You are on page 1of 333


Semantic Knowledge of Eminent Jazz Performers: A Study on the Impact of Community Affiliation and Expertise



for the degree


Field of Music Theory and Cognition

By Caroline Anson Davis



© Copyright by Caroline Anson Davis 2010 All Rights Reserved

3 ABSTRACT Semantic Knowledge of Eminent Jazz Performers: A Study on the Impact of Community Affiliation and Expertise Caroline Anson Davis How does our knowledge about music influence the way we interpret it? Previous research in music cognition has approached the role of cognitive representations in the active processing of musical stimuli (Meyer, 1956; Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Deliège 1989, 1991, 1992; Krumhansl, 1990; Deutsch, 1999). Such studies have revealed the effect of musical features on implicit responses to music; however, they have not commented on how the content and structure of semantic knowledge about the music – associative meaning – impacts the listening process. The structure and function of this knowledge system also seems to depend on experience. Studies on expertise and cultural influences on music cognition suggest that listeners with similar experiences and affiliations have similar representations of musical structure (Castellano et al., 1984; Kippen, 1987; Huron & Ollen, 2003; Thompson, 2004; Bar-Yosef, 2007). However, these studies have relied on indirect evidence, dealing with listeners’ implicit responses rather than attempting to detail listeners’ explicit knowledge structures. The primary purpose of this dissertation was to model the content and structure of associative knowledge for a specialized domain of music, namely, that of eminent jazz performers. In so doing, it relied on self-reflections and explicit responses from professional jazz musicians in several local music communities, who have years of experience listening and performing. Initial focus group interviews revealed that musicians tended to describe excerpts by referring to names of other musicians and by discussing broad characteristics of these performers. Therefore, a subsequent study asked participants to associate musicians’ names with

4 15-second excerpts of familiar recordings (association task), as well as to match musical descriptors to performer-name prompts (descriptor-matching task). Social network analysis (SNA) techniques were used to group participants into musical communities to determine the effect of community affiliation on the content and structure of associative knowledge. Results pointed to differentiated knowledge for each excerpt and performer prompt, and implied that community affiliation, expertise, and several demographic variables impacted the content and structure of this knowledge. Specifically, the results demonstrated differences between community affiliation groups on the association task and between expertise groups on the descriptor-matching task. These higher-level cognitive structures were related to previously held theories in cognitive psychology (Rosch, 1975b; Medin & Shaffer, 1978), suggesting that associative musical meaning is content-specific, hierarchically organized, and specialized to the listener’s experience.

5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the Graduate School and the School of Music at Northwestern for the monetary and academic support I have received for the past five years. Especially at the early stages of my career at Northwestern, when I was heavily involved in music performance and music studies, I experienced nothing but positive encouragement from both the administration and faculty. I offer my sincere gratitude to the musicians I have known and played with in Chicago and to those who dedicated their time and energy to my research. I would especially like to thank Bobby Broom and Geof Bradfield, who have each provided insightful comments on the matters of jazz scholarship. I am also indebted to the following musicians who have communicated with me on a musical level, which is possibly one of the best gifts I could have hoped for during this process: James Davis, Sean McCluskey, Jeff Greene, Jon Deitemyer, Matthew Golombisky, Dave Miller, Quin Kirchner, Katie Wiegman, and Leslie Beukelman. I would also like to extend my thanks to those who have encouraged me in the Music Theory/Cognition program. I feel so lucky to have had the pleasure to learn and work with one of the most positive and innovative scholars I have ever known, Richard Ashley. His ability to push me has been one of the greatest gifts I have experienced as a developing scholar. I would also like to extend my thanks to Robert Gjerdingen, who has always been available and willing to identify with my ideas by relating them to his incredibly vast knowledge. I owe a debt of appreciation to the following graduate students, who have attended my presentations, graciously provided suggestions on my work, and simply asked how I am doing: Kyung Myun Lee, Ji Chul Kim, Jung Nyo Kim, Ives Chor, Dana Hamblet Strait, Alexandra Parbery-Clark, Ben Duane, Ben Anderson, and Karen Chan.

6 My deepest thanks go to those with whom I have had personal friendships and relationships during this process. My mother has always provided me with unconditional love and support from all angles, but she has especially encouraged during the most challenging times of my life. I am grateful for long conversations with my father, who has offered his insight on meditation and consciousness that have propelled me forward. My closest friends, Danny Mekonnen, Megan Martens, Haley Kitts, Bianca Hooman, Katie Wiegman, Leslie Beukelman, Jennifer Swanson, Sean McCluskey, Matthew Golombisky, and Dave Miller, have endured long conversations during some of the rockiest roads of my life, and for that I am eternally grateful for them. Finally, I wish to thank James Davis, who has supported me with all the depth of his spirit. Your love, silliness, serious cooking skills, and ability to sit through my rants have reminded me of what is important in life. You are and always will be my best friend.

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .......................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................5 Table of Contents.........................................................................................................7 List of Tables............................................................................................................. 10 List of Figures............................................................................................................ 13 Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 14 Introduction and Chapter Overview................................................................ 15 Musical Meaning............................................................................................ 18 Concepts and Developments of Expertise ....................................................... 24 Context and Coordination in Performance........................................... 29 Purpose and Questions of the Study................................................................ 34 Operational Terminology and Methodological Overview................................ 35 Author Reflexivity.......................................................................................... 38 Study Limitations ........................................................................................... 41 Chapter Summary and Dissertation Overview................................................. 41 Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction: Review of Purpose and Chapter Overview................................. 43 Varieties of Mental Representation................................................................. 44 Introduction ........................................................................................ 44 Models of Semantic Knowledge in Memory ....................................... 45 Models of Cognitive Processing.......................................................... 54 Feature- Versus Concept-Driven Processing Models ........................... 56 Integrative Processing Models ............................................................ 60 The Impact of Social Group and Culture on Cognitive Behavior..................... 65 Introduction ........................................................................................ 65 Social Groups and Behavior................................................................ 67 Culture and Cognition......................................................................... 73 Cognitive Representations and Processing of Music ....................................... 78 Introduction ........................................................................................ 78 Models of Music Representation and Processing................................. 80 Referential and Associative Representations of Music ........................ 86 Social Groups, Culture, and Music ................................................................. 91 Introduction ........................................................................................ 91 Social Influences on Musical Experience ............................................ 92 Culture, Music, and Cognition ............................................................ 99 Professional Musicians ..................................................................... 104 Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 109

8 Chapter 3: Research Methods and Design Introduction: Restatement of Purpose and Chapter Overview ....................... 111 Methodological Overview ............................................................................ 112 Focus Group Interviews................................................................................ 113 Participants ....................................................................................... 114 Materials and Procedure.................................................................... 116 Results.............................................................................................. 119 Discussion and Relevance to the Main Study .................................... 123 Main Study: Concepts for Eminent Jazz Performers ..................................... 126 The Network Approach..................................................................... 126 Conceptualization Tasks ................................................................... 129 Pilot Study: Participants.................................................................... 132 Pilot Study: Materials and Procedure ................................................ 133 Eminent Performer Study: Participants.............................................. 137 Eminent Performer Study: Materials and Procedure .......................... 137 Hypotheses................................................................................................... 139 Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 142 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results Introduction: Review of Goals and Chapter Overview .................................. 144 Collaborator Task......................................................................................... 145 Overview .......................................................................................... 145 Analysis Procedures.......................................................................... 145 Results.............................................................................................. 152 Summary of Results.......................................................................... 157 Association Task .......................................................................................... 158 Overview .......................................................................................... 158 Analysis Procedures.......................................................................... 158 Results: Categories, Frequency and Agreement Scores ..................... 162 Participant Attribute Effects.............................................................. 170 Ratings and Accuracy ....................................................................... 177 Summary of Results.......................................................................... 183 Descriptor-Matching Task ............................................................................ 186 Overview .......................................................................................... 186 Analysis Procedures.......................................................................... 186 Results.............................................................................................. 188 Participant Attribute, Accuracy, and Influence Rating Effects ........... 191 Summary of Results.......................................................................... 192 Comparison of Participant Attribute Influences ............................................ 193 Chapter Summary......................................................................................... 194 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions Introduction: Review of Objectives and Chapter Overview........................... 196 Interpretation of Results ............................................................................... 197

9 Collaborator Task: Network Properties of Jazz Communities............ 197 Jazz Communities as Attribute-Related Clusters ............................... 200 Association Task: Semantic Memory for Eminent Jazz Performers ... 203 Association Task: Organization of Semantic Memory....................... 208 Attribute-Based Contexts of Associative Representation ................... 212 Descriptor-Matching Task: Cognitive Instantiations of Performers ... 217 Descriptor-Matching Task Attribute-Based Influence on Performer Representations................................................................................. 220 Suggestions for Future Research................................................................... 222 Practical Implications for Music Educators................................................... 225 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 227 Tables ...................................................................................................................... 229 Figures..................................................................................................................... 259 References ............................................................................................................... 276 Appendix A: Focus Group Background Survey........................................................ 304 Appendix B: Focus Group Study Circle Diagrams ................................................... 306 Appendix C: Name Associations.............................................................................. 318

10 List of Tables 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 Focus Groups: Participant Demographics .................................................. 115 Focus Group Recordings ........................................................................... 117 Discourse Analysis Symbols...................................................................... 118 Focus Group Discussion ............................................................................ 229 Focus Group Description of Excerpts ........................................................ 237 Pilot Study: Participant Demographics....................................................... 133 Pilot Study Excerpts .................................................................................. 135 Eminent Jazz Performer Study Excerpts .................................................... 138 Pilot and Eminent Jazz Performer Study Descriptors ................................. 245 Participant Attributes................................................................................. 150 Attribute Recoding .................................................................................... 151 Geodesic Counts Between Participants ...................................................... 246 Geodesic Distances Between Participants .................................................. 249 Degree-Degree Correlations Between Participants..................................... 252 Hierarchical-Clustering Iterations .............................................................. 256 Girvan-Newman Partitions ........................................................................ 257 Density Values for Participants.................................................................. 258 Community Affiliation Groups by HC Groups ANOVA............................ 155 Community Affiliation Groups by GN Clusters ANOVA .......................... 155 Age Groups by Network Properties Cross-tabulations................................ 156 Experience Groups by GN Clusters Cross-tabulation ................................. 156 Network Properties by Preferred Performance Styles Cross-tabulations ..... 157

