Héroux Isabelle
Groupe de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Arts Vivants, Département de Musique, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Front Psychol. 2018 May 8;9:665. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00665. eCollection 2018.
Various studies have been conducted to understand the role of mental representation when musicians practice or perform music (Lehman and Ericsson, 1997; Sloboda, 2005) and the work steps required for a musician to prepare a concert (Chaffin et al., 2003). More recent studies examine creativity in the shaping of a musical interpretation (Lisboa et al., 2011; Payne, 2016; Barros et al., 2017; Wise et al., 2017). However, none of these studies answers the following questions: Why do expert musicians working from the same score create different musical interpretations? During individual practice sessions, what happens that allows each musician to produce significantly different interpretive results? To answer these questions, we instructed nine expert musicians to record their individual practice sessions, verbalize their actions and thoughts, and answer a self-reflection questionnaire. A third-party observer also described what happened during the practice sessions. We conducted interviews in order to gather additional information about the contents of the individual practice sessions; the musicians' usual work habits; and their beliefs, values, and ideas regarding the role of the musician in the creative process. Based on the methodology of (Paillé, 1994), we were able to take into account a diverse data set and identify aspects of the creative process that were specific to each individual as well as elements that all musicians shared. We found that the context in which the creative process takes place-the musician (e.g., his or her values and knowledge); the musical work (e.g., style, technical aspects, etc.); and the external constraints (e.g., deadlines, public expectations, etc.)-impacted the strategies used. The participants used reflection, extramusical supports, emotions, body reactions, intuition, and other tools to generate new musical ideas and evaluate the accuracy of their musical interpretations. We identified elements related to those already discussed in the literature, including the creative process as an alternation between divergent and convergent thinking (Guilford, 1950), creative associations (Lubart, 2015), and artistic appropriation (Héroux and Fortier, 2014; Héroux, 2016).
为了理解心理表象在音乐家练习或演奏音乐时所起的作用（莱曼和埃里克森，1997；斯洛博达，2005）以及音乐家准备一场音乐会所需的工作步骤（查芬等人，2003），人们进行了各种研究。最近的研究则探讨了在塑造音乐诠释过程中的创造力（里斯本等人，2011；佩恩，2016；巴罗斯等人，2017；怀斯等人，2017）。然而，这些研究都没有回答以下问题：为什么依据同一乐谱演奏的专业音乐家会创造出不同的音乐诠释？在个人练习过程中，是什么使得每位音乐家产生显著不同的诠释结果？为了回答这些问题，我们指导九位专业音乐家录制他们的个人练习过程，说出他们的行为和想法，并回答一份自我反思问卷。一位第三方观察者也描述了练习过程中发生的事情。我们进行了访谈，以便收集关于个人练习内容、音乐家通常的工作习惯以及他们对于音乐家在创作过程中所扮演角色的信念、价值观和想法的更多信息。基于（帕illé，1994）的方法，我们能够考虑到多样的数据集，并识别出创作过程中每个个体特有的方面以及所有音乐家共有的元素。我们发现，创作过程发生的背景——音乐家（例如，他或她的价值观和知识）、音乐作品（例如，风格、技术方面等）以及外部限制（例如，截止日期、公众期望等）——会影响所使用的策略。参与者运用反思、音乐之外的支持、情感、身体反应、直觉和其他工具来产生新的音乐想法并评估他们音乐诠释的准确性。我们识别出了与文献中已讨论内容相关的元素，包括作为发散性思维和聚合性思维之间交替的创作过程（吉尔福德，1950）、创造性联想（卢巴特，2015）以及艺术挪用（赫鲁克斯和福捷，2014；赫鲁克斯，2016）。
