Ginsborg, J., & Chaffin, R. (2011). Preparation and Spontaneity in Performance. Psychomusicology-...

7/27/2019 Ginsborg, J., & Chaffin, R. (2011). Preparation and Spontaneity in Performance. Psychomusicology- Music, Mind &

1/22

1

Copyright 2011 by Psychomusicology DOI: 10.5084/pmmb2010/21/xxx

Psychomusicology: Music, Mind& Brain2010, Vol. 21, No. 1 & No. 2

a bs t r a c t The longitudinal case study method has been used or over a decade to study pro essional musicians preparation or per ormance rom memory. This research suggests that a subset o the eatures to which the per ormer attends during practice and rehearsal is retained as per ormance cues (PCs). PCs guide the per-

ormers attention and serve as cues or memory retrieval

during per ormance. The present study asked i PCs can also emerge spontaneously during live per ormance. A singer reported the eatures that she attended to during

practice o Schoenbergs two songs Op. 14 (1907-1908).Immediately a ter the per ormance she recalled all the thoughts she remembered having about the piece during the per ormance. Comparison o the two sets o reports showed that although many o the singers thoughts during per ormance were about eatures that she had attended to in practice (prepared PCs), a substantial number were about eatures that acquired new musical or

expressive signi cance during the per ormance (spontaneous PCs). The reports were compared with those rom an earlier study o a per ormance by the same singer o the rst Ricercar rom Stravinskys Cantata (1952). The

proportions o repor ts about various aspects o the music (basic technique, interpretation, and expression) refected di erences between the works by the two composers.

keyw ords cues, eatures, memory, practice, recall

What do musicians think about while per orming? Onthe one hand, per ormances in the Western art musictradition are usually highly prepared, and thinkingtoo closely about a highly practiced skill is a sure way to disrupt it (Beilock & Carr, 2001). On the otherhand, to per orm mindlessly, relying on the auto-maticity o well-practiced motor sequences, is bothrisky and unlikely to produce an aesthetically satis y-ing per ormance (Cha n, Lemieux, & Chen, 2006;Ericsson, 2002). To avoid this dilemma, experienced

per ormers train themselves during practice to attendto speci c eatures o the music. These per ormance cues (PCs) come to mind automatically during theper ormance, providing a series o landmarks that the per ormer can use to monitor progress throughthe piece, and directing attention as needed to tech-nical issues, interpretation, and expressive gestures.

Evidence that experienced musicians use PCs

comes rom longitudinal case studies in whichexperienced soloists recorded their practice as they learned new works or public per ormance. Eachmusician reported the eatures o the music that they made decisions about or otherwise paid attentionto during practice and the PCs that they attendedto during per ormance, marking them on copies o the score. The musicians spontaneous commentsduring practice explained the unction o particu-lar PCs (Cha n, Imreh, & Craw ord, 2002; Cha n,Lisboa, Logan, & Begosh, 2010; Ginsborg, Cha n, &Nicholson, 2006a). Written recall o the score showedthat section boundaries and expressive PCs persistedas landmarks in memory months and years a terthe per ormance (Cha n & Imreh, 2002; Cha net al., 2010; Ginsborg & Cha n, 2011). Tempo fuc-tuations at PCs, during both practice and publicper ormances, indicated their signi cance (Cha net al., 2006; Lisboa, Cha n, Logan, & Begosh 2007).Most important, or present purposes, was evidencethat the musicians had paid attention to particular

eatures o the music during practice, thus establish-ing them as cues (Cha n et al., 2002, 2010; Cha n,2007; Ginsborg et al., 2006a,b; Noice, Je rey, Noice, &Cha n, 2008).

P A S

Jane Ginsborg, Centre or Music Per ormance Research,Royal Northern College o Music. Roger Cha n, Department o Psychology, University o Connecticut.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressedto Jane Ginsborg, Royal Northern College o Music, 124 Ox ordRoad, Manchester, M13 0RD, UK. E-mail: [email protected]

JA NE GI NSBORGRoyal Northern College o Music

R OG E R C H A F F I NUniversity o Connecticut


2/22

Jane Ginsborg & Roger Cha n

2

In the present study, an experienced sopranosoloist (the rst author) reported the eatures that she attended to during practice and the PCs that she attended to during a public per ormance, rommemory, o two songs by Arnold Schoenberg. Most o the case studies o PCs conducted to date have not compared the use o PCs by di erent per ormers orby the same per ormer or di erent pieces (Cha n,2007, is the one exception). One goal o our study was to assess the consistency with which a per ormerused PCs in di erent pieces. The singer learned thetwo songs constituting Schoenbergs Op. 14, allow-ing us to assess the consistency o her identi cationo musical eatures and use o PCs in two similar works.

We were also able to compare her reports o PCs

(thoughts during per ormance) and eatures (deci-sions made during practice) or the two Schoenbergsongs with her similar reports in an earlier longitu-dinal case study o preparation or per ormance o another work:Ricercar I rom StravinskysCantata orsolo soprano, solo tenor, womens choir and instru-mental ensemble (two futes, oboe, cor anglais,and cello) (Ginsborg et al., 2006a,b). These two works by di erent composers provide an instruc-tive comparison. They are similar in that bothdate rom the rst hal (broadly speaking) o the20th century, the Schoenberg rom 1907-8, and theStravinsky rom 1951-2. They are approximately thesame length: the 402 crotchet (quarter-note) beatso the two Schoenberg songs took about 6 min. toper orm while the 250 quaver (eighth-note) beats o the Stravinsky took about 4 min. Text and melody were o equal importance in both pieces (Ginsborg,2004). They di er in the expressive demands they make on the singer and in their complexity: theSchoenberg requires more expressivity while the

Stravinsky is technically more di cult. The twoSchoenberg songs are composed or singer andpiano, and have a simple structure: the rst songhas two verses, the second three, although neitheris strophic. They both have a regular meter andonly one measure has an unusual number o beats.In contrast, the Stravinsky requires larger musical

orces, has a more complex structure (three mainsections, in the rst o which verses alternate withre rains), and employs requent changes o meter.

The di erences between the works by the twocomposers led us to expect that the singer wouldreport more interpretive and/or expressive eaturesand PCs or the Schoenberg and more techni-cal eatures and PCs or the Stravinsky. Reports o PCs and eatures can be grouped into our maintypes depending on which aspect o the music they address: structure, expression, interpretation, andbasic technique. Structural PCs occur at criticalplaces in the ormal structure o the work such assection boundaries, and expressive PCs at locations where a particular emotion is to be conveyed, orexample sad, yearning. Interpretive PCs repre-sent the changes in tempo, dynamics, timbre, orcolor whereby expressive e ects are achieved, whilebasic PCs remind the per ormer o technical details

requiring particular attention, such as breathingor or an instrumentalist ngering. In addition,or ensemble per ormance, musicians may require

shared PCs at points where they have established amutual understanding o how they achieve coordi-nation (Ginsborg et al., 2006a). We compared theproportion o eatures and PCs o each o thesemain types.

We also compared eatures and PCs reportedby the singer or the Schoenberg songs and theStravinsky Ricercar on two other measures: density and requency o multiple reports at the same loca-tion. The density o the eatures and PCs provides ameasure o the rate at which a per ormer switchesattention rom one eature or PC to the next. It canbe measured by the number o eatures or PCs perbeat o the score or per second o a per ormance.Cha n, Demos, and Craw ord (2009) calculatedPCs per beat or our pro essional musicians and

our students or a variety o di erent pieces. Thehighest density observed was 0.85 PCs per beat

or a pro essional pianist, Gabriela Imreh, playingBachsItalian Concerto (Presto), a ast and technically demanding piece. A lower rate o 0.20 was obtained

or the same pianist playing DebussysClair de Lune,a slower piece which the pianist learned much morequickly. Two student pianists reported 0.22 and 0.55PCs per beat or thePresto. The lowest rate o 0.01PCs per beat was reported by the youngest musicianin the study, a ourteen-year-old piano student. Thedensity o PCs may be infuenced by the di culty


3/22

Preparation and spontaneity in per ormance: A singers thoughts while singing Schoenberg

3

and level o preparation o the piece and the experi-ence o the musician.