11 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 Instrument Codes....................................................................................... 159 Criteria Coding Strategies.......................................................................... 160 Name Associations with Frequency Scores Greater than 5......................... 163 Name Association Agreement Scores ........................................................ 164 Excerpts by Name Association Agreement Scores ANOVA ...................... 164 Instrument Association Frequency Scores.................................................. 165 Instrument Associations by Frequency Scores ANOVA............................. 166 Instrument Association Agreement Scores................................................. 167 Instrument Association Agreement Scores by Excerpts ANOVA............... 167 Association Criteria Frequency Scores....................................................... 168 Association Criteria Frequency Scores by Excerpt ANOVA ...................... 168 Association Criteria Agreement Scores...................................................... 169 Association Criteria Agreement Scores by Excerpts ANOVA.................... 169 Age Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation.......................... 170 Age Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation ................................ 170 Instrument Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation................ 171 Instrument Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation...................... 171 Experience Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation............... 172 Experience Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation ..................... 172 Education Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation................. 173 Education Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation ....................... 173 Performance Style Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation.... 174 Performance Style Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation .......... 174

12 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 HC Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation........................... 175 HC Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation ................................. 176 GN Clusters by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation ......................... 176 GN Clusters by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation................................ 176 Community Affiliation Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation... 177 Typicality and Influence Ratings ............................................................... 178 Performer Identification Accuracy............................................................. 179 Performer Instrument Categories ............................................................... 180 Musical Descriptors and Codes.................................................................. 187 Descriptor-Prompt Matches ....................................................................... 189 Descriptor-Matching Agreement Scores .................................................... 190 Comparison of Influential Factors on Categorical Data.............................. 193 Comparison of Influential Factors on Continuous Data.............................. 194

13 List of Figures 1.1 2.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 Performance and Gricean Maxims: Bass Solo.............................................. 31 Semantic Network Structure ........................................................................ 48 Example of a Matrix in Social Network Analysis....................................... 146 Professional Jazz Musician Collaborator Network ..................................... 259 Professional Jazz Musician Collaborator Network in Clusters.................... 260 Louis Armstrong Associations Network .................................................... 261 Ornette Coleman Associations Network .................................................... 262 John Coltrane Associations Network ......................................................... 263 Miles Davis Associations Network ............................................................ 264 Duke Ellington Associations Network ....................................................... 265 Herbie Hancock Associations Network...................................................... 266 Coleman Hawkins Associations Network .................................................. 267 Billie Holiday Associations Network......................................................... 268 Charles Mingus Associations Network ...................................................... 269 Thelonious Monk Associations Network ................................................... 270 Wes Montgomery Associations Network ................................................... 271 Charlie Parker Associations Network......................................................... 272 Jaco Pastorius Associations Network ......................................................... 273 Max Roach Associations Network ............................................................. 274 Sonny Rollins Associations Network......................................................... 275

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Fly me to the moon and let me sing among the stars, Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars, In other words, hold my hand, in other words, baby kiss me. Fill my heart with song, and let me sing for evermore, You are all I long for, all I worship and adore, In other words, please be true, in other words, I love you. – Bart Howard How do we, as listeners, interpret a song like Fly Me to the Moon? Old standards from the Great American Songbook bring to mind associative images, based on different kinds of interpretation. First, Howard’s lyrics denote an elated sense of jubilation in the presence of one’s partner. However, this emotion seems to be presented against a backdrop of slight sorrow, suggested by the phrase “please be true.” Harmonically speaking, these combined views of joy and sadness are musically supported by a vacillation between major and minor tonalities. Emotionally, the writer wants to experience assurance from his partner, and he communicates this desire with the plea, “to be true.” Other meaningful aspects of this standard can be explored by referring to particular versions of it. Among the many recordings of this song, the 1964 version by Frank Sinatra and the Count Basie band stands out as a prototype. The genre of the recording, due to its instrumentation, focus on improvisation, and overall timbre, is jazz. The light drums and flute introduction, followed by the delayed entrance of a triumphant big band almost demand it to be a dance number. As a musician who has played in many wedding bands, I can attest to its popularity as a “first dance” number for newlyweds. In addition, since the lyrics imply a level of long-term commitment, the song is appropriate for a wedding. Finally, the

15 performers on the Sinatra-Basie recording bring to mind particular autobiographical and historical references. Ol’ Blue Eyes not only had a particularly cunning voice, but also chose eclectic career moves, including memorable performances with the famed Rat Pack and purported affiliations with the mafia (Rojek, 2004). Count Basie and his band, local to Kansas City and Chicago, were known for their innovative approach to big band composition, based mostly upon simple riffs and variations. The mixture of these associative interpretations forms a composite in the listener’s mind and guide present or future interpretations. As suggested by this brief reading of Fly Me to the Moon, music presents the opportunity for multiple associations to arise in memory. The lyrics imply particular emotions and mood states, the Sinatra-Basie recording places the song in an established genre and function, and the performers remind the listener of the performers’ autobiographies and of events in history. This dissertation explores the role of such associations in familiar jazz recordings and determines their relationship to experiential variables such as community involvement and expertise.

Introduction and Chapter Overview Prior research has contemplated the involvement of cognitive mechanisms in musical processing, including the instantiation of structural patterns common to multiple forms of music, given the inherent perceptual capacities of the human mind (see, for example, Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Sloboda, 1985; Dowling & Harwood, 1986; Krumhansl, 1990; Deutsch, 1999). The majority of such studies have focused on surface-level musical features, such as pitch or harmony, and have used controlled experimental paradigms to test participants’ responses to different aspects of the chosen musical dimensions. The stimuli employed are typically unfamiliar pieces of music, taken from the traditional Western canon. Although these paradigms

16 have been altered somewhat due to recent methodological discussions (Leman & Schneider, 1997; Purwins & Hardoon, 2009), experimental studies of this kind continue to be the mainstay of research in music cognition. One implication from these studies is that interpretations of music are based on intuitive principles of grouping and organization of concrete musical features rather than on associations and information about performers or composers. These studies’ conclusions suggest that implicit, rather than explicit knowledge guides listeners’ impressions of music. By drawing this connection, these studies ignore the importance of overt associative thinking patterns that are available to our immediate awareness. Research in music cognition also typically displays a focus on general tendencies instead of individual differences within and between populations. In more recent years the interest in accumulated experience and sociocultural variables has started to be a significant strand in the systematic study of music (Castellano et al., 1984; Kippen, 1987; Huron & Ollen, 2003; Thompson, 2004; Bar-Yosef, 2007), although it is not a new concept (Meyer, 1956). Of these variables, Leonard Meyer (1956) argued: Music is not a “universal language.” The languages and dialects of music are many. They vary from culture to culture, from epoch to epoch within the same culture, and even within a single epoch and culture…Witness the fact that in our own culture the devotees of “serious” music have great difficulty in understanding the meaning and significance of jazz and vice versa (p. 62). In addition to this theoretical backdrop, Meyer also agreed with the importance of uncovering musical universals across cultures. Such commonalities can be seen as a thread connecting research by music theorists and psychologists; by studying them, a researcher can acknowledge the importance of cultural and individual differences, but focus his efforts on musical universals to highlight those differences. Cross-cultural and social group studies can in fact reveal a number

17 of similarities in processing and representation of musical structures (Krumhansl, 1990), but they also have the potential to reveal slight differences in musical perception, meaning, and notation (Walker, 1978, 1987, 1997). This dissertation proposes that studies on the representation and processing of music may benefit from an alternative focus. It asks questions such as: What associations, not directly explained by perception of musical features, do people utilize when they listen to music? What explicit knowledge and memory structures are involved in the processing of familiar, as opposed to unfamiliar, music? And, especially, how do sociocultural affiliations and expertise-related factors influence these associative structures? This project pursues a novel and distinctive approach, concentrating on the activation of explicit rather than implicit knowledge1 during the processing of familiar music. Specifically, it attempts to examine the content and structure of semantic knowledge for eminent jazz performers and to assess the influence of sociocultural affiliations on the generation of musical meaning, via these explicit cognitive systems. By relying on participants’ self-reflections of their cognitive processes, the methodology used in this study demonstrates how listeners associate referential concepts and categories with musical stimuli. Listeners’ activation and retrieval of semantic knowledge is shown to be reliant on a set of abstract, high-level cognitive processes rather than on concrete, low-level perceptual features. I begin this chapter with a discussion of types of musical meaning, helping to frame the present study within previously established theories. This is followed by an explanation of this study’s specific interest in musicians,

The distinction I draw between these two forms of knowledge is similar to that proposed by Dienes and Perner (1999): “The most important type of implicit knowledge consists of representations that merely reflect the property of objects or events without predicating them of any particular entity. The clearest cases of explicit knowledge of a fact are representations of one’s own attitude of knowing that fact…knowledge capable of such fully explicit representation provides the necessary and perhaps sufficient conditions of conscious knowledge” (p. 752).

18 focusing on my rationale for studying experts and on the relationship between musicians’ performance practices and their construction of musical meaning. The purpose, research questions, conceptual terminology, and methodology of the present study are then presented in brief overview. Finally, I will discuss the general impact of author reflexivity and personal experience in relation to the present work.

Musical Meaning The concept of musical meaning is ancient (Plato, The Laws, Book III) and rooted in monographs of composers and music aestheticians (Hanslick, 1891; Stravinsky, 1936). In the modern era, Leonard Meyer was one of the first musicologists to speculate on the relationship between cognitive principles of perception, meaning, and emotion in music. In the first chapter of his seminal text, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956), Meyer stated that his purpose was to determine “what constitutes musical meaning” (p. 1). He furthered this initiative by investigating the psychological interplay between construction of meaning and deviation from common musical patterns. As a result, he introduced a distinctive framework for the concept of musical meaning. Theoretically, Meyer differentiated two primary types of meaning, each dependent on its referent: absolute, which is internally contained in the musical work, and referential, which points to external ideas or mental states. According to Meyer, both add to the composite meaning ascribed to a musical work, and neither is more important than the other, even though Meyer himself primarily explored absolute properties throughout his oeuvre (Meyer, 1967; 1973; 1989). In Emotion and Meaning in Music, Meyer further distinguished two “aesthetic positions”: formalists, who insist that meaning arises from the comprehension of patterns in the work, and expressionists, who believe that meaning can be explained by physical or emotional reactions,

19 ancillary to the work itself. Meyer then distinguished three other types of meaning: hypothetical, evident, and determinate. The first type arises within large-scale stylistic constraints, the second within moment-to-moment musical “gestures” during real-time perception, and the third by associating the first two outside of real-time (p. 37). Using this gamut of terms, Meyer set the stage for a multi-level, hierarchically organized system of meaning, and thus for the processing of music. He located himself in the camp of both formalist and absolute expressionists, generally concentrating on the meaning born of one’s moment-tomoment perception of deviations from stable, memory- and knowledge-driven expectations regarding musical structure and process. This supported his belief in a “triadic relationship” between the “stimulus, that to which the stimulus points, and the conscious observer” (p. 34), directly related to philosopher Charles Peirce’s (1931-1958) triadic model of the representamen (the sign), interpretant (the interpretation of the sign), and object (for which the sign stands). In a later article, Meyer (1967, Part One), reformulated his previous approach via concrete examples of expectation probability, governed by information theory. To clarify the relationship between typical patterns within style systems, Meyer expanded upon two terms: designative meaning as pointing to a nonmusical concept – the “character of a work” – and embodied meaning as pointing to a musical concept – “expectations about musical events” (1967, p. 7). He asserted that listeners form musical expectations on the basis of their “psychological processes ingrained as habits in the perceptions, dispositions, and responses,” or stylistic knowledge (p.7); and that, “…each musical experience…modifies, though perhaps only slightly, the internalized probability system (the habit responses) upon which prediction depends” (p. 47). Even though Meyer’s theories relied on listeners’ presumed knowledge of learned style systems via the “history of culture, art, and the artist” (1967, p. 63), he did not

