine what the best teaching methods are for a particular situation.

Mike commented:

Here is the main point I would like to make. Dizzy Gillespie once made a point about the role of body rhythm being an important factor overlooked by many jazz educators. He would say that he can tell if a player can really play by observing the way that they pat their foot.

Addressing the above point, I would agree that coordinating our bodies to play is essential. Tapping the foot is an excellent way to get the feeling of the tempo internalized, for example. Even though some classical music teachers discourage this practice, I’m fine with it. Sure, looking up at a stage of a concert band or orchestra where everyone is tapping their foot can be visually distracting, but there are ways to tap your foot that are less obtrusive and if it helps the music sound better I’m willing to let it go. That said, tapping the foot to play isn’t a panacea for tempo or groove problems. Watch enough students tap their foot while practicing a passage and you’ll note that sometimes when they get to a difficult passage they still change tempos – they just change their foot along with their playing.

Furthermore, from a logical standpoint, just because an innovative musician told you that tapping the foot was better than using a metronome to practice doesn’t mean we can believe that it must be correct (see argument from authority). Ideas need to stand on their own merit, not be based on who said them. If a general consensus is found among experts it’s fair to assume that an idea is correct, but in this case the general consensus among musicians and music teachers is that a metronome can be useful at times. Many great jazz musicians advocated practicing with a metronome, including Lennie Tristano, Pat Metheny, Kurt Rosenwinkle, John Patitucci, Dennis DiBlasio, and Hal Crook. Going back and forth about whose expert has the right approach is pointless if you don’t directly address the logic behind these recommendations.

Mike continues:

 In terms of my opinions concerning practice with the metronome on 2 and 4, one must consider where the 2 and 4 thing originated in jazz. The answer is hand clapping in the black church. If one observes a gospel choir clapping on 2 and 4 and notes the way they are moving their bodies, I defy anyone to prove that a metronome on 2 and 4 can produce that feel or teach a musician how to get that feeling of swing in their playing. In fact I would go so far IMHO to say that musicians who engage in this practice are training themselves to play wrong.

The gospel music sung by African Americans in around the turn of the last century is quite a bit different from the syncopated music we hear today. The texture was largely heterophonic and the music didn’t have the characteristic 2 and 4 accent we associate with jazz.

The historical evolution of the groove that evolved into the swing feeling with 2 and 4 accents is too complex to get into for this essay, but if anyone is interested I suggest that you compare the New Orleans early jazz styles of the 1920s to how it evolved when the music and people migrated up to Chicago. Then compare it to the swing bands from Kansas City and New York. You will be able to hear an evolution of how the groove shifted from a more or less even stress on all four beats to become the standard swing feeling we have today (and of course, you can continue to trace how this groove shifts throughout different style periods).

Regardless, the origins of how a particular musical style evolved doesn’t really say anything about the results that a student might get from a particular practice method. I would agree with Mike that if you don’t spend time performing with great musicians who have a steady pulse and soulful groove you’re not going to be able to pick this up by playing along with a metronome. That doesn’t mean that at times in individual practice that a metronome is going to harm your ability to swing. Certainly if you never practice without a metronome you’re missing the point. And it’s certainly possible for some musicians to achieve a solid swing feel without ever needing to turn on a metronome. None of that really addresses whether or not a metronome may be useful for certain issues in a student’s personal practice.

As far as teaching how to keep good time, it is my contention that a metronome is not the kind of time music is played to. Is there an alternative?

There is no question that there are alternative methods to teaching a student to keep good time without using a metronome and that these approaches have value. What I’m arguing against is limiting our teaching to only one approach.

The other issue I have with Mike’s point here is that practicing with a metronome isn’t so much about teaching good time, but for providing feedback to a student who isn’t keeping good time.

I’ve found that most students, even the beginners I work with, are quite capable of keeping a steady pulse just by clapping or tapping their foot. But music students will often find their time to suffer when they have too much to think about at the same time. We really can’t keep our attention on more than one or two things at a time and if one thing isn’t completely internalized it can suffer when our focus is pulled away from it. As an example, students who don’t have the tempo internalized will often rush when the music gets louder or more rhythmically active. It’s also quite common for musicians to drag when playing softer and when the texture gets less active. I’ve found it quite helpful to use a metronome in these cases to help students become more aware of the tempo in these situations because the click provides them with instant feedback when they start changing their tempo. Likewise, when a passage becomes a challenge for the musician’s technique it’s very common for the tempo to slow down. Using a metronome that will accent certain beats in a metric pattern or a basic click on 2 and 4 can be used for feedback on whether or not they are dropping beats, which can be common when students are reading very challenging lines. Learning to play very challenging passages at a fast tempo can be learned very efficiently by using a metronome to start very slowly and gradually speeding up the tempo until the passage can be played correctly as fast as desired.