In addition, we examined the requency with which the singer reported one or more PCs at thesame location in a piece. Cha n et al. (2009) exam-Cha n et al. (2009) exam-ined the use o multiple PCs at the same location

or thePresto . The pro essional pianists PCs weredivided more or less equally between locations where she used one, two and three PCs in the sameplace. Both students, however, noted only a singlePC at a location or the majority o PCs (79% in onecase, and 67% in the other), two PCs at the sameplace or a minority (15% and 26% respectively),and three PCs in the same location or less than 10%o PCs. Use o multiple PCs may provide anotherindex o per ormance expertise since it permits the

musician to ocus on di erent aspects o the musicsimultaneously.We have previously suggested that many o the

decisions that a musician thinks about during prac-tice are implemented automatically during liveper ormance (e.g., Cha n et al., 2002). To evalu-To evalu-ate this claim, we compared the singers reports o

eatures attended to in practice with her reportso PCs to determine how many o the eatures shecontinued to think about during per ormance,that is, reported as PCs. Those eatures that werenot retained and reported as PCs were assumed torepresent decisions made during practice that hadbecome automatic.

Another goal o our study was to examine moreclosely our previous claims that PCs are preparedduring practice (Cha n et al., 2002; Ginsborg et al.,2006b; Cha n et al., 2010). This claim was basedon evidence that starts, stops and repetitions duringpractice coincided with eatures subsequently notedas PCs, and that such e ects occurred throughout

the learning process. We assumed that these e ectsrefected attention to these eatures during practiceand occurred at most, i not all, PCs. It is possible,however, that the e ects were due to a relatively smallnumber o PCs and that most PCs emerged or the

rst time during public per ormance. In the present study, we used the comparison o eatures and PCsto check on this possibility or the two Schoenbergsongs and the Stravinsky Ricercar . For PCs preparedduring practice, there should be a corresponding

eature reported as attended to during practice. Weexpected to nd corresponding practice eatures

or most o the PCs reported. An addit ional goal was to examine the singers

spontaneous thoughts during per ormance and tocompare these with thoughts about the PCs that she had prepared during practice. In the present study, the procedure or reporting PCs was di er-ent rom that used in previous studies. As be ore,the reports were made by marking PCs in thescore immediately a ter the per ormance. In theStravinsky study (Ginsborg et al., 2006b), however,the singer was asked to mark things that you thinkabout while per orming in order to direct andcontrol your singing to produce the per ormancethat you want. In the present study, the singer

simply reported all the thoughts she rememberedhaving during the public per ormance. Later, sheclassi ed them as prepared PCs , spontaneous PCs , orextraneous t houghts. Prepared PCs were thoughtsduring per ormance about eatures o the musicthat she had previously thought about duringpractice. Spontaneous PCs were thoughts about

eatures o the music that she had not registerednoticing be ore and that were likely to be retainedas PCs in subsequent per ormances. Extraneousthoughts were spontaneous thoughts that wereunlikely to recur in later per ormances becausethey were about things that were speci c to that per ormance.

Many musicians believe that live per ormanceprovides an important opportunity or musicalinsight and creativity. Maharaj (2005) coined theterm thinking-through-per ormance to re er to thisprocess during rehearsal; stersj (2008) extends it to live per ormance, noting that [thinking-through-per ormance] is a process o validation that goes on

also in the per ormance itsel (p. 80). How doesthis relate to claims that we have made previously that PCs are care ully prepared during practice(e.g., Cha n et al., 2002; Ginsborg et al., 2006b)? We believe that per ormers do need to prepare PCsand also that per ormance provides an important opportunity or musical insight and spontaneity (Cha n et al., 2006). Our goal in this study was toexamine the interplay o preparation and spontane-ity in live per ormance.


4/22


4

While every instrument presents its own uniquechallenges, the interplay o preparation and spon-taneity during per ormance may be particularly important or singers. The per ormance o vocalmusic requires the recall o text, in addition tomelody, and involves an instrument that is alsoroutinely used in non-musical contexts to articulatespontaneous thoughts. By comparing the singersthoughts during per ormance with the eatures that she attended to in practice, we were able to iden-ti y potential PCs that remained unarticulated untilthe per ormance itsel . Although we cannot know

or sure which spontaneous thoughts will endureas PCs and which will not, the singer elt con dent in identi ying those insights about the music that she intended to retain in uture per ormances. The

new procedure or reporting PCs that we used herealso allowed us to examine an assumption that wasimplicit in our previous research: that experiencedper ormersonly think about PCs during per or-mance. By reportingall o her thoughts duringper ormance, the singer was able to identi y thosethat were extraneous, that is, neither prepared norspontaneous PCs. The ability to control extraneousthoughts is a skill that per ormers must learn. We didnot expect the experienced per ormer in our study to su er unduly rom extraneous thoughts, but wereinterested to discover how large the proportion o such thoughts would be.

method

Musician and music

The musician, the rst author o this paper, is aclassically-trained, ormerly-pro essional singer,

now primarily a researcher. As in the case o theStravinsky Ricercar, the singer had per ormed themusic approximately 25 years earlier but had not sung or listened to it since. The music consisted o two songs by Arnold Schoenberg, Op. 14, dating

rom 1907-1908,Ich dar nicht dankend (I must not in thanks [sink down be ore you]) andIn diesen Wintertagen (In these winter days), settings o poems by Ste an George and Karl Henckell respec-tively. The rst song consists o 30 measures and the

second o 71 measures; both have 2/2 time signa-tures, but the second includes one measure in 2/4.The singers per ormance o the two songs lasted 6min. and 3 s.

Procedure

The singer practiced and re-memorized thesongs in ve sessions o about hal an hour each overthe course o 3 weeks prior to undertaking approx-imately 1 hours o rehearsal with her regularaccompanist (her husband George Nicholson, whohad also ul lled the role o pianist / conductor orthe Stravinsky Ricercar ) on each o three occasions,the nal rehearsal taking place on the morning o the per ormance, which took place in the evening.

The concert was given by the voice, clarinet, andpiano trio, Triple Echo, as part o a university weekly concert series, be ore an audience o 80-100 people.In addition to the Schoenberg songs, the programincluded works or solo clarinet by Nicholson, orclarinet and piano by Berg and Lutosawski, andtrios by Schubert, Spohr, Poole, and Nicholson.

A ter the nal rehearsal, the singer annotated acopy o the score, marking the locations and natureo the eatures o the music and text that she hadmade decisions about, practiced, or otherwise paidspecial attention to during practice. Immediately a ter the per ormance (some 10 hours a ter she hadmade the post-rehearsal annotations), while theconcert still continued, the singer made a second set o annotations on another copy o the score repre-senting her PCs and extraneous thoughts duringper ormance. These were the eatures o the music,text, or per ormance itsel that had been particu-larly salient during the per ormance. Examples o her annotations o eatures and PCs are shown in

Figure 1.The singer subsequently classi ed both setso annotations as basic, interpretive, expressive,shared, or structural (see Table 1). The requency o each type o annotation was then tabulated sepa-rately or the two Schoenberg songs and compared with the Stravinsky Ricercar or which similar datahad been compiled or the earlier study (Ginsborget al., 2006b). For the Schoenberg songs, the singer

urther classi ed the post-per ormance annotations


5/22


5

as prepared, spontaneous, or extraneous, re erringto her pre-per ormance annotations when in doubt about whether an annotation was prepared or not.

r e su l t s

Comparing the two songs by Schoenberg with the Stravinsky R

There was no di erence between the proportions o basic, interpretive, expressive, and shared eaturesor PCs in the two Schoenberg songs, althoughthere was a trend towards more interpretive and

expressive PCs orIn diesen Wintertagen than orIch dar nicht dankend, 2 (2) = 4.78, p < .09. For compari-son with the Stravinsky Ricercar , the reports or thetwo songs were combined. Frequencies o each type

o annotation are shown in Appendix I separately or the two songs. The singers reports o eaturesand PCs or StravinskysRicercar , originally summa-rized in Ginsborg et al. (2006b), are also provided.