20 detail how these style systems were organized and represented in memory, nor did he comment on the way in which these systems are retrieved. Instead, in this and two of his other texts (1956; 1967; 1989), he concentrated more on distinct musical features that contributed to the experience of emotion and meaning of the work, composer, and style system. His theories assumed that listeners experience hypothetical, evident, and determinate meanings both during and after hearing the work, given the pattern of musical devices in the work itself as well as compiled memories and knowledge of musical patterns. In a later article that considered a different combination of psychology and music, Meyer (1980) developed the idea of a musical “archetype,” similar to the cognitive psychological notion of a schema, or a unified conceptual chunk for a set of items or ideas. According to Meyer, the archetype relied on descriptions of distinct musical parameters that contribute to a sense of what the music expresses; however, Meyer did not discuss this higher-level essence of music as much as the moment-to-moment, low-level features of music. As an alternative to Meyer’s expectation-driven perspective, Eric Clarke (2005) approached the study of music ecologically, through the emphasis of associations between the structure of the environment and perceptual experience. Primarily influenced by James Gibson’s ecological perspective of visual perception (1979), Clarke focused three aspects of perception: 1. Listeners are active in their perception via a process of orientation, 2. Listeners create and adapt to musical systems, and 3. Listening experience is gained via both passive and active learning, creating multiple forms of representation. To support these assertions, Clarke rejected the dominant information-processing view, which tends to rely primarily on bottom-up processing mechanisms and largely ignores the role of action in perception. He stated that “people seem to be aware of supposedly “high-level” features much more directly and

21 immediately than the lower-level features that a standard information-processing account suggests they need to process first” (p. 16). Clarke noted the ways in which listeners’ comments on music reflect overall musical messages; listeners tend, for example, to discuss genre and emotion rather than scales and dynamics. He described semantic knowledge as built-in, distributed systems that rely on ecological circumstances (e.g. auditory, physiological, and cultural) for accessibility and retrieval. As the driving force in this equation, Clarke situated his theory within the connectionist view of cognition: perceptual and cognitive processes can be modeled as the distributed property of a whole system, no particular part of which possesses any “knowledge” at all, rather than as the functioning of explicit rules operating on fixed storage addresses which contain representations or knowledge stores (p. 26). Distinctly influenced by Artificial Intelligence (AI), this approach views cognition as a network of related nodes (or units of information) that could be activated at any given moment, given appropriate contextual circumstances. The musical example Clarke provided dealt with preferences for melodies with certain properties, such as those “which start and finish on the same note, generally move in a stepwise manner, but contain at least two intervals of a major third or more” (p. 27). According to Clarke, these melodies tend to sound more “correct,” and thus listeners activate the nodes pertaining to those features more than melodies that do not. Given these comments, Clarke created a distinct and convergent position with regard to methodology, one that considered the environmental context and construction of musical experience as actively shaped by the listener. In both their theories, Meyer and Clarke implied that musical meaning is actively constructed by the listener via a set of active cognitive mechanisms. As such, it is often likened

22 to language because it communicates meaning via a system of user-designed syntactic principles (Longfellow, 1835; Sloboda, 1985; Aiello, 1994; Patel, 2003). However, a widely accepted system of musical meaning does not seem to exist, because of the process of interpretation – meaning is imposed by the listener (Meyer, 1956; Clarke, 2005). Instead of relating musical meaning to structural components of language, such as syntax, it may be more fruitful to consider its relationship to semiotic principles of language (Burkholder, 2007). In the words of polymath Theodore Adorno: Music aspires to be a language without intention. But the demarcation line between itself and the language of intentions is not absolute; we are not confronted by two wholly separate realms. There is a dialectic at work. Music is permeated through and through with intentionality…Music points to true language in the sense that content is apparent in it, but it does so at the cost of unambiguous meaning, which has migrated to the languages of intentionality (1956, p. 3). Music’s meaning, then, is heavily contingent on a listener’s interpretive activity. This tension between absolute and intentional meanings is often the cause of heated debates on the evolutionary functions of music (Pinker, 1997, p. 524-5). Pinker argued that art, including music, serves the mental “circuitry” of pleasure and implied that absolute meanings of art are more biologically than psychological oriented. On the other hand, Adorno noted: “Music finds the absolute immediately, but at the moment of discovery it becomes obscured, just as too powerful a light dazzles the eyes, preventing them from seeing things which are perfectly visible” (p. 4). As indicated in this colloquial observation, music presents opportunities, or potential moments, for constructing meaning.

23 The search for a typology of meaning still pervades the scholarship of music. In a recent study on the neurological correlates of musical semantics, Koelsch and colleagues (2004) opened their article by categorizing four subtypes of musical meaning: i) ii) iii) iv) Meaning that emerges from a connection across different frames of reference suggested by common patterns or forms Meaning that arises from the suggestion of a particular mood Meaning that results from extra-musical associations Meaning that can be attributed to the interplay of formal structures in creating patterns of tension and resolution (p. 302).

Elements of Koelsch’s classification echo the theoretical descriptions presented by both Meyer and Clarke, but the terminology is slightly different. Related to, but distinct from Koelsch’s strategy, this study uses yet another typology of musical meaning, related to advances provided by Meyer and Clarke: i) ii) iii) Meaning that results from abstract “higher-level” concepts Meaning that is actively retrieved from semantic knowledge systems in memory, referential in nature Meaning that arises from a particular sociocultural state of mind and relies on accessibility of previously learned style systems

Point i) relates directly to Clarke’s observation that listeners are more likely to discuss genre and emotion rather than timbre and dynamics. The notion of higher-level semantic knowledge in memory, specifically related to language-specific concepts, will be elaborated upon in the next chapter. These concepts are most clearly related to Meyer’s notion of referential meaning,2 or that which is indirectly related to the music itself. The influence of listeners’ sociocultural mindsets on their construction of musical meaning will also be detailed in chapter 2; this connects directly to the notion of ecological contexts described by Clarke.


As Koelsch (2004) stated, referential meaning is often called “extra-musical association.”

24 Concepts and Developments of Expertise Because the meaning systems described above imply a certain level of involvement and knowledge of the musical domain, this study is primarily concerned with the ways in which professional musicians, those who contemplate music on a daily basis, construct musical meaning. Musical representations are more detailed and accessible for those who interact with music on a deep and consistent basis. I would not hold that musicians have more sophisticated knowledge structures than nonmusicians, but that the “global qualities” of their thought processes demonstrate the use of cognitive heuristics, or developed knowledge structures for problem solving (Minskey & Papert, 1974, p. 59). Experts frequently interact with their domain of interest with heightened attention and memory as well as active engagement in “pushing the boundaries” (Schneider, 1985; Alexander, 2003, p.12); this is as true of professional musicians as it is with experts in other domains. Given their experience with listening and performing, musicians are able to process music automatically and with minimal cognitive workload (Schlaug, 2003; Bangert et al., 2003). The way in which these expert processes shape cognition is often overlooked in studies on music perception; therefore, the following sections will elaborate on the professional practices that constitute the basis of such expertise. Some of the most basic modes of learning – imitation, repetition, elaboration – aid in retention and formation of knowledge in any domain (Dawkins, 1976; Blackmore, 1998). According to Dawkins (1976), imitation leads to promulgation of memes, or culturally transmitted beliefs, intentions, and values. Other researchers have expanded this concept to include additional kinds of experience; for example, Blackmore (1998) argued that the use of imitation to solve problems is an innate function of humans, compared to birds and primates who are not capable of this level of integration. It is easy to see that music makes much use of

25 patterns of repetition, and musicians contribute to the propagation of standardized norms by imitating these patterns. Adorno (1941) speculated on the elements that reinforce standardization in popular and jazz music: Imitation offers a lead for coming to grips with the basic reasons for it [standard patterns]. The musical standards of popular music were originally developed by a competitive process. As one particular song scored a great success, hundreds of others sprang up imitating the successful one. The most successful hits, types, and “ratios” between elements were imitated, and the process culminated in the crystallization of standards (p. 443). Arguably, these processes added to the grammaticality and lexicality of music, such that standard patterns form conventionalized systems that define certain genres or styles. The performer, who synthesizes what she has heard before to present a specialized viewpoint, contributes to a form of what Adorno referred to as “natural” music. Adorno asserted that past experiences, including songs introduced during childhood and melodies from a given time period, form the standardized elements of natural music. He also believed that jazz was the most “drastic example of standardization of presumably individualized features” and simplified stylistic patterns down to a set of repetitive, recognizably accessible schemes: Even though jazz musicians still improvise in practice, their improvisations have become so “normalized” as to enable a whole terminology to be developed to express the standard devices of individualization…Improvisations…are confined within the walls of the harmonic and metric scheme. In a great many cases, such as the “break” of pre-swing jazz, the musical function of the improvised detail is determined completely by the scheme: the break can be nothing other than a disguised cadence (p. 445). Although he focused more on issues of commercialism and accessibility in popular music, Adorno’s claims were loosely based on the assumption that pop and jazz musicians search for sources of influence, incorporating previously explored patterns into their own music, thus,

26 resulting in a body of repetitive, accessible, commercial art. These parameters add to the formation of musical identities, not as entities that mark elements of personal identity, but as units of musical patterns and influences that add to the music itself (MacDonald et al., 2002).3 In the jazz idiom, musicians approach the development of identities in a variety of ways, such as learning from older musicians, attending jam sessions, listening to recordings, transcribing patterns, practicing with collaborators, and memorizing repertoire (Berliner, 1994). Because this process involves repetition, imitation, and elaboration of previous ideas, the young musician faces a truly daunting responsibility with regard to her future professionalism. Often the choice of who and what to imitate provides the musician with the set of tools – semantic and procedural knowledge – to use, given a standard contextualization. Synthesizing such musical influences engages the musician’s conscious mind to tailor a unique semantic knowledge system, or elaborated network of related concepts, structured to meet the goals of the musician. My own observations of musicians in performance situations reflect the claims presented above. Since I have been exposed to my own and others’ processes of immersion in the professional world of music, I have noticed that our social practices expose the development of musical identities. One anecdote helps to illustrate the relationship between verbalized knowledge and musical identity: during a set break, a musician made a comment about a recording playing on the speakers in the restaurant, “damn, that was when Tain was playin’ on Zildjians.” Some of the musicians sitting near the table, including myself, acknowledged his observation by referring to the group on the recording, but none questioned the motivation


MacDonald, Hargreaves, and Miell (2002) have distinguished between two types of musical identity: identities in music, or “those aspects of musical identities that are socially defined within given cultural roles and musical categories,” and music in identities, or “how we use music as a means or resource for developing other aspects of our individual identities” (p. 2). The present study is more concerned with the former.