Is it musical to play with a metronome this way? Not really. That’s not the point of the exercise. Music students practice all sorts of things that have little musical value (Hanon finger exercises, long tones, scales, chord arpeggios, technical etudes, etc.). The purpose is to get whatever you’re working on so comfortable that you no longer have to think about it and can concentrate on playing musically when it counts.

Or another approach you can think of is if you can groove with a metronome click, think of how hard you’ll swing when you turn it off and jam with live musicians.

This was instigated by a prominent psychotherapist in that area by the name of Andrew Schoenfeld along with saxophonist Benny Wallace, both of whom were private students of mine at one point. As a matter of fact, Mr. Schoenfeld has been using the drum technique with his patients with a great amount of success and even has reported curing some of bipolar disease with it.

I tend to avoid discussing medical issues here and when I do I always want to lead with the statement that I am not a medical professional and in no way should anything I say be taken for medical advice. Nor should you assume that anything I write about health is correct. Check with your family doctor or another medical professional. Never get your medical advice from the internet.

Now that that’s out of the way, let me first state that Mike’s portrayal of Mr. Schoenfeld’s social work as “curing” bipolar disorder is most likely a great exaggeration. The National Institute of Medical Health statement on bipolar disorder says:

Bipolar disorder cannot be cured, but it can be treated effectively over the long-term.

However, I’m a big advocate of research-based music therapy and I think that it’s certainly plausible that musical activities can be used to help individuals with bipolar disorder treat the symptoms they live with.

All that aside now, what does music therapy have to do with practicing with a metronome? If medical treatments constituted as evidence for what is best for musical practice then there is likely more evidence for using a metronome than not. A cursory search through medical literature available online shows that a metronome has been found to be helpful for treating symptoms of stuttering, Parkinson’s disease, ADHD, hypertension, walking issues due to a stroke, and much more. None of this really says anything about whether or not we might find a metronome to be helpful in certain musical teaching situations.

Since the field of jazz academia, to my knowledge, is presently unaware of these principles I feel it necessary to call attention to this statement. “in determining best practice for teaching it’s been shown that a more scientific outlook will produce better, more consistent results with our students” This leads me to ask the question, “Science based on what?” I would consider what Diz made reference to be in fact Science. Maybe not as defined in the world of academia but surely in the world of professional jazz by the people who play it and teach it from that perspective.

We can’t redefine words like “science” to mean whatever we want it to in order to support an agenda. If it helps, reword my statement to say that “research based methods will produce more consistent teaching.” Research done correctly applies certain controls to a particular hypothesis (i.e., metronome practice will automatically produce a stiff feeling groove) and attempt to falsify your idea. You don’t do science by looking for evidence that supports what you believe, you attempt to shoot it down. If it withstands the scrutiny, then you’re perhaps on to something.

The reason we go through this effort in teaching is because of the cognitive bias that we all have.

“Cognitive Bias????” For one thing the music played by Dizzy Gillespie and his followers does not involve the mind. It comes from a place behind the mind… A “magical” place, if you will, and a place, IMHO, that practicing jazz with a metronome will render a student unable to ever achieve.

I’m a fan of using poetic language to help convey musical concepts to my students too, but ultimately I try to recognize when I’m speaking metaphorically and when I’m being precise. If you want to teach that music is outside of the mind and from a magical place, that’s fine, but you can’t invoke this as evidence because it is patently not true.

Since you accused me of “creating another false dichotomy” at the beginning of your article and since you are unaware of these principles your statement appears to me to be the result of projection. Who then is “fooling themselves?” Further I don’t see where this dichotomy you perceive is false but very real IMO.

I think perhaps I’m not being very clear on explaining my thoughts on metronome practice, but I also think that possibly Mike does not understand what a “false dichotomy” is. This logical fallacy is created when a situation is manufactured where only two extreme positions are listed as the only viable options, leaving out the possibility for a combination of both or other additional options.

I have never stated here or on my other post that I think metronome practice is the be all and end of learning to play with good swing. In fact, I have acknowledged many times that Mike’s points about the detriments of relying on a metronome should be kept in mind. The false dichotomy Mike has created is that because of the drawbacks to metronome practice exist there are no situations where a metronome might be helpful. The fact that one can get by without a metronome doesn’t mean that careful and correct use of a metronome at times might not be helpful. Nor does my recommending that a metronome can be helpful mean that I don’t think other approaches have validity and aren’t worth exploring.