The di erent styles o the Schoenberg songs(combined) and the Stravinsky Ricercar were refectedin the singers annotations or the two works. Figure2 compares the proportions o eatures (le t panel)and PCs (right panel) or the songs and theRicercar .The greater expressiveness o the Schoenberg songs

Figure 1: Features (top panel) and per ormance cues (bottom panel)


6/22


6

Table 1 Examples of annotations representing features and cues in Schoenberg songs

FeaturesBasic

Interpretive

ExpressiveShared

Per ormance cuesBasic

Interpretive

Expressive

Shared

Intonation Word (pronunciation)BreathTechnical Prepare (pitch, count,listen) Word (meaning)SoundNotice musical eatureRubatoDynamicsConvey meaningCo-ordinate

Intonation Word (pronunciation)BreathTechnical Prepare (pitch, count,listen) Word (meaning)SoundNotice musical eatureRubato

DynamicsConvey meaning

Co-ordinate

pitch higher (Ich dar nicht dankend , beat 10)t [end o dankend ] (ibid., beat 14)Breath mark a terTrost (ibid., beat 33)Underlined: change pitch sideways not up and down! (Liebe, In diesen Wintertagen , beat 227)think throughWintertagen (ibid., beat 25)

strong ( ort , ibid., beat 105)clear sound (du, Ich dar nicht dankend , beat 21)notice canon (ibid., beat 62) wiggle ondu (ibid., beat 65)crescendo (In diesen Wintertagen , beat 72)milde word changed! (ibid., beat 94)be aware o Gs phrase (Ich dar nicht dankend, beat 65)

intonation (Ich dar nicht dankend , beat 100)t [end o dankend ] (ibid., beat 14 eature retained as PC)Breath mark a terTrost (ibid., beat 33 eature retained as PC)roll r, nish high (In diesen Wintertagen, beat 106 two spontaneousPCs at same location)count[ver]hllt (ibid., beat 33 eature retained as PC )

(leises ) missing rom text (ibid., beat 122 eature retained as PC)enjoy legato (seligen , ibid., beat 225 spontaneous PC)notice canon (Ich dar nicht dankend , beat 62 eature retained as PC)wiggle more time (Leides , ibid., beat 76 spontaneous PC)

decrescendo (hinein, In diesen Wintertagen, beat 171 eature retainedas PC)growing excitement, more than in rehearsal (ibid., beat 207 extraneous thought)co-ordinate (Ich dar nicht dankend , beat 76 spontaneous PC)

Figure 2 : The percentage o eatures (le t panel) and per ormance cues (right panel) reported or the Schoenberg songs and Stravinsky Ricercar

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Basic Interpretive Expressive

Type of feature

% o

f f e a t u r e s

Schoenberg

Stravinsky

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Basic PC Interpretive PC Expressive PC Shared PC

Type of PC

% o

f P C s

Schoenberg

Stravinsky


7/22


7

is refected in the larger number o interpretiveeatures reported, and the greater technical di -

culty o the Stravinsky is refected in the higherproportion o basic eatures, 2 (2) = 31.25, p < .001.In contrast, there was no di erence between the two works in the proportions o basic, interpretive andexpressive PCs, 2 (2) = 3.42. This pattern o resultssuggests that, despite the di erences between the works o the two composers, the singer used similarstrategies to monitor and guide her per ormanceso them.

There was one di erence between the singers PCsor the two works. The singer reported ewer shared

PCs or the Schoenberg. Shared PCs representedplaces where the singer and conductor had estab-lished a mutual understanding during rehearsals

o what they were going to do during the per or-mance, or example, towards the end o theRicercar where they made the annotation gathering point(a shared basic PC, arrival/o ). When shared PCs were added to basic, interpretive and expressive PCs,and all our categories were compared or the two works, the di erence was signi cant,Yates 2 (3) =20.68, p < .001. Coordinating with the pianist in theSchoenberg songs was a relatively straight orwardtask or the singer that did not o ten require atten-tion. Coordinating with the larger musical orcesinvolved in the Stravinsky (conductor and instru-mental ensemble), in contrast, required attentionmore o ten, resulting in a larger number o sharedPCs.

The lesser complexity o the Schoenberg songs was also refected in a lower density o PCs. Density determines the rate at which a per ormer has toswitch attention rom one eature or PC to the next.

We computed density in two ways, as the numbero reports per beat and per second o per ormance.Per ormance duration was measured by the timetaken by the singer to per orm each piece in public(6:03 min. or the two Schoenberg songs togetherand 4:00 min. or the Stravinsky). On both meas-). On both meas-ures, the singer reported lower densities or theSchoenberg songs than or the Stravinsky . Density was 0.26 eatures and 0.20 PCs per beat or theSchoenberg and 0.81 eatures and 0.39 PCs per beat

or the Stravinsky . When density was computed usingper ormance time, there were 0.29 eatures and0.23 PCs per second or the Schoenberg and 0.85

eatures and 0.41 PCs per second or the Stravinsky.The singer thus switched her attention rom onePC to the next every 3 s during the Schoenberg and

every 2 s during the Stravinsky.The lesser complexity o the Schoenberg wasalso refected in the requency o reports o multiple

eatures and PCs at the same location (i.e., on thesame beat). We counted the requency with whichone, two, and three or more di erent eatures orPCs were reported at the same location (see Table2), tallying eatures and PCs separately. At most o the locations where the singer made annota-tions (70%), she reported just one eature or PC. Inplaces where she reported more than one eatureor PC, she mostly reported two. The exception was or the Stravinsky where she reported three ormore eatures at 14% o the locations. Locations where three or more eatures were reported wereless requent in the Schoenberg than in the morecomplex Stravinsky, 2 (2) = 10.89, p < .004. There was no corresponding di erence between the workso the two composers or multiple PCs at the same

Table 2Percentage and requency (in parentheses) o locations where single, double and multiple reports o eatures or per ormance cues (PCs) were reported

Composer Features PCs

Number o reports at each location 1 2 3+ 1 2 3+

Schoenberg %Stravinsky %

65.4 (51)67.2 (88)

32.1 (25)18.3 (24)

2.6 (2)14.5 (19)

68.9 (42)79.7 (63)

27.9 (17)17.7 (14)

3.3 (2)2.5 (2)


8/22


8

location. This di erence between the requencies o eatures and PCs was signi cant, 2 (2) = 8.16, p < .02.

One possible explanation is that the singer limitedthe number o multiple PCs or the Stravinsky tokeep the mental load at an optimum level duringper ormance.

The requencies with which di erent types o eatures and PCs occurred in combination refected

the singers perception that the Schoenberg songscalled or more expressivity than the Stravinsky.Table 3 shows the requency with which di erent types o eatures were reported at the same location.In both the Schoenberg and the Stravinsky, the most

requent combinations o two eatures included abasic eature. For the Schoenberg songs, the most

requent combinations also involved an interpre-

tive or expressive eature (51.9%), whereas or theStravinsky the most common combination was withanother basic or a structural eature (32.6%), 2 (3)= 12.87, p < .005. For example, in the Schoenbergsongs, the singer reported eatures or both wordpronunciation and word meaning at the point where she had decided to roll the r o brennen so asto emphasize its meaning, burn. In the Stravinsky,she reported eatures or word pronunciation andtechnical / breath at the second syllable o princisto remind her both to pronounce it [prin]cess andto prepare to take a good breath at the end o the

word be ore starting on the next, unaccompaniedsection.