27 behind this colloquial, yet sophisticated remark. As I retired home that evening I reflected upon this interchange, finding myself astonished at the minute details musicians know about their influences – in this case the brand of cymbal played by drummer Jeff ‘Tain’ Watts – and the nonchalant manner in which they communicate that detailed information to others. What motivated this musician to become so familiarized with Watts’ cymbal choices throughout his career, and why did he find it necessary to express it to other musicians? It is my belief that his observation represents his passion for hearing important nuances in one of his influences and communicated his desire for others to be informed of this passion.4 Indeed, Wilson and MacDonald (2005) suggested that musicians’ talk indicates “negotiative processes of identity construction” (p. 344). In this study, verbalizations contained information that characterized the speaker’s placement within a genre, social group, or value-laden institution. In a related study, MacDonald and Wilson (2005) found that views on improvisation included two prominent views: an interpretation of a composition, or the integration of practiced patterns (licks) and spontaneous creation. Differing views were also found for the concepts of swing, collaboration, instruments, and social as well as professional context in jazz. The authors stated that “…being a jazz musician is one of a number of possible musical identities for these musicians, one that allows them to perceive themselves as a group” (p. 412, emphasis theirs). The ethnomusicologist Ben Sidran (1971) assessed jazz as an oral culture, which communicates “a direct reflection of the immediate environment and of the way in which members of the oral community relate that environment” (p. 10, emphasis his). In light of this theoretical backdrop, the anecdote above can be interpreted as an act of identity construction in a primarily oral culture.

The last point may be the best explanation, as this musician is known to be upfront about his knowledge of Jeff ‘Tain’ Watts as well as cymbal brands. In addition, he is endorsed by Sabian Cymbals, which was originally the parent company of Zildjian cymbals, but is now a rival manufacturer.

28 Many jazz musicians experience these identity-forming processes early on in their careers. In Thinking in Jazz, Paul Berliner (1994) included a passage on the process of realizing one’s influences, via focused practice: Gary Bartz “basically learned one thing” from each of the musicians who assisted him—“saxophone technique” from one, “dynamics and articulation” from another, “chords” from a third. Similarly, an aspiring pianist learned the general principles of jazz theory from Barry Harris, discovered “how to achieve the independence of both hands and how to create effective left hand bass lines” under pianist Jaki Byard’s tutelage, and expanded his repertory with someone else (pp. 51-52). Identity shaping, then, requires processes of feature extraction, selection, and comprehensive integration; features like technique, chords, articulation, and lines mentioned by Bartz. George Lewis (2008) identified important early experiences of musicians in the Chicago-formed Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians (AACM), including informal mentoring, churchgoing, and family communal performances. In some cases, young musicians learned about potential influences by listening to what their family members listened to: [Jodie] Christian’s father’s brother-in-law ‘had a collection of records in the thirties of all the blues players, which would be a collector’s item now…When I’d come to the house, he always played them’ (p. 11). As this interview statement suggests, the availability of resources changes with social and cultural context, so developing musicians are not always in control of their identities. Lewis also mentioned the role of educators in shaping early musical development. In the case of some of the musicians in the AACM, they were privy to the tutelage of Captain Walter Dyett, who not only encouraged students to practice multiple instruments in changing contexts, but also created unique performance opportunities, almost to the point of extremism. Since Dyett has been described as a “commanding leader and a demanding taskmaster,” with respect to the traditional

29 model of learning jazz, it is perhaps the case that some of later members of the AACM acted in opposition to his teachings (Wang, 2003, p. 1). Another venue for development discussed at length by both Lewis and Berliner is the jazz jam session, which provides opportunities for spontaneous musical communication and performing standardized repertoire. Jam sessions also offer musicians a chance to network with others, potentially forming groups of their own, based on mutual experiences and preferences (Berliner, 1994; Lewis, 2008). All these elements shape musicians to varying degrees, and they come about through hours of formative work in solitary practice, in which learners decompose, integrate, polish, and maintain music they wish to perform (Chaffin & Imreh, 1997, 2002). Multifaceted layers of learning through imitation and elaboration complicate the burden of integrating a learner’s influences into a solidified unit. Studies on narrative analysis of life stories have advocated that the process of communicating these units, as musical identities, results in the “making of the self” (McAdams, 1993). As will be evident in the next section, these resultant musical identities are realized in how musicians describe and perform music.

Context and Coordination in Performance In addition to the verbalization of personal histories and experiences, musical identities can arise within the context of a performance. A previous study, conducted by myself and Richard Ashley (2005), considered the relationship between patterns in live performance and shared intentions as expressed in a post-performance discussion. The study’s purpose was to understand the way in which shared knowledge of jazz patterns is realized in musical improvisations. After videotaping a professional trio’s live performance at a local venue, an interview was conducted, which focused on the following: “When you present an idea, do you

30 assume that another musician will respond? How so?” A detailed analysis of one chorus of a bass solo as part of a performance of Jerome Kern’s All the Things You Are revealed the musicians’ shared interpretations of meaning in the form of uptake and agreement, similar to the content and structure of conversation (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969; Grice, 1975; Clark, 1996). Musical phrases (utterances) presented by the bass player were acknowledged (uptake) and responded to (agreement) by other members in the ensemble in appropriate ways and were further analyzed by applying principles of Gricean pragmatics. Grice (1975) distinguished between what is said versus what is implicated in the communicative medium of language. According to his theory, speakers participate in conversations based on cooperation and implied, shared purposes. Grice called this the cooperative principle and further wrote that when participants enter into a conversation, they agree to “make [your] conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which [you] are engaged” (p. 45). As suggested by the live performance data, jazz musicians engage a similar set of principles during performance – although moment-to-moment goals relate more to anticipation and coordination to dynamic events than do post-performance interpretations. Berliner (1994) asked professional musicians to comment on performance experiences and further described the understanding of these processes: Saxophonist Lee Konitz also ‘wants to relate to the bass player and the piano player and the drummer, so that I know at any given moment what they are all doing. The goal is always to relate as fully as possible to every sound that everyone is making…At different points, I will listen to any particular member of the group and relate to them as directly as possible in my solo’ (p. 362).

31 As shown by this purposeful way of relating to band members, musicians present and respond to musical ideas in ways similar to Grice’s maxims of conversation (1975): make your contribution as informative as is required for the current talk exchange (maxim of quantity), do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (maxim of quality), make your contributions relevant (maxim of relevance), and be brief, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity (maxim of manner). An example of this in practice considered by Grice in an earlier work elucidates these maxims: A and B are talking about a mutual friend, C, who is now working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies: Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet. (1967a, p. 24). Speaker A has implied that either friend C is a dishonest person who steals money, tempted by the context of a bank or that his statement is a joke. Context and the knowledge of the involved parties allows the hearer to reach appropriate conclusions based on the information provided. The video performance and interview data from the jazz trio provide musical analogues. In one example, the bass player presented a repeating syncopated idea (figure 1.1), which the drummer interpreted as an implication – a request for a response – prompting him to play along with the bassist, while maintaining a slight variant of the original statement.

Figure 1.1: Performance and Gricean Maxims: Bass Solo

32 In both the musical and conversational examples, the musician (or speaker) presented a vague statement (utterance) that could be construed in a variety of ways, depending on the context. We see that participants’ interactions depended on the use of domain-specific knowledge structures. In the conversation, perhaps B was a comedian and presented a joke about friend C; likewise, in the musical exchange, perhaps the bassist was known to play repetitive syncopated ideas until the drummer accentuated them, thus communicating his acknowledgement of the statement. To determine the influence of shared knowledge structures on performed interactions in jazz, we added a stage of analysis based on Herbert Clark’s concept of grounding, a process by which people seek out mutual knowledge, or common ground, during a shared activity. Clark and Brennan (1991) applied the concept of grounding to speech in conversation and devised the steps to determine common ground between actors. Their system assumed that “they [actors] cannot even begin to coordinate on content without assuming a vast amount of shared information…mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions” (p. 127). In order to communicate, actors must display their understanding in some form of response, such as acknowledgement, continued attention, and relevant relating. Similar processes unfold in a musical performance. In addition to the musical evidence provided by the musicians in the live performance, their interview statements revealed aspects of the mutual knowledge necessary for performing music at various levels of experience. The phrase “coming down to their level” was used in several instances and indicated that these musicians were aware of a hierarchicallyorganized typology of response in performance. In other words, less-experienced musicians may require more information or time to respond in desirable and appropriate ways. With these constructs in mind, the interview statements contributed to a general model, based on shared knowledge structures, for analyzing jazz musicians’ interpretations during live performance.

33 Moreover, it provided some initial foundations to understand the ways in which performing musicians deal with moment-to-moment aspects of interaction. Relationships of Clark’s work to processes in jazz performance have been depicted in Berliner’s (1994) descriptions of jazz performance, although they are not explicitly referenced. Regarding harmony, Berliner stated, “they [musicians] constantly interpret one another’s ideas, anticipating them on the basis of the music’s predetermined harmonic events,” (p. 394). On forming a repetitive rhythmic framework, Berliner noted that “striking a groove” is not just about a “shared sense of beat,” but also a sense of “emotional empathy” (p. 350) structuring subtle time and tempo changes. Further, on repertoire and structure he wrote, musicians “…depend on their knowledge of each other’s generation or style period and musical personality to anticipate the ideas their counterparts are likely to perform in particular sections of the composition” (p. 357). Although Berliner discussed musical exchanges at length, one gap in his research was the lack of systematic observation in nonmusical exchanges. When musicians exchange information on their influences, or “talk shop,” they often assume that their conversational counterparts possess similar knowledge representations. For example, the drummer in the aforementioned anecdote assumed the others around him knew that Zildjians were a brand of cymbal and that elements of the drummer’s sound were evident in the recording. He also assumed that we, as perceptive musicians, were interested in Jeff ‘Tain’ Watts’ history as a performing musician, especially his hardware choices. Given these assumptions, his actions implied that he was communicating his ideas with a shared “community of practice,” a group of related individuals with similar perceptions and cognitive thought processes (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Communities of practice and context provide a backdrop for sharing experiences, whether they are performed or verbalized.