Students are infinitely variable. Some students will need different approaches or explanations to grasp the same concepts. Anyone who has taught for long enough will also be familiar with how the exact same student can sometimes respond great to one method only to require changing our instruction up at another time. As I’m fond of saying here, if the only tool in our toolbox is a hammer every problem begins to look like a nail.

This leads me to another of your statements: “we musicians are trained to trust our feelings, experiences, and intuitions. This is a good thing because it helps us become better musicians.” To me, feelings, experiences and intuitions without reality can be very misleading and furthermore if exposed to one of Dizzy’s revelations can change in an instance.

Again, this misses my point about cognitive bias and research based methods. Mike is taking his personal experiences and making the leap to assume that his own background must be true for everyone. I can also list some personal experiences that contrast his. Which of us should one believe? Neither, without making an effort to remove our personal agendas from the equation.

One of Mike’s students, Angelo, made the same logical error:

I would like to offer my background and personal experience with Mike for you consideration.

. . .

I started studying music theory with a teacher, and for the first time in my life, used a metronome.

. . .

Years later I was living in New York City and looking to study composition and arrangement. After meeting with numerous teachers that were presenting me with the same common material over and over, I was given Mike’s name and number. When I met with him for my first lesson I immediately knew I had found what I was looking for. His approach to music was a revelation to me and at the end of my first lesson I asked if I should use a metronome when practicing. His response was “Why would you do that?” As he explained the difference between a click and a pulse feel I immediately recognized what had happened to me years earlier with the drummer and bass player.

I was only studying with Mike for a short while when I got together with a friend that I’ve been playing with for over 30 years. . . He immediately recognized a difference and improvement in my playing.

Now in no way do I want anyone to think that I’m disparaging what Mike taught you. There is definitely a benefit to this approach and in fact I would also agree that it’s essential for developing a good time feel and groove. That said, this is a common fallacy that I hear many folks make all the time. Here it is again, this time made by Mike.

A guitar student who came to me three months ago a nervous wreck because he claimed he had a “time problem.” It turned out his former teacher had him practicing with the metronome on 2 and 4 and he was getting put down by all of the musicians with whom he was playing, particularly a Brazilian drummer, and losing gigs. He came to his lesson yesterday and related to me that the drummer shook his hand after the gig the night before and called him Maestro.

It’s very common for musicians to say variations on the above. You will frequently here someone say something like “I practiced X over and over and didn’t get better. It wasn’t until I forgot about X and went to Y that I suddenly found my way.” What this completely forgets is that X might just have been a necessary step along the progression. Going back to what I wrote far above in this post, using a metronome might not have developed good time, but could just have helped the student internalize certain issues to the point of where forgetting all about the metronome click and going on to something else would be that much more beneficial. This may not always be the case for all situations, but it’s an important area to consider when we’re trying to determine the best way to help a student.

Testimonials, like those above, may be very good for selling books and DVDs, but their anecdotal nature make them extremely unreliable as real evidence. No matter how many positive testimonials you have, they still can’t be used in research-based approaches because of the inherent bias they carry.

I might also mention that the metronome wasn’t invented until Beethoven’s time so I feel sorry for all those sad musicians before him who must have had time problems including Bach, Mozart, Handel, and on and on.

In any honest discussion I think it’s important to only address points actually made by those we’re debating. Creating a “straw man argument” against which you can easily refute doesn’t benefit anyone. I never said that a metronome is the only way to develop good time feel. Again, this is a false dichotomy by reducing my argument to using a metronome is the only way and Mike’s way must therefor be ineffective. I actually advocate a combination of both metronome use for certain situations and then always moving on to internalizing the time feeling and concentrating on musical expression.

There is a story about Beethoven smashing the metronome against the wall and proclaiming, “This is not music!” This was related to me by a musician so I am not sure is it is a true story but if it is Beethoven was surly an extremist.

This story is almost certainly apocryphal. Beethoven was known for writing metronome markings in his music, so he was certainly not opposed to using one for the purpose of finding tempos. Additionally, while the metronome was invented around from the early 1700s, by the time that Johann Maezel patented it in 1815 Beethoven was almost completely deaf and wouldn’t have been capable of hearing a metronome click. Furthermore, Mike is again creating a straw man by implying I feel a metronome click to be musically expressive. It’s not. Or at least not unless you count pieces like György Ligeti’s Poème Symphonique for 100 Metronomes.

