Pras Amandine, Schober Michael F, Spiro Neta
Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research, The New SchoolNew York, NY, United States.
Department of Music, University of LethbridgeLethbridge, AB, Canada.
Front Psychol. 2017 Jun 26;8:966. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00966. eCollection 2017.
When musicians improvise freely together-not following any sort of script, predetermined harmonic structure, or "referent"-to what extent do they understand what they are doing in the same way as each other? And to what extent is their understanding privileged relative to outside listeners with similar levels of performing experience in free improvisation? In this exploratory case study, a saxophonist and a pianist of international renown who knew each other's work but who had never performed together before were recorded while improvising freely for 40 min. Immediately afterwards the performers were interviewed separately about the just-completed improvisation, first from memory and then while listening to two 5 min excerpts of the recording in order to prompt specific and detailed commentary. Two commenting listeners from the same performance community (a saxophonist and drummer) listened to, and were interviewed about, these excerpts. Some months later, all four participants rated the extent to which they endorsed 302 statements that had been extracted from the four interviews and anonymized. The findings demonstrate that these free jazz improvisers characterized the improvisation quite differently, selecting different moments to comment about and with little overlap in the content of their characterizations. The performers were not more likely to endorse statements by their performing partner than by a commenting listener from the same performance community, and their patterns of agreement with each other (endorsing or dissenting with statements) across multiple ratings-their interrater reliability as measured with Cohen's kappa-was only moderate, and not consistently higher than their agreement with the commenting listeners. These performers were more likely to endorse statements about performers' thoughts and actions than statements about the music itself, and more likely to endorse evaluatively positive than negative statements. But these kinds of statements were polarizing; the performers were more likely to agree with each other in their ratings of statements about the music itself and negative statements. As in Schober and Spiro (2014), the evidence supports a view that fully shared understanding is not needed for joint improvisation by professional musicians in this genre and that performing partners can agree with an outside listener more than with each other.
当音乐家们一起自由即兴演奏时——不遵循任何脚本、预先确定的和声结构或“参照标准”——他们在多大程度上以相同的方式理解自己的行为?相对于在自由即兴演奏方面有类似表演经验的外部听众,他们的理解又在多大程度上具有优势?在这个探索性的案例研究中,一位国际知名的萨克斯管演奏家和一位钢琴家,他们了解彼此的作品,但之前从未一起表演过,在自由即兴演奏40分钟时被录音。之后,表演者们立即分别接受了关于刚刚完成的即兴演奏的采访,首先是凭记忆,然后是在听录音的两个5分钟片段时,以便引发具体而详细的评论。来自同一表演群体的两位评论听众(一位萨克斯管演奏家和一位鼓手)听取了这些片段并接受了相关采访。几个月后,所有四位参与者对从四次采访中提取并匿名的302条陈述表示认可的程度进行了评分。研究结果表明,这些自由爵士即兴演奏者对即兴演奏的描述差异很大,选择不同的时刻进行评论,并且在描述内容上几乎没有重叠。表演者认可其表演伙伴陈述的可能性并不高于认可来自同一表演群体的评论听众的陈述,而且他们在多个评分中彼此之间的一致模式(认可或反对陈述)——用科恩卡方系数衡量的评分者间信度——仅为中等,并不始终高于他们与评论听众的一致程度。这些表演者更有可能认可关于表演者的想法和行为的陈述,而不是关于音乐本身的陈述,并且更有可能认可评价性积极的陈述而非消极的陈述。但这类陈述存在两极分化;表演者在对关于音乐本身的陈述和消极陈述的评分上更有可能彼此达成一致。正如在肖伯和斯皮罗(2014年)的研究中一样,证据支持这样一种观点,即对于这一类型的专业音乐家的联合即兴演奏来说,完全共享的理解并非必要,而且表演伙伴与外部听众的意见一致程度可能高于彼此之间。