The requencies with which di erent types o PCs occurred in combination at the same locationsare shown in Table 4. As already noted, the singerreported no shared PCs or coordinating with thepianist or the Schoenberg songs. In contrast, thetask o coordinating with the larger musical ensem-ble required or the Stravinsky is refected in thehigh proportion o combinations involving sharedPCs or this piece (56.3%). For example, at thesame location where the singer reported the sharedPC gathering point, she also marked a basic PC,reminding her to count the correct number o beats

or the word sing and prepare to take a breathbe ore the nal Amen.

The more expressive character o the Schoenbergsongs is also refected in the higher proportion o combinations o interpretive and expressive PCs(42.1% vs 12.5%). For example, in the Schoenberg,the singer marked both interpretive and expres-sive PCs at the wordLosungswort, indicating that during the per ormance she had thought about itsmeaning, watchword, as well as the need to sing it with a tender expression. This was because, in thepublished text o the poem,Losungswort is precededby the adjectiveleises tender and, althoughleises does not appear in the song, the musician wanted to

Table 3 Frequency o combinations o di erent types o eatures

Schoenberg Stravinsky

No. % o all double and multipleeatures (n = 27)

No. % o all double and multipleeatures (n = 43)

Structural + basicStructural + interpretiveBasic + basicBasic + interpretiveBasic + expressiveInterpretive + interpretiveInterpretive + expressiveInterpretive + sharedCombination o three eaturesCombinations o our, ve and six

00110445120

00

3.737.014.814.818.53.77.40

51971010217

11.62.320.916.32.30

2.30

27.916.3

Total 27 100 43 100


9/22


9

convey this eeling. The two PCs represent the sing-ers interpretive and expressive intentions. She alsoreported interpretive and expressive eatures at thesame location, indicating that she had ormed theseintentions during practice.

Automaticity in per ormance

One goal o practice is to make per ormancemore automatic. What proportion o decisions that the singer made during practice was executed auto-matically and what proportion did the singer attendto during per ormance? To nd out, we comparedthe singers reports o the eatures that she attendedto in practice and in per ormance. Just under hal o the eatures that the singer reported think-ing about during practice were retained as PCs:

47.6% and 46.2% or the Schoenberg songs and theStravinsky Ricercar respectively (see Appendix II).The remainder, just over hal o the decisions that she made during practice, were executed automat-ically during per ormance. The similarity o theseproportions or the pieces by the two composersrefects a striking degree o within-musician consis-tency across di erent works.

Figure 3 shows the proportions o basic, expres-sive and interpretive eatures that were executed

automatically (the percentage o eatures shownin Appendix II as retained PCs subtracted rom100.0%). A higher proportion o interpretive eatures were executed automatically or the Schoenberg,and a higher proportion o basic eatures or theStravinsky, 2 (6) = 20.75, p < .002, another refec-tion o the di erences between the works by the twocomposers. Many o the annotations representingtechnical di culties in the Stravinsky were locatedat ast ( an are) passages. These were practicedmany times during the rehearsal period in order todevelop automaticity in per ormance. In contrast,many interpretive annotations in the Schoenbergsongs dealt with the meanings o words that, once

Table 4 Frequency o combinations o di erent types o per ormance cues

Schoenberg Stravinsky

No. % o all double andmultiple PCs (n = 219)

No. % o all double andmultiple PCs (n = 16)

Basic + basicBasic + interpretiveBasic + expressiveBasic + shared basicInterpretive + interpretiveInterpretive + expressiveInterpretive + shared basicInterpretive + shared expressiveExpressive and shared expressiveCombinations o three and our

2510180002

10.526.35.30

5.342.1

000

10.5

0215021212

012.56.331.3

012.56.312.56.312.5

Total 19 100 16 100

Figure 3 : Percentage o eatures o each type executed automati-cally, that is, not retained as per ormance cues

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Basic Interpretive Expressive

Type of fe ature

% o

f a

l l f e a

t u r e s

Schoenberg

Stravinsky


10/22


10

internalized, did not require attention in per or-mance but were executed automatically (or becamethe locations o expressive PCs). Because the singertried to think about expression as much as possi-ble in per ormance, expressive decisions were least likely to be executed automatically.

Preparation o PCs during practice

Comparing the singers reports o thoughtsduring per ormance with the eatures she attendedto during practice allowed us to evaluate our claimthat PCs are prepared during practice. I this claimis correct, then each PC would correspond to oneor more o the eatures that she reported attend-ing to during practice. Thoughts about the piece

that were registered by the singer or the rst timeduring the public per ormance, in contrast, wouldnot correspond to eatures reported be ore theper ormance. Table 5 shows the total number o PCso each type reported and the percentage that wereprepared during practice, that is, correspondingto eatures reported prior to public per ormance.More than hal o the PCs were prepared, 61%

or the Schoenberg songs and 51.3% or theStravinsky. As expected, most PCs were preparedduring practice. We were surprised, however, that the proportion was not higher. We turn next to anexamination o the singers spontaneous thoughtsduring per ormance.

Spontaneous thoughts during per ormance o the two Schoenberg songs

During her per ormance o the two Schoenbergsongs, almost 40% o the singers thoughts did not correspond directly with eatures o the music that she reported noticing during practice. These spon-taneous thoughts were urther classi ed by thesinger as spontaneous PCs or extraneous thoughts.The analysis was restricted to the Schoenberg songsas too much time had passed since the per ormanceo the Stravinsky Ricercar to allow accurate classi -cation. Table 6 compares the requency o the twokinds o spontaneous thoughts and the preparedPCs. Just over 60% o the singers thoughts duringper ormance involved prepared PCs, almost 30%

were spontaneous PCs, and less than 10% wereextraneous. The proportions did not di er signi -cantly or the two songs.

The spontaneous PCs were musical insightsabout the songs that the singer will probably remember when she per orms these works again,

or example, notice canon at beat 62 o Ich dar nicht dankend. The extraneous thoughts were about issues speci c to the particular per ormance that are unlikely to be remembered in subsequent per ormances, or example unwanted og in voiceat beat 17 in the same song. The singer reported,however, that all o her extraneous thoughtsinvolved issues that needed her attention. None

Table 5Percentage and requency (in parentheses) o prepared PCs originating in eatures (works by both composers)

PC/ eature Prepared PCs(originating in eatures)

Total number o thoughts about themusic reported during per ormance

SchoenbergBasic + Shared Interpretive Expressive Total

Stravinsky Basic (not including Shared) Interpretive Expressive Total

28.0 (23)24.4 (20)8.5 (7)61 (50)

38.1 (53)88.9 (32)81.3 (13)51.3 (98)

28342082

1393616191


11/22


11

was a product o mind wandering or non-musicaldistractions.

Table 7 shows the proportions o thoughtsduring per ormance that were about basic, inter-pretive, and expressive issues. Spontaneous PCs andthoughts were more o ten about interpretive andexpressive issues and less o ten about basic issuesthan prepared PCs, 2 (2) = 8.90, p = .01. The di er-ence refects the act that the singers attentionduring the per ormance was more on interpretationand musical eeling than on technical issues.