Since you have not bothered to check out where I am coming from you undoubtedly will continue to consider me to have an extreme perspective.

I want to reiterate that I don’t find Mike’s alternative to metronome practice extreme or something to avoid altogether. What I find extreme is his dismissal of any other approach as having some validity. Again, there are many different approaches that music teachers can take according to the situation and needs of the individual student and it’s my contention that the best teachers are able to draw from a variety of approaches.

As far as pros and cons of metronome use I will say that there is an alternative approach with evidence to back it up that has led me and students to conclude that there are no pros.

Simply because alternative approaches exists and that these methods are helpful doesn’t mean that we should automatically dismiss the metronome. There are definitely good reasons for avoiding a metronome at times, but there is a vast majority opinion among musicians and music teachers that a metronome, when correctly used for specific issues, can be quite effective for helping a student work out problems that cause time issues.

For anyone who is curious exploring ideas on how to best use a metronome, a good general discussion can be found on the Wikipedia entry on metronome practice. I’ll close this post by quoting a passage from this entry, with my bold emphasis to illustrate my basic point.

The “intuitive” approach to metronome practise, is to simply play your music along with a metronome. With metronome technique however, musicians do separate exercises with a metronome to help strengthen and steady their sense of rhythm, and tempo; and increase their sensitivity to musical time and precision. Only occasionally do you play your music with a metronome, to deal with particular issues. It is entirely possible that you never play your music with a metronome at all.

Link Between Music and Language

~ wilktone ~ 2 Comments

I’ve written before about Dr. Charles Limb’s research using an fMRI scanner to study the brains of jazz musicians while in the act of improvisation. He’s now published some new research that, according to the editor who wrote the headline, supports the language/music link in our brain. He conducted his research by designing keyboards without any metal and scanning the brains of jazz pianists playing scales and trading fours.

That conversation-like improvisation activated brain areas that normally process the syntax of language, the way that words are put together into phrases and sentences. Even between their turns playing, the brain wasn’t resting. The musicians were processing what they were hearing to come up with new sounds that were a good fit.

At the same time, certain other regions of the brain involved with language — those that process the meaning of words — were tuned down, Limb found.

If I recall correctly, similar research showed that when musicians listen to or perform music certain regions in the brain, such as the areas that process vision, are less active than normal. The speculation was that it helps the musician focus on the aural feedback better. These results seems similar in that the regions of the brain responsible for processing language become less active.

What confuses me at this point is how this shows a link between music and language, since different regions in the brain are responsible for a spoken conversation as opposed to a musical conversation. It’s possible that something was left out of the news article, but I know also that editors tend to write the title and frequently choose a misleading headline in order to get readers to click the link. Without going to Limb’s original article, which I’m sure is quite technical and written for neuroscientists, not musicians, it’s hard to say. Either way, it’s another fascinating intersection of music and science.

Aural Illusions

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

Many of us are familiar with visual illusions that trick your eyes (or rather, your brain) into thinking it’s seeing something different than what’s really there (for example, square A and square B are exactly the same color in the image to the right). But are you familiar with some of the aural illusions that have been discovered? Meara O’Reilly has a bunch up on her web site.

Meara O’Reilly is a sound artist and educator, in residence at the Exploratorium. Current ongoing projects include a curated collection of auditory illusions as found in indigenous folk music traditions, as well as adapting more scientifically established auditory illusions to be presented on homemade acoustic instruments.

The Shepard tone is one of the best known aural illusions. Because each pitch consists of multiple octaves when a continuous scale is played it creates the illusion that the scale isn’t going higher or lower.

The Wessel Illusion was a new one to me.

The Wessel Illusion demonstrates how timbre can determine the way in which we perceptually group notes in a melody.

Three notes, rising in pitch but alternating in timbre, are played slowly. When this sequence is played faster, it’s possible to hear the trajectory of the melody change.

There are a whole bunch of other aural illusions and other neat things to explore over at O’Reilly’s web site. Some neat musical examples as well as the basic illusions. Check them out further here.