34 Purpose and Questions of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the content and structure of musicians’ shared knowledge systems for eminent jazz performers. Influential precursors to this work include semantic network studies based on concrete category perception and interpretation of meaningful stimuli, which will be further explored in chapter 2 (Collins & Quillian, 1969; Rosch, 1973; Medin & Ross, 1981). While formulating this study, I conducted several anthropological studies with members of several jazz and improvised music communities in Chicago, which set the stage for the forthcoming chapters’ research questions. As will be explained in chapter 3, I also interviewed two groups of musicians to illustrate the importance of listening and to form the empirical design of this study. I collected both qualitative and quantitative data in these sessions to present converging evidence for musicians’ social and semantic knowledge representations. The main tasks in the present study are divided into two portions, based on normalized methodological techniques for each topic. Social Network Analysis: Do musicians belong to communities of practice? 1. What social structures, such as communities and subgroups, are quantitatively visible by asking musicians to name and describe their collaborators? 2. Is there a relationship between closeness and the amount of time spent discussing and listening to music with one’s musical collaborators? Associative Semantic Knowledge: What is the content of associative representations for music? 3. Do participants display similar interpretations for eminent jazz performers? 4. What parameters determine the structured networks of meaning for eminent performers? Affiliation and Cognition: Do collaborative affiliations influence cognitive representations? 5. What is the connection between musicians’ collaborative networks and their interpretations of eminent performers? In other words, is there a relationship between communities of practice (community) and mental representations (cognition)?

35 Musicians have been idealized as people with distinct personas, values, and daily activities – reading a recent copy of Downbeat or Jazziz will illustrate the ways in which writers summarize the thoughts and activities of musicians into two-page interviews. A recent documentary entitled Musician (Kraus & Davis, 2007) detailed the day-to-day activities that structure an improvising musician’s life; however, there is a notable lack of focus on the shared knowledge structures that musicians use in performance and discussion. To date, studies on jazz musicians have overemphasized what musicians do rather than how and why they are able to do them. To investigate this issue, an in-depth look at musicians’ interpretations of meaningful stimuli is attempted here, to uncover what, how, and why musicians associate meaning with music. Understanding these processes is intended to provide a way to forge ties with other disciplines such as music education, promoting a sense of how educators instantiate learning objectives and assessment procedures.

Operational Terminology and Methodological Overview Due to the interdisciplinary nature of this project, it is helpful to include a brief explanation of the terminology used. Two concepts will be considered here: mental representation and community affiliation. Originally used as a term to describe the structure and formal properties of conceptual thinking, the term mental representation is often associated with the terms concept, internal representation, mental model, instantiation, schemata, and percept (Turing, 1950; Stich, 1983). This study pairs mental representation with concepts of semantic knowledge and interpretation, placing emphasis on content and structure. Thus, mental representation will be used interchangeably with the terms semantic knowledge, concept, category, or conceptualization, and describes the set of ideas that define a word, person, image,

36 or object. This definition closely resembles that of a complex idea, posited by John Locke (1690): Ideas thus made up of several simple ones put together, I call complex; such as are beauty, gratitude, a man, an army, the universe; which, though complicated of various simple ideas, or complex ideas made up of simple ones, yet are, when the mind pleases, considered each by itself, as one entire thing, and signified by one name (Book II, xii, p. 1). Although the core concept is essentially the same, cognitive psychologists have since sought a more empirically derived definition for a concept, as an “internal representation that enables the individual to determine the category membership of objects in the world” (Thelen & Smith, 1996; p.162). Thus, conceptual knowledge provides information on the perception and sensation of objects in the world, whether they are abstractly or concretely defined. This project also adopts an integrated view of the term community affiliation, informed by research on cultural groups in psychology. Culture is used interchangeably with community. Culture is viewed not as embodying a unified set of ideals, but rather as a distributed network of potential meanings. This definition is influenced by modern cognitive anthropological notions of culture as “shared aspects of cognitive representations” rather than structurally homogenous systems (Romney & Moore, 1998; p. 321). Thus, someone who is labeled as a part of a community has access to a certain network of knowledge, and being more involved increases the extent to which they rely on these knowledge structures. Therefore, a synthesis of cognitive psychological and cultural perspectives characterizes this view of community affiliation. Aside from those contributing to the musicological literature on jazz culture and politics, few scholars have developed systematic methodologies to understand both social and mental processes of professional, modern jazz musicians (Merriam & Mack, 1960; Becker, 1963;

37 Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996; Jackson, 1998). Recently, musicologists have painted ethnographic portraits of modern musicians in ethnic genres such as Brazilian and Jewish folk music, concentrating on their means of survival, repertoire development, and identity in performance (Packman, 2007; Rapport, 2006). As an alternative, this study uses systematic measures of social network analysis (SNA) to model the structure of musician communities in a local area. While participating in several communities in the Chicago jazz and improvised music scene, I have noticed that most musicians tend to form relationships with a select number of collaborators. Since I myself have ties to musicians who are influenced by the jazz tradition, I used my personal connections to ask approximately two-hundred musicians to participate. Fiftyone musicians, all of whom are full-time musicians, participated in the final experiment. The primary goal of the present study is to bridge the gap between social and cognitive studies in music psychology as well as provide a backdrop for the modeling of musicians’ semantic knowledge. In so doing, a broad range of methodological procedures are incorporated. Social network analysis provides several useful methods for analyzing communities of practice by asking people to name and evaluate their relationships with others (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Data are typically represented in the form of nodes (actors) and links (ties) to represent interrelationships in a larger community. SNA theorists adhere to the notion that actors and their behaviors are “interdependent rather than independent, autonomous units,” and that ties formed between actors are “channels for transfer or “flow” of resources (either material or nonmaterial)” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 4). Thus, participants were asked about collaborations with other musicians in Chicago by providing the names of twenty musicians and asking them to evaluate these names on two scales: how often they discuss music with, and how well they know, each named musician. These data were entered into the SNA analysis programs UCINET (Borgatti et

38 al., 2002) and Netdraw (Borgatti, 2002), which locate, structure, and interpret clusters of actors with statistical grouping techniques. Unrelated to the SNA methods, techniques used to study semantic knowledge provided the second form of data. Traditional methods for investigating the structure and content of semantic knowledge make use of reaction times, spatial diagramming, sorting paradigms, and free association studies; I incorporated the last of these procedures in this study. The free association task used here required participants to name musicians who came to mind after listening to a musical excerpt and to reflect upon those associations. A second cognitive task was employed which asked participants to choose three musical terms to describe a given musician. The analysis from the answers to these questions included network diagramming as well as descriptive and inductive statistical procedures to determine the content and structure of participants’ semantic representations.

Author Reflexivity Anthropologists and sociologists who conduct research “in the field” note the importance of reflexivity,5 or the process of coming to terms with the researcher’s personal histories, perceptions, and biases that shape analyses and interpretations (Peshkin, 1994; Bourdieu, 2003; Becker, 1963). Commenting on the role of subjectivity in the process of research, Peshkin (1994) noted,


Other processes similar to reflexivity are “subjectivity” (Peshkin, 1994) and participant objectivation (Bourdieu, 2003).

39 Subjectivity operates throughout the entire research process, beginning with the choice of what we study, including our methods for data collecting and our analysis of data, and ending with the conclusions we draw. To be sure, there is not a one-to-one relationship between my affective state, my biography, and my history and my choice of topic, the conclusions I reach, and so forth. But the relationship is very far from random. I can’t always predict what you’ll study if I know you well, but I can understand why you study what you study if I do know you well. With this understanding, I can know something that is much worth knowing: what kind of stake you have in your research topic, if not in reaching particular outcomes (p. 50). Peshkin confirmed that realizing the effect of one’s readings of observations and data often characterizes the entirety of the research and writing process, as I myself have come to understand. As a social scientist, Bourdieu emphasized the awareness of the author’s placement in the work, or the “objectivation of the subject of objectivation, of the analyzing subject – in short, of the researcher herself” (p. 282). Throughout this process, Bourdieu believed, we reveal our “academic unconscious,” our tendencies of categorization and interpretation that tend to affect all aspects of research, analysis, and written prose. Further, as we come to know ourselves better, we move closer to the goals and questions propelling our research forward. Although it was quite necessary, analyzing my position in the field was an arduous and, at times, vexing process. I have been a saxophonist for fifteen years; the last ten of these I have also been an aspiring scholar. The latter goal occupied the majority of my time during the planning and writing of this project, but I tended to incorporate some mélange of practicing, performing, or attending shows into my daily schedule. As I settled into this routine, I likewise began to interact more frequently with musicians in various scenes,6 mostly in styles of jazz and improvised music. My interactions often brought me to a state of frustration, because as a

Musicians use the colloquialism “scene” interchangeably with community.

40 participant and an also observer of professional musicianship, I had conflicting passions of mind and spirit. On the one hand, my emotional spirit desired performing and networking experiences (usually at a later hour of the day) but the intellectual part of me wished to explore and dissect the meaning of these interactions. I reached heightened moments on the bandstand, but often questioned the conditions which gave rise to those moments, thereby hindering the state of flow I desired. This is not to say that as a professional musician one does not experience the intellectual process of meaning construction; on the contrary, musicians study and interpret music just as much as academics. I also experienced many instances of an “I’d-rather-be-doing” phenomenon, especially when one identity significantly took over the other. Ultimately, the synthesis of these opposing identities aided in the development of a topic and research agenda I found to be stimulating to both of my musical “sides”. Finally, as a “closet ethnomusicologist,” I have sometimes endured long hours of writing field notes. Looking back in the notebook I kept during the formation of this project, I found that the questions began as: How are musicians able to talk about recordings with such ease? Do they listen in the same ways? How do they decide who to play with? Do similar listening styles inform the decisions of who to play with? Of course, these questions look quite different from the questions posed for this dissertation, and they developed via a rigorous process of compromise. My questions were transformed by considerations of traditional scientific methods, the current state of music cognition as an academic field, and also the schedules and personal goals of professional musicians.7 I came to realize later that I had indeed experienced, as predicted by Bourdieu (2003), a “conversion of the whole person” (p. 292).

Specifically, I found social network analysis to be a personally designed puzzle, where musicians provided the information for community boundaries instead of my active placement of musicians into the scenes to which I thought they belonged. Methodologically, I was fair to those who participated by

41 Study Limitations The study of professionals is a difficult process, as one is often limited by who is available and willing to participate. I contacted approximately three hundred musicians in Chicago; about a third of whom responded with interest, leading to about one quarter finally participating. Since the study was conducted using local resources in Chicago, some of my results may be influenced by geographical characteristics, such as the way the modest cost of living allows many musicians to play music without earning much. Furthermore, my participants may not have frequently listened to the eminent musicians that I included in the excerpts, in comparison to more modern or genre-crossing artists. The decision to include mainstream jazz in my research materials was made to attempt to have a list of musicians with whom everyone would be familiar, regardless of their regular performance genre. Thus, it would be inappropriate to make a one-to-one mapping of my participants’ understanding of eminent musicians to those to whom they listen most frequently. It would be further inaccurate to assume that these broad processes of collaboration and listening generalize to all music communities, as local geographical context undoubtedly plays a significant role in both practices.