There were also ve instances where the singerreported thinking about a eature di erently during the public per ormance than during prac-tice (see Table 8). These ve cases, which represent

spontaneous thinking during per ormance, aredescribed below.

d i s cu s s io n

Comparing the two songs by Schoenberg with the Stravinsky R

As expected, there was no di erence between thetwo Schoenberg songs in the proportions o the various types o eatures or PCs that the singerreported attending to. There were, in contrast,substantial di erences between the Schoenbergsongs and StravinskysRicercar. These di erences

Table 6Percentage and requency (in parentheses) o spontaneous (vs prepared) thoughts during per ormance judged by the singer as likely (vs unlikely) to reappear in subsequent per ormances

Type o thought Spontaneous (not originating in eatures) Prepared Total number o

thoughts/PCs reportedduring per ormancePCs (likely to reap-pear in subsequent

per ormances)

Extraneous thoughts(unlikely to reap-

pear in subsequent per ormances)

PCs (originating ineatures)

Ich dar nicht In diesen Wintertagen

7.3 (6)22.0 (18)

3.7 (3)6.1 (5)

24.4 (20)36.6 (30)

2953

Total 29.3 (24) 9.8 (8) 61.0 (50) 82

Table 7Percentage and requency (in parentheses) o prepared PCs, spontaneous PCs and spontaneous thoughts about basic,interpretive, and expressive aspects o per ormance or the two Schoenberg songs

Type o thought Spontaneous (not originating in eatures) Prepared Total number o thoughts/PCs reported

during per ormancePCs (likely to reap-pear in subsequent

per ormances)

Extraneous thoughts(unlikely to reap-

pear in subsequent per ormances)

PCs (originating ineatures)

Basic + Shared Interpretive

Expressive

3.7 (3)15.9 (13)9.8 (8)

2.4 (2)1.2 (1)6.1 (5)

28.0 (23)24.4 (20)8.5 (7)

283420

Total 29.3 (24) 9.8 (8) 61 (50) 82


12/22


12

are attributable to di erences in the complexity (technical, structural, instrumental) and expressive-ness o these works by the two composers.

First, the lower technical demands o the

Schoenberg resulted in the singer noticing ewerbasic eatures while practicing the songs, so that shesubsequently made ewer annotations on the score when she made her report. Second, this di erence was also refected in a lower density o eatures that the singer noticed during practice and attendedto during per ormance: one PC every 3 s or theSchoenberg versus every 2 s or the Stravinsky. Third,the straight orward organization o the Schoenbergsongs into verses was su ciently predictable that it did not attract the singers attention either in prac-tice or in per ormance. As a result, she reportedno structural eatures or PCs or the songs. Fourth,

or the Schoenberg, the singer did not need sharedPCs in order to coordinate with the piano accom-panist, a musician with whom she had per ormedmany times. In contrast, although the same musi-cian was also the conductor or the Stravinsky,substantial numbers o shared PCs were required tocoordinate their per ormance with the larger musi-cal orces involved. Fi th, the lesser complexity o

the Schoenberg songs was refected in ewer reportso multiple eatures and PCs at the same locationthan or the Stravinsky.

Another di erence is that the singer saw theSchoenberg songs as more expressive than theStravinsky. The singer reported a higher proportiono interpretive eatures and PCs and used a combi-nation o expressive and interpretive PCs in thesame location more o ten or the Schoenberg songs.These di erences were a product o three actors:her understanding o the intentions o the two

composers, the process through which she reachedthat understanding, and her own experience inper orming the two works.

First, she believed that the two composers had

very di erent attitudes to musical meaning. AsStravinsky (1936) writes in his autobiography,

music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a eeling, an attitude o mind, apsychological mood, a phenomenon o nature, etc.... Expression has never been aninherent property o music (p. 53).

Although she knew that the autobiography wasghost-written (Cross, 2003), the singer took this state-ment to refect the composers views. In contrast,she had recently read Rosss (2007a) description o SchoenbergsIch dar nicht dankend :

[The text, to a poem by Ste an George]begins: I must not in thanks sinkdown be ore you / You are the spiritualplain rom which we rose. The musichangs by only the thinnest thread to

the old harmonic order. It purportsto be in B minor, yet the home chordappears only three times in thirty measures, once beneath the wordagonizing. Otherwise, it is made upo a ghostly fow o unrooted triads,ambiguous transitional chords, starkdissonances, and crystalline monodiclines, approximating the picture o anice-cold, deep-sleeping stream with which the poem concludes (p. 49).

Table 8Schoenberg: Features becoming per ormance cues o di erent types

Beat Word Feature PC Annotation

17467587107

nieder[sinken] abzu[winken] [Lei]des [Nhe] ihm Schla [nen]

Interpretive word meaningInterpretive word meaning (shrug o )Basic word pronunciationBasic breath a ter ihmInterpretive word meaning

TechnicalExpressiveInterpretive rubatoExpressiveInterpretive sound

unwanted og in throatimagine shrug wiggledidnt need breathcolour


13/22


13

In his blog o December 2007, Ross adds,

It may be no coincidence that Schoenberg wrote the song just eight days a ter thedeparture or New York o Gustav Mahler.[] With Mahler gone, Schoenberg may have elt at once abandoned and liberated ree to become himsel . (Ross, 2007b).

With this in mind, the singers rst annotationon her rehearsal score categorized as an expres-sive eature was Serious, sad departure (o Mahler?). An analogous context may exist or theStravinsky Cantata , but the singer did not explorethis, and so it did not impinge on her preparationo theRicercar .

Secondly, the higher proportion o interpretiveeatures reported or the Schoenberg is attrib-utable to the texts o the two pieces. While theSchoenberg songs are in German, theRicercar isin English. Although the singer had to make somein erences about the meaning and pronunciationo archaic 17th century usage in the Stravinsky, theSchoenberg needed considerably more preparatory work. As the singer looked or existing transla-tions and made her own word- or-word translation,several unexpected anomalies emerged. In thesecond verse o In diesen Wintertagen the publishedscore reads Was wilde Glut entznde. Accordingto Jackson (1989-1990), the poet (not GeorgeHenckel, as on the title page o the score, but KarlHenckell) actually wroteWas milde Glut entzndet That which kindles a gentle glow, rather thana wild glow. The mistake is the typesetters, not Schoenbergs. Further, the wordleises (tender)be oreLosungswort (watchword), in the poem,is omitted in the song. Finally, the last line o Ich

dar nicht dankend reads according to the score(and Rosss translation, above) Am eisigkalten,tie entschla nen Flusse (in the ice-cold, deep-sleep-ing stream). Yet the poem readsAm eisigklaren (ice-clear). Jackson does not comment onthis; he writes as though the score is correct. Thesinger checked the original manuscript o the song(Arnold Schnberg Center, n.d.) and ound that the syllableklar has been written over the sylla-ble kalt , indicating that the published score is

incorrect. These discoveries changed the singersprevious understanding o the composers inten-tions, and her approach to practice, rehearsal andper ormance. She would have to sing the correct words, not those printed in the score (and memo-rised many years previously), and she would have tosing them with the appropriate color. These deci-sions became additional expressive eatures andPCs.

A third reason or the higher proportion o inter-pretive PCs reported or the Schoenberg is that theduring the per ormance the singer ound hersel responding strongly to the eelings expressed in thesongs and, as a result, reported a substantial numbero thoughts that did not correspond directly to

eatures o the music noticed during practice. These

spontaneous PCs and other extraneous thoughtsare discussed below.The di erences between the pieces by the two

composers were more pronounced or the eaturesnoticed during practice than or the PCs attendedto during per ormance. This may be because thereis an optimum rate or attending to PCs duringper ormance. We speculate that there is an upperlimit, determined by the rate at which the per ormercan switch attention, and a lower limit, determinedby the risk o unwanted, extraneous thought whenthe mind is not ully occupied. For pieces in whichthe upper limit is exceeded, the number o PCscan be reduced by increasing automaticity throughpractice. For pieces in which the lower limit is not reached, more PCs can be added during practice,

or example, by the addition o interpretive nuances.This hypothesis could be tested in uture research.