Science and Musical Thinking

~ wilktone ~ 1 Comment

I’ve long been interested in how science can inform what musicians do. Like others, I also make music with a lot of folks who have STEM careers (math teacher, pharmacist, surgeon, neurologist, rocket science engineer). Robert S. Root-Bernstein did some review of the literature on this and has some interesting ideas on this matter. To set up his thesis he writes of a fictional orchestral concert announcement:

This has been a very special concert in ways in which most of you are probably unaware. Everything about this concert is permeated with science. I, myself, am an expert in insects. The entire orchestra is made up of scientists and physicians. Indeed, you may well know that “doctor’s symphonies” exist in most major cities in the United States. But most importantly, all of the composers whose music we have played tonight also have ties to science. Herschel was perhaps the most famous astronomer of the early nineteenth century and some of his compositions have recently been recorded on the Newport Classics label. Berlioz was a practicing physician; Borodin was a Professor of Chemistry who pursued two professional careers simultaneously throughout his life; Ansermet trained as a mathematician and taught mathematics at the University of Lausanne before turning his attention solely to music. Iannis Xenakis is also a mathematician, who adds to his accomplishments those of a practicing architect, and he has written extensively on the interconnections between the arts and sciences. Elgar not only had a private chemistry laboratory, but actually filed a patent for a process for producing hydrogen sulfide. Bing is a cardiologist and medical researcher of international repute who has been awarded such international prizes as the Claude Bernard Medal for his scientific work.

Root-Bernstein hypothesis that the apparent correlation between music and the sciences to be contradictory to Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theories, which are currently in vogue in education and academia. In contrast to Gardner, Root-Bernstein proposes that musical thinking is an advantage to scientific problem solving.

I, on the other hand, believe that creative thinking is trans-disciplinary and transferable from one field to another. More specifically, I believe that musical and scientific abilities are what I call “correlative talents”. By correlative talents, I mean skills or abilities in several different areas that can be integrated to yield surprising and effective results. Skills associated with music–pattern-forming and pattern recognition, kinesthetic ability, imaging, aesthetic sensibility, analogizing and analysis–and indeed an understanding of music itself–have often been important components of the correlative talents of many famous scientists. One way to summarize my basic thesis would be to say that correlative talents represent harmonious ensembles of skills that enable musical scientists to “duet” better.

His arguments are compelling, if largely anecdotal. The most interesting thing to me, however, is the idea that a scientific viewpoint might also be equally helpful for great musicians. While I can think of several professional musicians who are interested in sciences, there is a cultural belief in some circles that music is an Art (definitely with a capital A) and its goal is to reach that realm of the human experience that science just isn’t capable of understanding (according to them).

Regular readers probably already know that I fall down on the side of science here. I’m a big science fan and have personally found a little scientific method applied to artistic problems are often quite helpful.

What about your own interests and strengths? How many of you musicians have a science or math background? Do you make your living as a musician or do you have STEM career? Do you think that scientific thinking can be advantageous for musical creativity?

 

Citogensis

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

Last week I got an email from a graduate student looking for help with a reference I made in one of my blog posts. Since the specific quote itself was by a humorist, not a musicologist, I recommended he find another source. His response was the humor was ok in “Academia” and would I please send him the page number to complete his citation. Unfortunately, he seemed to miss my other point – you should always go to the original source and confirm that what you’re reading is accurate. This xkcd cartoon offers a perfect illustration for why.

xkcd: Citogenesis

While I would like to imagine that my writing is a good resource, I wouldn’t recommend anyone cite this blog or any of my quotations without verifying the information. Even in those areas where I have some academic expertise I like to recommend that everyone not take my word for indisputable fact, but do your own research and look for yourself.

A Review of Implicit and Explicit Learning Strategies in the Development of Motor Skills and its Application To Teaching Instrumental Technique

~ wilktone ~ 1 Comment

Frequently in online conversations, and sometimes in person, a discussion about teaching instrumental technique to music students gets broken down into two extreme ends. The more popular, exemplified by Arnold Jacobs’ so-called “song and wind” approach, is that when a musical goal is kept first and foremost in mind that instrumental technique will fix itself. A second, more controversial approach is to teach the music student about the process of playing an instrument and consciously practice the motor skills needed for good instrumental technique. Scientists who study human performance call the former an “implicit” approach to learning a motor skill where as the later is known as an “explicit” approach.

There has been a fair amount of published research investigating and comparing these two teaching methods. One of the most widely published authors on this topic is R.S.W. Masters. In a number of studies Masters (1992, 2000, 2009, 2011) tested subjects who were taught various skills (golf putting, for example) through implicit instructions (goal oriented) as opposed to explicit instructions (learning the “rules” on how to putt correctly). Such research, replicated with different tasks by others, suggests that when these two approaches are used exclusively that the implicit instructions provide better results. Implicit learners were also found to perform the task better when subjected to distracting stimuli or situations designed to provide a stressful situation.