Chapter Summary and Dissertation Overview Through the use of a multifaceted methodological approach, this study attempts to model the content and structure of associations in professional musicians’ semantic memory and speculate on the influence of community affiliation on these conceptual systems. The group interviews and experiments were designed to shed light on cognitive processes of musical
respecting location, time, and monetary issues. Finally, I asked close friends in the community to comment on my interpretation of the data and shared findings with participants in the form of updates on my dissertation website.

42 interpretation. I hope that elucidation of these mental operations will fill the gap in the research literature on musicians’ approaches to meaning construction, especially in the realm of associative knowledge. The second chapter will include a review of literature in four relevant areas: 1) semantic networks, 2) mental representation in music, 3) social groups, culture, and communities of practice, and 4) the interaction of social groups, culture, and communities with semantic networks and mental representations. My methodology will be outlined in chapter 3, and will focus on sampling, collection, and coding procedures. I will also address the challenges of converging multiple approaches and procedures. I will present the results from the study in chapter 4. The results from the four tasks will be presented in both separate and convergent ways. In the fifth and final chapter, I will consider the results within an integrated framework for cognitive representations and speculate on how this study addresses practical issues for music educators.


Introduction: Review of Purpose and Chapter Overview The purposes of the present study are to understand associative dimensions of music cognition and to investigate the influence of sociocultural affiliations and expertise on these dimensions. Since these goals have not been specifically addressed in the literature, this study’s research questions involve four broad areas: Mental Representations and Cognitive Processing How are memories represented in the mind, and how do they effect cognitive processing? Social Group, Culture, and Cognition How do social group and cultural affiliations influence cognitive processing? Musical Mental Representations and Cognitive Processing How is music represented in the mind, and how are these representations involved in the processing of music? Social Group, Culture, and Music Cognition What are the influences of social group and cultural affiliation on the cognitive processing of music? This chapter is organized around these four areas, with each of its four sections outlining research that pertains to the questions above. Because the field of cognitive psychology has reached somewhat different areas than those in music cognition, I start by reviewing studies in psychology concerned with varieties of mental representations, summarizing three models of semantic knowledge in memory. Studies on cognitive processing are also included, which bring together notions of cognitive systems of memory with those of interpretation. Next, I review studies on the relationship between cognitive processing and two affiliation variables – social

44 group and culture. The section on music touches upon theories and empirically-driven models of music processing, referring to ideas of semantic knowledge for musical features. I conclude the review by examining the few studies that consider the effect of social group and culture on cognitive structures in music. At the end of the chapter, I tie together the four topics and briefly summarize their relevance to the present study.

Varieties of Mental Representation Introduction The study of mental representations has persisted from early philosophy up to the modern conception of memory systems in cognitive psychology (Aristotle, deAnima, 402a, Hamlyn ed.; Kant, 1781/1787; Tulving, 1972). Uncovering the structures and functions of knowledge was the central concern in the early musings, while more recent research has focused on the following question: how is knowledge represented, and how does it affect the way we interpret stimuli? Cognitive psychological theories referred to “coding systems,” or “…the person’s manner of grouping and relating information about his world…constantly subject to change and reorganization,” and viewed the mind as a system of active reinterpretation (Bruner, 1957; p. 46). These ideas have been influenced by theoretical underpinnings set forth by Gestalt psychologists, such that stimulus parts and their associations were considered the building blocks of the viewer’s unique and holistic interpretation, based on sets of additive features (Wertheimer, 1924). As understood in these earlier texts, the relationship between instantiated knowledge and stimulus features was mysterious, especially outside the visual domain. By the mid 1900s, the field of in cognitive psychology brought a revival of interest in the topic of knowledge representation, particularly in human memory (Broadbent, 1957; Neisser, 1967; Tulving, 1972). I

45 will first present a number of theories of semantic knowledge content and function, and then compare several models of organization for this memory system.

Models of Semantic Knowledge in Memory The modern psychological distinction of a semantic system of memory, distinguished from others, first appeared in the post-behavioral work of Endel Tulving. Although his was not the first attempt to theorize about multiple forms of memory, he claimed that “semantic memory,” as the term had been used in previous works, should be further separated from other forms of memory, such as “episodic memory.” In a chapter entitled Episodic and Semantic Memory, he stated: Semantic memory is the memory necessary for the use of language. It is a mental thesaurus, organized knowledge a person possesses about words and other verbal symbols, their meaning and referents, about relations among them, and about rules, formulas, and algorithms for the manipulation of these symbols, concepts, and relations (1972, p. 386). According to Tulving, semantic memory consisted of tangible objects and intangible concepts, as opposed to personalized knowledge about moments in time.8 Thus, his primary approach to differentiating between memory structures required a classification of memory types, rather than a separation of unified memory stores. In fact, Tulving characterized memory structures as highly interrelated, rather than boundary-defined.9 Tulving considered different ways to elaborate upon the functions of episodic and semantic memory. For example, the following statement represented the active use of semantic memory for an item of furniture: “I think that


Other researchers referred to semantic memory as generic and categorical memory (Hintzman, 1978; Estes, 1976). 9 Tulving placed procedural, semantic, and episodic memory systems in a class-inclusion hierarchy, with episodic as a “specialized subcategory” of semantic memory (1985, p. 386).

46 the association between the words TABLE and CHAIR is stronger than that between the words TABLE and NOSE.” On the other hand, “I know the word that was paired with DAX in this list was FRIGID” was a scenario paired with the engagement of episodic memory (p.387). The latter statement relies on memory for an instance in time, while the former brings to mind the information associated with a concept. Semantic memory dealt with representations of wellformed categories and retrieval based on associations, or links, to these categories. This process was thought to involve cognitive rather than autobiographical reference: Information stored in the semantic memory system represents objects—general and specific, living and dead, past and present, simply and complex—concepts, relations, quantities, events, facts, propositions…detached from autobiographical reference…he obviously must have learned it, either directly, or indirectly, at an earlier time, but he need not possess any mnemonic information about the episode of such learning in order to retain and to use semantic information (p. 389). Tulving thought that the function of memory representations was to aid in the processes of knowledge retention and retrieval, which defined semantic memory as an actively shaped entity. Early studies in neuroscience supported this idea of memory malleability as neuronal plasticity, which seemed to be affected by persistent repetition of distributed neuronal activity (Hebb, 1949). Influenced by these neurological conceptions, memory could also be viewed as distributed cells, which consist of “…a network of associated items which have a high probability of producing each other” (Posner, 1973; p. 29).10 Drawing upon theoretical work in logic and language (Pierce, 1880), this network-driven approach accounted for the experience of elaborations of concepts11 based on their associations. For example, words associated with red


By using the word cells, Posner did not mean to imply that memory is a system of neurons, but rather, he used the term in the abstract sense, in order to channel the notion of a distributed network of connections. 11 Throughout this text, concept and category will be used interchangeably.

47 may be stored in memory cells that depend on the conventional meaning of the color, producing a cluster of information activated by hearing the word or seeing the color in context (Cohen, 1963). Although the analysis of these cells focused more on the distinction of memory systems by their characteristics of encoding, representing, and retrieving information, the idea of classified entities in semantic memory provided a springboard for more formalized models. The idea of conceptual network systems was posited early on, in German psychologist Otto Selz’s (1913, 1922) problem-solving paradigms, although his results did not necessarily capture the complexity of semantic memory, as evidenced in chess-player problem-solving techniques (de Groot, 1965). Given this gap in the literature, Allan Collins and M. Ross Quillian (1969) devised a set of experiments to formulate and model the structure and organization of semantic knowledge as associative networks. The experiments were based on earlier theoretical assumptions presented in Quillian’s (1966) thesis on word meaning concepts, geared more towards artificial intelligence and computer modeling of memory. Quillian’s notion of a concept was as follows: To summarize, a word’s full concept is defined in the model memory to be all the nodes that can be reached by an exhaustive tracing process, originating at its initial, partriarchical type node, together with the total sum of relationships among these nodes specified by within-plane, token-to-token links (1966, p. 413). Nodes in memory are organized in hierarchical fashion and can be activated by both direct (type) and indirect (token) nodes. All the links to a type node are dependent on dictionary and common sense information for a particular word concept. For example, orange can be seen as a token for the type nodes fruit or color. Quillian further classified the links as dependent on certain relations, including super- or subordinate (“is a”), modifier, dis- or conjunctive, and residual, which clarified the basis for a hierarchical structure. Later associative models expanded the

48 content from dictionary terms to events, episodes, and complex concepts (Collins & Quillian, 1969; Rumelhart et al., 1972). Collins, Quillian, and Rumelhart graphed models as networks, with nodes representing the type or concept and a set of links between nodes to denote relationships between them. In a more recent paper, Rumelhart and Todd (1993) depicted the network structure for living things, including animals and plants (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Semantic network structure (Rumelhart & Todd, 1993, p. 15).

The model proposes more efficient mental activation of the nodes that are more proximate to the main concept. Overall, these types of models assume that concepts are defined by networks of potential meaning and that the potentials depend on previous activations of nodes.