Automaticity in per ormance

During the per ormance, the singer didnot thinkabout approximately hal o the musical eaturesthat she had been thinking about during practice.These included the pronunciation and meanings o words, breath locations, and some aspects o prep-aration, including pitches in the accompaniment used or pitching the melody. Practice had doneits work, and these eatures had become automatic;the singer was able to implement them without thinking about them. The proportion o eatures


14/22


14

retained as PCs was very similar or the Schoenbergand Stravinsky songs, suggesting that the 50:50 ratiomay be typical or this singer, at least or this kind o early- to mid-20th century repertoire.

In a hand ul o cases inIch dar nicht dankend,eatures became PCs o di erent types. The sing-

ers strategy or dealing with a problem (unwantedog in throat) was to change rom thinking about

an interpretive eature meaning at niedersinken to thinking about technique. Where there was noproblem, at abzuwinken , an interpretive eature

or meaning (shrug o ) changed to an expres-sive PC. In this case, the meaning o the word hadbeen internalized and become automatic, allowingthe singer to think about the eelings it conveyed.Similarly, ocus on pronouncing the nal consonant

o Leides in rehearsal led in per ormance to a rubatothat was reported as an interpretive PC, since it represented a deeper understanding o the mean-ing o the words [your] sorrow, near. By contrast, when the singer reached the location where she hadplanned to breathe a ter[und nur mit] ihm ([andonly with] him), she ound hersel responding tothe music and the pianists per ormance in such a way that she realized that the planned breath wasnot only unnecessary but would inter ere with thecommunication o the meaning o the phrase to theaudience. She there ore omitted the breath, andmarked this location as an expressive PC. Finally, inthe last line o the song she had noted, in rehearsal,an emphasis on the word[tie ent]schla nen , think-ing o its meaning (sleeping) as an interpretive

eature. In per ormance, this became a deliberateattempt to color the sound. Again, she had internal-ized the meaning o the word and was able to thinkinstead o how to convey its connotations, not simply its translation rom the German, resulting in a spon-

taneous, interpretive PC.

Preparation o PCs during practice

Around hal o the singers PCs a little more inthe case o the Schoenberg songs were preparedduring practice. This is consistent with the sugges-tion o Cha n et al. (2002, pp. 169-170) that experienced per ormers prepare PCs by repeat-edly attending to them in practice. As a result, the

musical eature comes to mind automatically duringper ormance, ensuring that it will be implementedas planned.

Not all o the singers thoughts during per or-mance, however, corresponded to eatures o themusic that she had previously attended to duringpractice. This discovery requires modi cation o Cha n et al.s (2002) suggestion that all PCs areprepared during practice. Many o the singersspontaneous thoughts during per ormance repre-sented new musical insights. Typically, these relatedto eatures o the music that she had noticed be ore,during practice, but without appreciating theirimportance. For example, the singer was amazed, when comparing her post-per ormance and post-rehearsal annotations, to nd she had not marked

the canon at beat 93 o In diesen Wintertagen (shownin Figure 1) a ter the rehearsal. This and other simi-lar insights are unlikely to be orgotten. We expect that, when she per orms the songs again, they willbe PCs; a study testing this hypothesis is currently under way. These spontaneous thoughts whichmay well be related to eatures that had not already been noticed consciously during rehearsal arebest understood as new PCs emerging during theconcert per ormance. We should not be surprisedto nd, however, that spontaneous PCs o this sort had received special attention during rehearsal.Un ortunately, the hypothesis cannot be testedbecause we did not record the practice o theSchoenberg.

Spontaneous thoughts during per ormance

The di erence in the proportions o the sing-ers spontaneous PCs in the works by Schoenbergand Stravinsky may be partly due to the di erence

in how quickly the two works were prepared. TheSchoenberg songs were prepared or per ormance inthree weeks, hal the time or the Stravinsky Ricercar (six weeks), leaving more need and opportunity ormusical insight to occur on stage. Another actormay have been that the lower density o PCs or theSchoenberg gave the singer more time to engagein spontaneous thought during per ormance.The lower density may also have been a strategicresponse by the singer to the more evocative nature


15/22


15

o the Schoenberg songs, which were more invit-ing o spontaneity. The singer certainly respondedto the songs spontaneously, reporting increasingnumbers o thoughts about musical expression andher own emotional response to the music, as theper ormance progressed. Some o these thoughtsare described below.

Spontaneous PCs in the Schoenberg songs weremore or less equally divided between expressive andinterpretive PCs. There were very ew spontaneousbasic PCs. This is consistent with the strong intu-ition o many musicians that public per ormance isan important source o insight into music (stersj,2008). As the pianist Emil Gilels wrote: When Iam in top orm . . . the ideas are always di erent.Sometimes I play with greater changes in dynamics,

sometimes with less . . . I must say it is di erent eachtime I play, and it is a process which . . . includesmastery o the work, knowing the details, beingcom ortable with it, and then adding the antasy(Gilels, in Mach, 1991, p. 123). The high propor-tion o spontaneous thoughts about interpretationand expression during the per ormance o theSchoenberg songs provide empirical support orthese claims.

The proportion o extraneous thoughts waslow (less than 10%). One consequence o train-ing onesel to attend to PCs may be to reduce the

requency o unwanted and distracting thoughtsduring per ormance. Although some extraneousthoughts may be necessary to cope with unantici-pated events, or example, og in throat, othersmay be unnecessary and unwelcome. For example,thoughts about what a member o the audience isdoing or about how well (or badly) the per ormanceis going are rarely help ul. In the present study, thesingers extraneous thoughts were all to do with the

music and her reaction to it. We suspect that a low proportion o extraneous thoughts is characteristico expert per ormance and that PCs may help keepextraneous thoughts to a minimum.

Limitations

The present study reports one singers approachto one piece o music (albeit in relation to a second),and its results cannot readily be generalized.

Inevitably the singers approach will have beenin ormed by her training as a musician (she holdsa degree in music), and as a per ormer. It is possi-ble that her experience as a research psychologist,studying singers strategies or practicing and memo-rizing, and latterly as a per ormer-researcherhersel , infuenced her practice and the nature o the annotations she made a ter the nal rehearsaland per ormance. This is typical, however, o prac-tice-led research. We believe that the bene ts o access to an experienced musicians insights intoher own per ormance outweigh the disadvantageso the case study method.

Evidence o the generalizability o our resultscomes rom their consistency with previous casestudies using similar methods (e.g., Cha n, 2007)

and with the earlier case study o the same singer(Ginsborg et al., 2006a,b; Ginsborg & Cha n,2011). One di erence between the previous studiesand the present study is that, in the latter, eatures were reported immediately a ter the nal rehearsalin the morning, and the PCs were reported some 10hours later, a ter the per ormance. While the lengtho time between the rehearsal / per ormance andmaking the annotations on each occasion waslonger than that recommended or maximum reli-ability (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) and it is possiblethat some annotations made a ter the rehearsal inthe morning were recalled a ter the per ormanceduring the evening o the same day, there was lesslikelihood o overlap between eatures and PCs inthis study than in previous research. More gener-ally, musicians use o musical structure and PCs isconsistent with principles o expert memory devel-oped rom the study o experts in other elds and with principles o memory derived rom the study o the general population (Ericsson & Oliver, 1989).

There is good reason to expect, there ore, that ourconclusions will generalize to other experiencedper ormers.