However, this research may be misleading and there may be some methodological flaws in Master’s research. For example, test subjects who were taught an explicit approach to learning a motor skill were generally presented with instructions all at once, as opposed to breaking down each step of the process into manageable chunks where each individual step is mastered before moving on to the next step. Other authors (Willingham and Dumas, 1997) found that a year after receiving implicit instruction on a task subjects performed no better than a control group that had no instruction at all, however some attempts to replicate this research has produced conflicting results.

A further issue in interpreting this research is that most teachers and coaches don’t separate their instructions into such an  false dichotomy between these two extreme approaches. Rather, most individuals employ a combination of implicit and explicit instruction. Researchers using transcranial magnetic stimulation to map brain regions demonstrated that implicit practice showed gradual activity in areas in the brain associated with explicit learning as well, until subjects achieved explicit knowledge of the task when brain activity returned to its base line (Pascual-Leone, et al., 1994). Similarly, Willingham and Goedert-Eschmann (1999) point out that while functional MRI studies indicate that motor skill development may be purely implicitly or explicitly developed, their experimental study showed that when presented with a random task, subjects in the explicit group demonstrated similar sequential knowledge to those in the implicit group.

Other research suggests that a combination of implicit and explicit learning may make for the most effective method for motor skill development. Lola, Tzetzis, and Zetou (2012) conducted a study comparing four groups’ abilities to make important decisions while serving a volleyball. Their analysis showed that all groups improved over time, excepting the control group who simply performed the assessments. The implicit group outperformed the explicit group, however the group that was instructed through a combination of the two was faster and more accurate than both. Mazzoni and Wexler (2009) investigated a similar research question and also found that subjects who engaged in both implicit and explicit motor control during assessments performed without degradation compared to groups that used explicit or implicit control alone.

One difficulty in interpreting this information for the music teacher is that most of the scientific literature on this topic deals with either an athletic skill or on some task designed to test the performance of motor skills (such as a random button pushing task). However, there has been some research conducted specifically looking at how music students learn instrumental technique best.

Rosenthal (1984) conducted research looking at the effects modeling and verbal instructions had on expert musician’s abilities to perform a challenging passage. She found that the group given a model only outperformed groups given only verbal instructions, both a model and verbal instructions, or practice only. Rosenthal’s research would appear to support above mentioned studies that find implicit learning to be superior to explicit learning. However, Rosenthal’s results conflict with other research showing the combination of both may provide the better results than an implicit or explicit approach alone (Mazzoni and Wexler , 2009 and Lola, Tzetzis, & Zetou, 2011). Kennell (1989) devised an experiment that used a similar approach to Rosenthal’s yet found slightly different results. Using three different experimental treatments, his results suggested that the effectiveness of a teaching strategy may be related to the context of the situation. He hypothesized that instruction marking critical features would be best for reminding students of skills they have already learned, demonstration would be more beneficial for learning new concepts, and task manipulation best for building new skills (Kennell, 2002, p. 249).

Making specific recommendations for music pedagogy based on the currently available research is challenging for a variety of reasons. The first issue that must be taken into account is that most of the available research explores either tasks associated with sports or tasks specifically designed to measure motor control. It is likely that the results of most of these studies will also apply to the motor skill development needed for musical technique, however the lack of research that specifically looks at musical skills makes it difficult to be certain that this is the case. Much of the research relied on visual stimulation, rather than aural stimulation, and it is possible that this change in feedback can alter the benefits or drawbacks to teaching strategies.

While implicit learning has the consensus supporting its benefits over explicit learning, it should be noted that a lot of the recent publications have been done by a limited number of researchers, specifically Masters (8 publications cited in this paper) and Maxwell (5 cited publications). Additionally, replication of their research produced inconsistent results, in spite of later studies by Maxwell, et al. that attempt to correct for methodological issues and replicate their original work. Before these results can be accepted with widespread authority they will need to withstand more peer review and replication by other researchers.

Other areas of caution in applying this research to music instruction involve the ability levels of test subjects, the length of retention, and the specific nature of improvement on a motor skill. The majority of research comparing implicit and explicit learning uses novices as test subjects, yet much music education deals with students who have been studying their instrument for years or even decades. Some of the literature indicates that the type of instruction most effective depends on the particular stage of development a subject is in (Pascual-Leone, et al., 1994 and Willingham & Goedert- Eschmann, 1999) or the specific task being practiced (Lagarde, et al., 2002 and Kennell, 1989). These findings imply that musical instruction related to motor skill development needs to take the student’s current stage of development into account, as well as the specific skill being learned.