49 Subsequent collaborations between Collins and Quillian (1969, 1970) presented an experimental paradigm that related retrieval time for a word to node location in an implied memory structure. Their approach assumed that words prime a hierarchical network and all its associations, when subjects view and process a word. Their experiments were designed to show the strength of association between experimentally presented items and those in memory. Their first experimental paradigm (1969) asked participants to judge sentences on a binary truth-value (true or false), with reaction times from the judgments taken as the dependent measure. To account for Quillian’s original theory, the sentences were varied to include both type and token nodes. For instance, “an oak has acorns” specified a property of the node oak, whereas “a cedar is a tree” denoted the superset isa in the hierarchy. In addition, properties and supersets were assigned to various levels of embeddedness, depending on the word. So, oak and cedar were nested in the hierarchy for tree, and acorns and needles were nested in the hierarchy for oak and cedar, respectively. In the experiment, Collins and Quillian found longer reaction times for superset and higher-level property judgments. For example, respondents took longer to judge “a cedar is a tree” than “a maple is a maple,” because they had to mentally “move up” a level in the hierarchy for the former. These results also gave a better idea of the term semantic network, which was defined as a hierarchic structure of associated concepts in memory. Although the concept was originally used in the early development of artificial intelligence, Collins and Quillian reestablished its position as a legitimate research topic in cognitive psychology. The theoretical framework and experiments contributed by Collins and Quillian (1969, 1972) provided a foundation for researchers to consider various models for semantic knowledge. Originally described as “set-theoretic” (Meyer, 1970; Schaeffer & Wallace, 1970), the feature comparison model focused primarily on a larger set of attributes for concepts and distinguished

50 between two types of features: defining and characteristic. The former was considered more essential to a word’s meaning than the latter on a continuum of relatedness, similar to the type and token nodes in Quillian’s theory. Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974) demonstrated this difference with the word robin. Five features for robins were considered: “are bipeds” and “have wings” were classified as defining, while “have distinctive colors,” “perch in trees,” and “are undomesticated” were classified as characteristic features. The underlying theory viewed information processing as a system of evaluation; thus, meaningful information was approached and interpreted with a set of evaluative questions, such as “what does a robin have?” or “what color is a robin?” Furthermore, the model elaborated upon previous research by interpreting concepts as either concrete or abstract, based on the availability of defining and characteristic features. Although supporters of this model suggested that previous research did not account for certain feature-detection mechanisms in encoding, processing, and retrieval, Collins and Loftus (1975) counter-argued by stating “…network models are probably more powerful than feature models, because it is not obvious how to handle inferential processing or embedding in feature models” (1975, p. 410). This alternative helped to focus on the summation of features, rather than on the modeling of memory structure. Working from similar premises, Eleanor Rosch developed an extension of the feature comparison model. Rosch (1975b) suggested that categories drive the processing of information and have specific internal structures, referring “to that general class of conceptions of categories in which categories are not represented only as criterial features with clear-cut boundaries” (p. 193-194). She agreed with the notion that certain features might be more representative of categories; but, she furthered this claim by emphasizing the idea of a prototype, an object that encompassed defining features of a given category. The prototype was her main point of interest

51 – the “what,” rather than the “how,” of structure and content in semantic knowledge. To test the prototype theory, she collected a series of judgments for categories of words and pictures, including fruit, bird, vehicle, vegetable, sport, tool, toy, furniture, weapon, and clothing. Her results showed that her participants had similar ideas of a category’s internal structure, depending on “good” versus “bad” representations (e.g. “good” fruit: apple, “bad” fruit: lemon). Her subsequent experiments tested category structure by priming items with matched or mismatched categories. She then measured participants’ reaction times for true-false judgments. As expected, “good” items were processed faster than “bad” items when primed with the matched category, while mismatched category primes hindered response time. Given her results, she claimed that particular items could be classified as multiple item categories, which have the potential of being in more than one category simultaneously. This illustrated the complexity of the decision-making process for such category tasks and implied that multiple strategies of comprehension are in constant competition. The spreading activation model, developed by Collins and Loftus (1975), was a third alternative for modeling the organization of semantic knowledge. Given that Collins worked closely with Quillian, this project assumed similar theoretical notions. These authors believed that conceptual processing worked as a network of activations, with less substantive knowledge on the fringe and more substantive knowledge at the heart of the network. This model’s elaborations accounted for nodal relations beyond “isa” (superordinate) and “has” (modifier), by including associations such as “can,” “cannot,” and “is not a” (negative superordinates). This framework presumed that the mind searches through neighboring concepts to determine the truth-values of sentences. Additional elaborations by Collins and Loftus included:

52 1. The conceptual (semantic) network is organized along the lines of semantic similarity. 2. The names of concepts are stored in a lexical network (or dictionary) that is organized along lines of phonemic (and to some degree orthographic) similarity. 3. A person can control whether he primes the lexical network, the semantic network, or both. (pp. 411-412). By representing multiple subordinate concepts within one level, this model addressed the spread of information from one node to the next and thus accounted for both association strength and processing speed. In addition, the authors commented on feature-comparison models, claiming “…there is no feature that is absolutely necessary for any category. For example, if one removes the wings from a bird, it does not stop being a bird” (p. 425). Their subsequent experiments required participants to produce the names of categories when primed with variable information, including letters, superordinate or subordinate category names, and adjective descriptors. For example, respondents might judge “apple” more quickly when primed with “fruit” rather than “red” or the letter “A.” The results supported a more complex picture of retrieval mechanisms which seemed to depend on immediate versus delayed “entrance into the category” or its cluster (Freedman & Loftus, 1971). Since the results from these experiments were not framed under the tenets of any particular model, the researchers who endorsed the spreading-activation model reinterpreted the findings: The spreading-activation theory predicts these results by assuming that when an item is processed, other items are activated to the extent that they are closely related to that item. That is, retrieving one category member produces a spread of activation to other category members, facilitating their later retrieval (Collins & Loftus, 1975; p. 419). Thus, Collins and Loftus placed more weight on categories spreading to each other rather than items entering into conceptual clusters. In addition, they relied on multiple explanations to

53 understand the subtle differences in the process of retrieval, mainly in the form of processing speed. Given this slightly different perspective, Collins, Loftus, and other researchers refined their interpretation of conceptual processing studies by synthesizing both network and feature driven approaches (Freedman & Loftus, 1971; Juola & Atkinson, 1971; Conrad, 1972; Loftus, 1973a, 1973b; Rips et al., 1973; Collins & Loftus, 1975). Other approaches viewed the organization of features in memory as unified cognitive groupings that a participant could exhibit at any given moment of perception. In his summary text on cognition, Posner (1973) postulated three basic mechanisms for organizing knowledge: lists, spaces, and hierarchies. According to Posner, lists included conventionally catalogued items such as numbers and alphabets, which dominate thought processing during retrieval. Although this was a relatively simple way of organizing information in memory, it has since proved to be one of the most efficient and effective strategies for knowledge retrieval (DeSoto, 1961). Spaces were defined by Posner as multifaceted mental structures that represented more than three attributes of a particular set of concepts and that were depicted as multi-dimensional graphs. Experiments that incorporated similarity judgments or sorting tasks supported this theory; concepts were shown to be based on evaluations of three or more attribute dimensions, as shown determined by statistical feature-driven approaches such as multidimensional scaling or factor analysis (Osgood et al., 1957; Romney & D’Andrade, 1964). Additionally, Posner (1973) commented on the variability of mental structures:

54 There is little reason to suppose that the human mind is limited to any particular type of mental structure. Indeed, there is much reason to believe that structures vary with different individuals and cultures and within an individual from time to time. However, experiments do suggest that the particular format or structure which we use to store information in the memory system guides the nature of our effortless-retrieval processes and thus has important consequences for our thinking (p. 89). He thus acknowledged the malleable character of mental structures and stood as an advocate for the connection between memory and processing. Since this and other evidence (Tulving, 1972; Cermak & Craik, 1979) suggested that there to be a reciprocal relationship between memory structures and mental processing, I will now turn to this topic.

Models of Cognitive Processing What is the function of memory in the processing of meaningful stimuli? Typically, we tend to remember the most common categorical information from stimuli, but mental representations may be formed from personalized reconstructions of stimuli (Bartlett, 1932; Bruner, 1957; Posner, 1973; Loftus, 1974). Thus, meaning may not only be extracted from explicit definitions of words and concepts, but also from a unique interpretation of the word or concept (Medin et al., 1992, p. 336). This concept has philosophical roots in Aristotle’s idea that the mind actively constructs thoughts related to presented stimuli in the external world (c. 350, deAnima, 402a, Hamlyn ed.) Aristotle’s original idea inspired questions such as, how do we interpret and comprehend stimuli around us, and what cognitive structures are useful for these processes? Based on such early questions, the cognitive revolution brought about a renewed interest in function and processing, in addition to content and organization of knowledge in

55 memory (Neisser, 1967). The following will include a review of cognitive processes of abstraction as a framework for understanding the formation of semantic memory. Tailoring an interpretation to fit a particular context is often referred to as the process of abstraction, which likewise requires a series of personalized judgments and comparisons. John Locke provided a succinct description of this phenomenon in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: the mind makes the particular ideas received from particular objects to become general…This is called abstraction, whereby ideas taken from particular beings become general representatives of all of the same kind; and their names general names, applicable to whatever exists conformable to such abstract ideas…Thus the same colour being observed in chalk or snow, which the mind yesterday received from milk, it considers that appearance alone, makes it a representative of all of that kind; and having given it the name whiteness, it by that sound signifies the same quality wheresoever to be imagined or met with (1690; Book II, Ch. 11, 9). Locke emphasized the processes of attending to and extracting features from a given stimulus, resulting in an integrated picture of a concept. Aiming to apply Locke’s basic ideas to the development of empirical methods, cognitive psychologists reconstructed the view of the mind as a center for information processing. One of the basic tenets of the information processing view of cognition likens the mind to a computer, with distinct units of perception, input, and central processing as well as mechanisms of storage and retrieval in memory (Hebb, 1949; Neisser, 1967; Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Mervis and Rosch (1981) described processes of abstraction as “ways in which the cognitive system acts “creatively” on input during learning of categories and uses the resultant categorical information to classify novel items” (p. 103). The complexity of such a process lies in separating relevant from irrelevant features, thus, forming a “higher order” (via a central processor) representation of the presented stimulus. Some researchers

56 presented a synthesis of artificial intelligence and behavioral psychology, using mathematical formulae and computational modeling to explain cognitive processing (Newell & Simon, 1972; Newell, 1982). On the contrary, many cognitive psychologists interested in attention, memory, and knowledge pursued a different path and considered abstraction in terms of both feature extraction and category formation (Posner & Mitchell, 1967; Schaeffer & Wallace, 1970). Posner (1973) suggested that there were two basic approaches to abstraction; “one involves selection of one part of the input…the other involves classification of the input into more general categories” (p. 96). These two processes will be compared below.

Feature- versus Concept-Driven Processing Models As previously mentioned, feature extraction12 and category formation are highly related; however, the extent and directionality of this relationship is unclear. Many strategies for category formation and attainment have been differentiated, based on the results from empirical reasoning, judgment, and categorization studies (Hull, 1920; Bruner et al., 1956; Haygood & Bourne, 1965). These studies asked participants to respond to a variety of concept-learning paradigms and provided feedback to categorized items over multiple trials. Typically, researchers assumed that concept attainment had occurred when judgments were error-free. Stimulus features were judged on their pertinence to the task. One of the earliest studies on this topic (Hull, 1920) emphasized the way in which passive feature extraction and mechanisms of association influenced the formation of concepts. This experiment required participants to study lists of Chinese characters and syllables containing similar strokes. Responding to six lists, all with the

Numerous synonyms have been used to describe similar processes: feature extraction and detection have been used to describe components of machine learning and artificial intelligence, while others have referred to this human cognitive ability as cue abstraction (Juslin et al., 2003) or attribute retrieval (Mervis & Rosch, 1981).