Our method o inquiry relied on the singersretrospective sel -reports. Such reports cannot be taken at ace value because they are subject todistortions induced by sel - presentation strategies,demand characteristics, and the vagaries o memory (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). For this reason, our previ-ous studies related reports o practice eatures and


16/22


16

PCs to a wide range o behavioral measures: starts,stops, and repetitions in practice; spontaneouscomments during practice; spontaneous movement during practice; cued and ree recall many monthsa ter public per ormance; and fuctuations in tempoand sound level in practice and public per ormance(Cha n et al., 2002; Cha n, 2007; Lisboa et al,2007; Noice et al., 2008). The law ul relationshipsbetween reports and behavior demonstrate that sel -reports can provide use ul insights into behaviorsthat are important to musicians, such as practiceand per ormance. In previous publications we havedemonstrated that the singers reports o eaturesand PCs or the Stravinsky were related to all o the above types o behavior except or tempo anddynamic fuctuations in per ormance (Ginsborg &

Cha n, 2011; Ginsborg et al., 2006b). These dataprovide assurance that her reports provide a reliableguide to her practice, memorization, and per or-mance strategies.

Practical applications

We suspect that the use o the procedures we havedescribed, noting eatures during practice and PCs

ollowing per ormance would be a valuable exerciseor advanced students. Research is needed to test

this intuition. (So tware designed or this purposeis available at http://www.musicpsyc.uconn.edu/symp/intro.html). The more musicians are awareo their goals or example, o which eatures they want to become automatic and which they want tokeep in mind during per ormance the more e -ciently they can practice.

conc lu s ion

Ideally, most per ormers would probably pre er toocus entirely on expression during per ormance

(Cha n & Imreh, 2002). Well-prepared PCs canmake this possible, although they certainly do not guarantee that it will happen. When a per ormeris able to ocus on expressive PCs, other aspectso the music retreat into the background. The

musical eelings become the ocus o attentionand the per ormer experiences a state o fow(Csikszentmihlyi & Csikszentmihlyi, 1988).This happened increasingly or the singer as theper ormance progressed. Her annotations refect her increasing enjoyment o the per ormance.First, her con dence grew as she recovered roma di cult start (unwanted og in voice). Second, while the mood o Ich dar nicht danken is serious,sad, the mood o In diesen Wintertagen is inti-mate, tender, becoming passionate and ending inexultation. Her rst expressive eature and PC was smiling. Above the C major chord at whichthe singer enters, she wrote hearing beauti ulharmony. During the extended interlude be orethe beginning o the last sentence o the poem

( Dem Schein der Welt verschollen the glitter o the world may disappear), she reminded hersel ,again, listen to harmonic progression / build

rom here. Then over the next phrase (au unserm Eiland wollen wir Tag und Nacht on our island let us day and night) she noted growing excite-ment (more than in rehearsal). The song ends der seligen Liebe weihn consecrate to holy love,at which she noted enjoy legato. Finally, over thelast 10 bars o the piano postlude, she made the

ollowing annotations: real eeling o pleasureduring postlude such beauti ul music, and senseo coming / being home. She describes the eel-ings that prompted these annotations thus:

This homecoming or me was not just a response to the C major tonality o thesongs conclusion, but a re erence to thecontext o the per ormance: the irst concert given by my soprano, clarinet and piano trio or twenty years, on

the occasion o a birthday celebrationor the pianist, my husband. Not only,then, did it eel like a homecoming tobe singing with long-standing and very dear riends, but also to be in the role once again o pro essional musician,rather than / as well as (musician-)researcher.


17/22


17

r e e r e n c e s

Arnold Schnberg Center Music Manuscripts. (n.d.).Retrieved November 14, 2010, rom http://www.schoenberg.at/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=374&Itemid=705&lang=en

Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the ragility o skilled per ormance. Journal o Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701-725.

Cha n, R. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrievalpractice and expert memorization.Music Perception,24 , 377-393.

Cha n, R., Demos, A., & Craw ord, M. (2009). Sourceso variation in musicians use o per ormance cues.In K. Buckley, S. Fazio, B. Kruitho , E. Schubert, &C. Stevens (Eds.),Proceedings o the 2nd International Con erence on Music Communication Science (ICoMCS2) .Sydney, Australia: HCSNet, University o WesternSydney.

Cha n, R., & Imreh, G. (1994).Memorizing or piano per ormance: A case study o a concert pianist.Paperpresented at the 3rd Practical Aspects o Memory Con erence, University o Maryland, College Park.

Cha n, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing per ection:Piano per ormance as expert memory.Psychological Science, 13 , 342-349.

Cha n, R., Imreh, G., & Craw ord, M. (2002).Practicing per ection: Memory and piano per ormance.Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum Associates.

Cha n, R., Lemieux, A., & Chen, C. (2006). Spontaneity and creativity in highly practiced per ormance. In

I. Delige & G. A. Wiggins (Eds.),Musical creativity: Multidisciplinary research in theory and practice (pp.200-218). London: Psychology Press.

Cha n, R., Lemieux, A., & Chen, C. (2007). Itsdi erent each time I play: Spontaneity in highly prepared musical per ormance.Music Perception , 24,455-472.

Cha n, R., Lisboa, T., Logan, T., & Begosh, K. T. (2010).Preparing or memorized cello per ormance: Therole o per ormance cues.Psychology o Music, 38 ,3-30.

Cross, J. (2003).The Cambridge companion to Stravinsky.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Csikszentmihlyi, M., & Csikszentmihlyi, I. S. (Eds.).(1988).Optimal Experience: Psychological studies o fow in consciousness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence throughdeliberate practice: Insights rom the study o expert per ormance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.),The pursuit o excellence through education (pp. 47-56). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Ericsson, K. A., & Oliver, W. L. (1989). A methodology or assessing the detailed structure o memory skills.

In A. M. Colley & J. R. Beech (Eds.),Acquisition and per ormance o cognitive skills (pp. 193-215). Chichester: Wiley.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ginsborg, J. (2004). Strategies or memorizing music.

In A. Williamon (Ed.),Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance per ormance (pp. 123-141).Ox ord: Ox ord University Press.

Ginsborg, J., & Cha n, R. (2011). Per ormance cuesin singing: Evidence rom practice and recall. In I.Delige & J. Davidson (Eds.),Music and the mind: Investigating the unctions and processes o music (a book in honour o John Sloboda) (pp. 339-360). Ox ord: Ox ordUniversity Press.

Ginsborg, J., Cha n, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006a).Shared per ormance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis o talk during practice.Psychology o Music, 34,167-194.

Ginsborg, J., Cha n, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006b). Sharedper ormance cues: Predictors o expert individualpractice and ensemble rehearsal. In M. Baroni et al.(Eds.),Proceedings o the 9th International Con erence on Music Perception and Cognition . Bologna, Italy.

Jackson, T. L. (1989-1990). Schoenbergs Op. 14 songs:Textual sources and analytical perception.Theory and Practice (journal o the Music Theory Society o New York State) 14/15, 35-58.

Lisboa, T., Cha n, R., Logan T., & Begosh, K. (2007). Variability and automaticity in highly practiced celloper ormance. In A. Williamon & D. Coimbra (Eds.),

Proceedings o the International Symposium on Per ormance Science 2007 (pp. 161-166). Utrecht, The Netherlands:European Association o Conservatoires.

Mach, E. (1991).Great contemporary pianists speak or themselves, Vol. 2.New York: Dover.

Maharaj, S. (2005, June)Thinking through per ormance. Paper presented at Knowledge Lab, Haus derKulturen der Welt, Berlin.

Noice, H., Je rey, J., Noice, A., & Cha n, R. (2008).Memorization by a jazz pianist: A case study.Psychology o Music, 36,47-61.

stersj, S. (2008).Shut upnplay: Negotiating the musical work . Lund: Malm Academies o Per orming Arts,Lund University.