Very little research has been done investigating the longevity of motor skills beyond a single year, particularly in relation to expert performance. Wilson, and Roehmann (1992) do make note of research regarding injuries and disorders with expert musicians, such as focal task dystonia. Furthermore, it has been noted that issues such as embouchure dystonia typically manifest between the ages of 35 and 45 (Frucht, 2001 and Frucht, et al., 2009) Many individuals suffering from dystonic-like symptoms tend to be players who favor an implicit learning style (Kagarice, 2005). While implicit learning may show better short term effectiveness, prevention of injury or other related issues may be best done through the inclusion of explicit instruction in correct instrumental mechanics.

In spite of the difficulties applying this research to music pedagogy, there are two statements that can be made with some confidence. First, it is clear that implicit learning strategies make for a powerful tool and music educators must be aware of how to make effective use of it. Instructing through analogies and goal-oriented processes are already widely used in music instruction and is exemplified through the “song and wind” approach advocated by Arnold Jacobs. Secondly, evidence suggests that implicit and explicit learning work in conjunction and parallel with each other, as suggested by Donald Reinhardt’s “Pivot System” approach. Music educators should become familiar with the situations where explicit instructions have the most potential benefit and learn how to use it effectively. This will not only ensure that students progress quickly and perform well under the pressure of a concert or audition situation, but can also have potential benefits for long term health and technique maintenance among professional musicians.

Lastly, it would be beneficial for the field of music education for more emphasis on research methodology and to encourage high level research specifically in the area of the development of musical technique. In part due to the over reliance on teaching implicitly through analogy and emphasizing expression over technique, many teachers have a weaker background in the explicit understanding of how they actually play their instrument. Furthermore, the very people who can most benefit from an improved understanding of the development of musical technique through the balance of implicit and explicit teaching strategies are the ones who will need to lead the way if greater understanding of these findings can be effectively applied to music pedagogy. Speaking on this very issue, Wilson and Roehmann wrote:

Most Ed.D. and D.M.A. Candidates will never engage in experimental research; they will teach and perform and teach others to teach and perform. Because they are in a unique position to observe student performers at all levels of ability and all stages of life, they can make an enormous contribution to clinical research. . . Although not every teacher-performer would be inclined to take on such are arduous task, and fewer still might commit themselves to it for the long haul, some would – and the effort would make a difference.

(Wilson & Roehmann, 1992, p. 520-521)

You can download the full paper I wrote on this topic, including complete references here.

My “Anti-Jacobs Stance” – A Clarification

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

YouTube user ChokatinSheepseki initiated a conversation on the comments section for my video Brass Embouchures: A Guide For Teachers and Players. Because YouTube limits the number of characters in each comment there it makes it very difficult to have an intellectual discussion there and it’s very easy to leave an erroneous impression. In an effort to respond to some of his comments and to offer ChokatinSheepseki a chance to more clearly and directly criticize my ideas I thought I’d post some more lengthy responses here. I’m going to pull some of his comments out of context in order to address a single topic at a time (you can read our whole exchange here in order).

You have it all backwards, and your anti-Jacobs stance simply makes you look all the more arrogant.

And in the next comment:

You appear to be taking an anti-Jacobs position in a desperate attempt to gain notoriety.

I was pretty surprised by the statement that I have an “anti-Jacobs stance.” I have offered some criticism to some specific ideas he has said about brass embouchures here, but  I direct that criticism to specific ideas that I believe to be factually inaccurate. In fact, in that same article I mentioned how much Jacobs has influenced me as a teacher and player and acknowledged how effective his “song and wind” approach can be. I merely am arguing that there are other tools that are useful and good teachers and players need to grow beyond a single teacher/player’s approach – particularly as new information becomes available.

A few years back you told me that you thought Jacobs was WRONG on many issues. Now you say that he had a profound influence on your teaching and practice.

I’m afraid I don’t recall the specific conversation ChokatinSheepseki is referring to. I participate in a number of brass forums as well as frequently reference Jacobs here. At any rate, I don’t see how commenting that Jacobs’ ideas on a particular aspect of his pedagogy needs revisions makes me “anti-Jacobs.”

I have an axe to grind when it comes to people who feel that they can gain some credibility by “taking on Jacobs” and being utterly disrespectful by posting a photo of spaghetti stuck to a wall in a cheap attempt to downplay the importance of breath, wind…whatever you want to call it. If that’s not arrogance, I don’t know what is. A CSO member would never behave like that, even if they were spot on with their “convictions.”

This is what is sometimes called a “straw man argument” (ironically also an ad hominem attack, the very thing that he is accusing me of). In this case, ChokatinSheepseki’s criticisms aren’t specifically against something I actually said, but a misrepresentation of my thoughts that is quite easy to criticize. In fact, in the very article he mentions I wrote the following:

“One of the reasons that this is such a popular pedagogical method is because it’s very effective. Putting attention on the musical expression does have a tendency to work out the kinks in a player’s technique. Efficient breathing is also an extremely important part of good brass technique.

Just so I’m clear here, I’m not advocating that we throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

In the video that ChokatinSheepseki’s comments on I said:

“Looking at the embouchure closely shouldn’t imply that breathing is unimportant to good brass playing, it definitely is. Breathing is, however, better understood by most teachers and therefore receives much more attention. I’m merely recommending we add another tool to our toolbox, not replace what’s already effective.”

That’s hardly downplaying the importance of breathing to brass playing.

For the record, I did use a photo of spaghetti splattered on the wall as an illustration for Jacobs’ statement he always addressed an embouchure issue with assignments of music. I made the analogy that without a good understanding of embouchure form you can end up unconsciously trying out so many different things in an effort to make a correction that in the process of fixing one thing you might end up with other issues that need to be addressed later.

ChokatinSheepseki appears to agree with that particular statement by Jacobs that assignments of music should be sufficient to address brass technique by itself.

The CONCEPT of a good sound in the BRAIN puts the body in the position that it needs to be in. Of course, you can try to consciously manipulate muscle groups and produce sounds, but such commands mean that the focus will not be on the music.

This is an interesting idea and one that we can have an honest discussion about. With regards to whether the body and brain will simply figure itself out when the attention is placed on music, there has been some research done on the difference between learning complex motor skills through intrinsic methods (goal oriented, e.g., pay attention to the music) and explicit methods (process oriented, consciously manipulate the motions you need to play). Having done some academic reading to learn more about his, I learned that when one is used exclusively, research indicates that the intrinsic approach is superior. However, research where subjects used a combination of the two approaches showed even better long-term results (this topic deserves a post of its own later that focuses exclusively on this research).

This is one of my criticisms of how many have interpreted Jacobs’ teaching into such a false dichotomy. If you listen to his masterclasses or read the books about his teaching very carefully you’ll note that one of his psychological tricks was to convince his students that he wasn’t telling them how to play while he was teaching them how to play. Case in point, here is an excerpt from Arnold Jacobs: Song and Wind, written by Brian Frederiksen and edited by John Taylor. The bold text below is my emphasis to address my point.

A common problem is that of a double buzz, or as Jacobs calls it, “segmentation.” This happens when the embouchure is set for vibrations higher than what is actually desired. A major factor is insufficient air to fuel the vibration. It is, in fact, hardly ever an embouchure problem. The tongue’s position is too high and forward in the mouth. To correct segmentation, adjust the embouchure to vibrate at the pitch that is desired – play with a thicker air stream and keep the embouchure open.

Frederikson  (1996), p. 126.

In other words, address the physical causes of the double buzz not through assignments of music, but by correcting the specific mechanical issues that lead to the double buzz. This is contradictory to Jacobs’ other statements that he addresses embouchure issues only through assignments of music. My feeling here is that when dealing with brass technique we can spend some time dealing with the mechanics of how to play, provided that we also keep the end goal of making good music in mind and be sure to spend practice and teaching time addressing that as well.

Again, because ChokatinSheepseki and others frequently misinterpret my thoughts here, I’m not suggesting that focus on music and breathing are bad for your brass playing. They are extremely useful tools when the situation warrants. However, there are other approaches that when used at the correct time and place can also be helpful. There’s no need to use one exclusively over the other.

While ChokatinSheepseki “politely” refused my offer to move our discussion over here where the comments aren’t restricted to such a short length, I hope that he will reconsider and take the time to point out the specific parts where we have disagreements. Contrary to the implications in his criticisms, I do not have an “anti-Jacobs” stance. Furthermore, I’m perfectly willing to change my opinions if presented with good evidence and logical arguments that point out flaws in my presentations.

I’ll close this post by letting ChokatinSheepseki have the final word for now.

Actually, I sent you a G-rated version of my original comment.

I’ll let you get back to more important tasks, such as analyzing embouchures to see if they go north, south, east, or west, and pinpointing the exact number of coffee beans Beethoven preferred in his morning brew.