Ross, A. (2007a).The rest is noise: Listening to the twentieth century . London: Fourth Estate.

Ross, A. (2007b, December 15). Worldwide Atonality Day [Web log post]. Retrieved rom http://www.therestisnoise.com/2007/12/100-years-o --1.html

Stravinsky, I. (1936).An autobiography. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Study Your Music Practice. (n.d.). [Computer so tware]. Available at http://www.musicpsyc.uconn.edu/symp/intro.html

(Appendix ollows)


18/22


18

appe nd ix

Frequency o eatures and PCs reported or the two songs by Arnold Schoenberg and or the R by Igor Stravinsky

Table A1Schoenberg

Ich dar nicht dankend In diesen Wintertagen Total % o eatures/PCs

F

BasicIntonationWord (pronunciation)BreathTechnicalPrepare (pitch, count, listen)

24703

0115210

21512213

1.914.311.41.912.4

All basic eatures 16 28 44 41.9

InterpretiveWord (meaning)SoundNotice musical eatureRubatoDynamics

82120

1271115

2091235

19.18.611.42.94.8

All interpretive eatures 13 36 49 46.7

ExpressiveShared

Convey meaningCo-ordinate

51

60

111

10.51.0

All eatures 35 70 105 100.00

P

Basic PCIntonationWord (pronunciation)BreathTechnicalPrepare (pitch, count, listen)

12523

05215

17738

1.28.58.53.79.8

All basic per ormance cues 13 13 26 31.7

Interpretive PCWord (meaning)SoundNotice musical eatureRubatoDynamics

12131

651203

771334

8.58.515.93.74.9

All interpretive per ormance cues 8 26 34 41.5

Expressive PCShared PC

Convey meaningCo-ordinate

62

140

202

24.41.2

All per ormance cues 29 53 82 100.00


19/22


19

Table A2Stravinsky

Total % o eatures/PCs

F

StructuralStart o sectionSwitchStart o phrase

BasicPrepare (count, listen, think, watch)Basic words (pronunciation)Technical (including breath)

9729

352545

4.43.514.3

17.212.322.2

All basic eatures 150 73.9

Interpretive

Words (interpretation, i.e. meaning)Dynamics/tempo 299 14.34.4

All interpretive eatures 38 18.7

Expressive eaturesExpressive 15 7.4

All eatures 203 100.00

P (PC)

Basic PC

PrepareTechnical (including breath) 2014 20.414.3

All basic PC 34 34.7

Interpretive PCStress on words (pronunciation + meaning)

Expressive PCExpressive

28

12

28.6

12.2

All individual per ormance cues 74 75.5

Shared Per ormance Cues (SPC)

Basic SPCScoreArrival/o

Expressive SPCExpressive

118

5

11.28.2

5.1

All shared per ormance cues 24 24.5

All per ormance cues 98 100.00

(Appendix continues)


20/22


20

Number o eatures retained as PCs or two songs by Arnold Schoenberg and or the R by Igor Stravinsky, show- ing the % o each type o eature retained

Table A3Schoenberg

Total number o eatures

Number o eatures retained Total numbereatures retained

% o eaturesretained

Ich dar nicht dankend

In diesen Wintertagen

BasicIntonationWordBreathTechnicalPrepare

21512213

12503

04205

16708

50.040.058.30.061.5

All basic eatures 44 11 11 22 50.0

InterpretiveWordSoundNoticeRubatoDynamics

2091235

01120

44503

45623

20.055.650.066.760.0

All interpretive eatures 49 4 16 20 40.8

Expressive eatures 11 4 3 7 63.6

Shared eatures 1 1 0 1 100

Total 105 20 30 50 47.6


21/22


21

Table A4Stravinsky

Number o eatures Number o eatures retained % o eatures retained

Basic*

PreparationWord (pronunciation)+Technical including breath

352545

191311

76.052.024.4

All basic eatures 105 43 40.9

InterpretiveWord (meaning)+Dynamics

299

200

69.00

All interpretive eatures 38 20 52.6

Expressive eatures 15 10 66.7

Total 158 73 46.2

*Structural eatures are not listed since none was marked as a PC.+ Six locations where both Word (pronunciation basic) and Word (meaning interpretive) eatures were marked werelater marked as PCs or Stress on Words. Both the basic and interpretive eatures were counted separately as eaturesretained as PCs. I these locations are counted once, then the % o eature locations retained is 42.4%.

a u tho r no t e s

The authors would like to thank GeorgeNicholson or his contribution as co-per ormer,and Mary Craw ord and two anonymous reviewers

or their help ul comments on earlier dra ts o themanuscript.


22/22


J G readmusic at the University o York (UK), and

trained as a singer at the Guildhall Schoolo Music and Drama,London. Following asuccess ul reelancecareer as a pro essionalsinger and singingteacher, she studiedpsychology with the

Open University, gaining a BA degree with rst classhonours, and completed her ESRC- unded PhD inpsychology at Keele University under the supervisiono John Sloboda. Jane is a Chartered Psychologist and member o the British Psychological Society. Shecarried out post-doctoral research at the University o She eld and has lectured in psychology at theUniversity o Manchester, at Leeds MetropolitanUniversity, and or the Open University. She is Associate Dean o Research and Director o theCentre or Music Per ormance Research at the RoyalNorthern College o Music, Manchester, UK, where

she encourages colleagues and students to under-take practice-based research.Jane has published widely on expert musicians

approaches to practicing and memorizing, and won the British Voice Associations Van Lawrence Award in 2002 or her research on singers memo-rizing strategies. She is Managing Editor o Music Per ormance Research , Associate Editor (MusicPer ormance) o the Journal o Interdisciplinary Musicology and Associate Editor o Musicae Scientiae.Her principal research interests are in singing, andin expert musicians preparation or per ormanceand long-term recall o music. Current and recent investigations include interactive per ormance ormusicians with hearing impairments ( unded by the AHRC), the teaching and learning o smallgroup per ormance ( unded by PALATINE), theroles o gesture and talk in duo rehearsal, dancerslong-term recall or movement with and without music, musicians career transitions, and musi-cians health.

R C f isPro essor o Psychology at the University o

Connecticut in theUSA. He studies thecognitive processesinvolved in musicalper ormance. His longi-tudinal case studies o experienced musicianspreparing or per orm-ance combine thethird-person perspective o the scientist with the

rst-person perspective o the musician to learnhow per ormance is shaped by decisions madeduring practice. These studies o ten con rmthe musicians understanding o their experi-ence, but sometimes the musicians are surprised.On these occasions everybody learns something.He has reported this research in journals suchas Psychological Science, Music Perception and Music Psychology,and in Practicing per ection: Memory and

piano per ormance (2002), written in collaboration with pianist Gabriela Imreh and social psycholo-

gist Mary Craw ord. The book describes how theirriendship led to the rst longitudinal study o Gabrielas learning o the Italian Concerto (Presto)and initiated the research on per ormance cues that is still an important ocus o the music per ormancelab today. His work on musical memory comple-ments his earlier work on memory and languagereported in journals such as Journal o Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Cognitive Science and Psychological Bulletin . He is co-editoro Memory in Historical Perspective (1988) andco-author o Cognitive and Psychometric Analysis o

Analogical Problem Solving (1991). Pro essor Cha nis a chorister and amateur fautist, but pre ers theexcitement o running white-water rapids in a kayakto that o per orming on the concert stage.

Manuscript received: DATEFinal Revision received: DATE

Accepted: DATE

b iog rap h i e s

Jane Ginsborg Roger Cha n

Ginsborg, J., & Chaffin, R. (2011). Preparation and Spontaneity in Performance. Psychomusicology-...

Documents

Transcript of Ginsborg, J., & Chaffin, R. (2011). Preparation and Spontaneity in Performance. Psychomusicology-...