57 same character features, participants were instructed to speak aloud each syllable-character pair, to which feedback was provided. The results showed that participants responded faster and more accurately with each subsequent list presentation. Hull concluded that concept learning, based on simple methods of feature extraction, was successfully achieved during this process. This proposed method of learning concepts is most similar to the aforementioned feature-based models of memory. Building on Hull’s contribution, modern theories of concept formation based the specific processes of feature extraction and combination on more active processes. To provide an overview of concept formation and processing, three theoretical models, prototype, exemplar, and integrative, will be compared. One theory of concept formation posits that the human mind naturally abstracts categories from stimuli which have no preformed segments, actively labeling and defining the stimuli (Leach, 1964). Similarly, Rosch argued that representations contain a distributed set of connections, most likely defined by a central tendency. In many publications, Rosch (1973, 1975a, 1975b, 1978) disputed the previously held notion of strict categories and proposed instead the idea of fuzzy, indeterminate boundaries for categories and item membership. She asserted that the organization of categorical knowledge is based on attribute density, or the number of features that are central to the category. According to Rosch, items with higher relevant attribute density are basic level categories and may be judged as the most representative examples of an item, giving rise to typicality in category membership. Her proposal claimed that viewers “appear to operate inductively by abstracting a prototype, the central tendency, of an item’s conceptual distribution” a prototype which then appears to “operate in classification and recognition of instances” (Rosch 1973, p. 329). This statement is undoubtedly influenced by previous research on prototypes, which showed more accurate and faster classification responses

58 for novel patterns that resembled a category’s prototype (Posner & Keele, 1968). Rosch supported the prototype theory with a series of experiments, the first of which illustrated a facilitation effect of within category priming on same-different judgments (Rosch, 1975b). She also showed similar effects for other stimuli including colors, lines, and numbers (Rosch, 1975a). Rosch’s results accounted for both stimulus features and preexisting mental representations with the notion of a cognitive “anchor,” or reference point, to which successive stimuli are compared. An alternative model explains feature extraction and concept formation by referring to representative instances – exemplars – in memory. Most exemplar theories argue for exact, accurate representations of a stimulus; however, different stances have been taken with regard to how they weight features in a given stimulus. Independent cue models, such as the weighted feature prototype, proposed that participants attend to attributes separately and then additively combine them in an integrated interpretation (Bransford & Franks, 1971; Reed, 1972). Reed (1972) distinguished models based on average cue validity or distance, which require withincategory comparison. Based on categorical judgments of schematic faces, Reed concluded that participants referred to “an abstract image or prototype to represent each category” and used it “to classify test patterns on the basis of their similarity to the two prototypes” (p. 401). On the other hand, interactive cue models held that viewers attend to attributes both additively and multiplicatively, which justified more complex relationships between attributes. Medin and Schaffer (1978) contributed a modified version of the interactive cue model called the context theory of classification. The models’ conditions were based on both cue and contextual information:

59 Information concerning the cue, the context, and the event are stored together in memory and that both cue and context must be activated simultaneously in order to retrieve information about the event. A change in either the cue or the context can impair the accessibility of information associated with both (p. 211). Thus, during the processing of information, a literal instance of an item is referred to in order to abstract category membership. The multiplicative rule specified processing facilitation for items that were highly similar to exemplars and dissimilar to non-exemplars. The authors tested this theory with a series of learning and transfer experiments using geometric shapes and Brunswick faces. In the first experiment, participants were presented with geometric shapes, categorized into two sets based four attributes (form, size, color, and position). As their learning of the categories improved with experimenter feedback and trials, respondents were required to classify “new” stimuli after a meaningless distracter task. They also rated how confident they felt about their judgments. Results showed more “hits” for interactive-cue or exemplar items and “false alarms” for independent-cue items, which supported the context model. Additional research with Brunswick faces echoed these results and illustrated the efficiency of multiple strategies rather than single models for concept learning situations (Medin & Smith, 1981). In general, this research suggests that cognitive processing is analogically rather than analytically based, which implies that new information is compared to knowledge structures in memory (Brooks, 1978). More recent research on feature extraction employs complex computational formulas to catalogue relevant attributes relative to a representative item (Newell & Simon, 1972; Einhorn et al., 1979; Gigerenzer et al., 1999; Juslin et al., 2003). Computer-activated algorithms are designed to emulate human cognitive processing; thus, many of these models map directly on to those previously mentioned. Juslin and colleagues (2003) summarized the theory and computational scrutiny of three models of feature extraction, the cue abstraction model (CAM),

60 the lexicographic heuristic (LEX), and the exemplar-based model (EBM). The CAM associates and weights attributes according to their importance within a category. The authors asserted that this process is contingent upon level of training, cue weights, and cue integration, the latter of which is not specified by the model. Also called “specificity theory,” this model has been implemented in studies of early learning paradigms, in which specific features of an object were modified in direct comparison to other objects (Gibson, 1969). Processing in the form of recognition and identification was hindered when the number of feature differences increased (Gibson & Gibson, 1955). The LEX requires focus on a single cue, interpreted as the most accurate, which is then used to form an interpretation (Gigerenzer et al., 1999). Finally, the EBM supposes that a specific instance of related stimuli is formed and instantiated in memory, creating an original context to be retrieved during the judgment stage (Nosofsky, 1992). This model is undoubtedly influenced by the context theory of classification developed by Medin and Schaeffer (1978). A modification, the template-matching model, or pandemonium model, assumes that exact internal representations are used to interpret existing patterns, therefore requiring less information about context (Selfridge, 1958; Norman, 1973). This type of paradigm is often referred to as top-down, or conceptual-driven processing, contrasted with bottom-up, or datadriven. (Norman & Rumelhart, 1975). These two processing strategies are often played against each other; however, another significant body of research has commented on their integration.

Integrative Processing Models Integrative theories support the view of multi-level processing mechanisms. Biederman (1987) specified multiple stages in visual pattern recognition, including segmentation, categorization, and prototypification. The results from an earlier object-recognition experiment

61 indicated that both shortened stimulus exposure and type of component deletion hindered object recognition (Biederman et al., 1985). His devised recognition-by-component theory suggested: the ease with which we are able to code tens of thousands of words or objects is solved by mapping that input onto a modest number of primitives…and then using a representational system that can code and access free combinations of these primitives (Biederman, 1987; p. 145). This system accounted for the interpretation of a stimulus by using both perceptual (new) and conceptual (preexisting) input; thus, it necessitated both bottom-up and top-down processing in pattern and stimulus recognition. Although not originally applied to ecologically valid situations, interactive cue models may also fit the type of integration theorized by Biederman and others (Medin & Schaffer, 1978; Medin & Smith, 1981). If previously learned information is considered during processing, it may be safe to assume that the mind naturally takes advantage of these multiple mechanisms. Philosopher and psychologist Jerry Fodor considered multi-level processing units, or “modules,” that combined stimulus properties and previous experience to form percepts. According to Fodor (1983), these modular systems consist of computational subsystems that transfer information to each other – a “trichotomous functional architecture” including transducers, input systems, and central processors (p. 43). He thought that perception included three phases: transduction of perceptual information, interpretation by input systems, and mediation of perceptual and conceptual by central processors – a combination of both bottom-up and top-down processing mechanisms. In Modularity of Mind (1983), Fodor explained nine conditions of his integrative cognitive input system:

62 1. Input systems are domain specific. 2. The operation of input systems is mandatory. 3. There is only limited central access to the mental representations that input systems compute. 4. Input systems are fast. 5. Input systems are informationally encapsulated. 6. Input analyzers have ‘shallow’ outputs. 7. Input systems are associated with fixed neural architecture. 8. Input systems exhibit characteristic and specific breakdown patterns. 9. The ontogeny of input systems exhibits a characteristic pace and sequencing. As suggested by these criteria, input systems modify the external properties of a stimulus by way of internal cognitive grammars, which are tailored to each domain (e.g. hearing, sight, touch, taste, smell). Input systems were viewed as ingrained, fixed entities, like Noam Chomsky’s (1966) system of innate generative grammars for language processing. Fodor’s departure from Chomsky’s theories was the idea of a central processing unit, in which beliefs and experiences play a role in forming impressions. Fodor defined the central processor as isotropic, or connected to unbounded knowledge systems, and Quineian, or connected to belief systems. The modularity thesis was explained colloquially by the statement, “I couldn’t help hearing what you said.” Fodor emphasized, “…it is what is said that one can’t help hearing, not just what is uttered” (p. 55). Even though Fodor’s main purpose was to divide cognition into distinct processing modules, his theory ultimately supported the notion of integrative processing units in cognitive psychology. Other research has demonstrated individual differences in processing strategies. Bruner and colleagues (1956) provided an in-depth look at two strategies for problem solving experiments. Participants were asked to generate hypotheses from given information, requiring the integration of confirming (it does have) and infirming (it does not have) attributes. They classified the behavior of participants into two strategies: wholist/focusing and partist/scanning.

63 The participants endorsing the wholist strategy attended to an integration to formulate their hypotheses, “maximizing information yield and reducing the strain on inference and memory” (Bruner et al., 1956; p. 130). The alternative was the partist strategy, whereby a certain proportion of the initial instance was catalogued and subsequently modified. The authors noted that this may have required “either a system of note-taking or a reliance on memory” (p. 132). Several experiments conducted by the authors showed that participants depended on one of the strategies during problem solving, but with an overall preference for the wholist strategy. In a later publication, Bruner (1957) discussed these strategies as “going beyond the information given,” via processes of categorization, probabilistic learning, and utilization of formed coding systems. Originally applied to the topics of teaching and learning, the coding system incorporated a sequence of cognitive events: When one goes beyond the information given, one does so by virtue of being able to place the present given in a more generic coding system and that one essentially “reads off” from the coding system additional information either on the basis of learned contingent probabilities or learned principles of relating material (p. 49). As evidenced in this passage, Bruner placed more importance on top-down processing units, but an acknowledgement of integrative processing was implicitly present. Schema13-driven models also support the notion of top-down analogic processing. Schema theory is related to the Gestalt school of perception, which proposed that multiple parts of a stimulus were organized and combined by the mind to form a holistic percept (Werthiemer, 1924). The developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1926) first described this cognitive structure as a scheme, or a complex grouping of categories related by a common theme, such as a person, event, or place. According to Piaget, the structure could be altered by either assimilating new

The plural form of schema is schemata.

64 information into the scheme or by accommodating memory-bound schemes to fit new situations. Piaget viewed schemes as actively shaped mental images or patterns of action. Since Piaget’s early musings on schemes, other scholars have used the term schema to refer to similar cognitive structures in memory, broadening the field of schema theory (Bartlett, 1932; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). Although Bartlett (1932) explicitly wrote of his distaste for the word (p. 201), he is often credited with the use of schemata in the process of remembering. He defined a schema as an “organized setting,” or holistic grouping of events in memory, organized as an active chronological reordering of past experiences. Since both physiologists and Gestalt psychologists influenced his view on cognitive processing, Bartlett’s perspective relied on interconnections between such groupings that were physically represented in the brain: “…constituents of living, momentary settings belonging to the organism…not…a number of individual events somehow strung together and stored within the organism” (p. 201). Bartlett’s definition was built on years of case studies requiring subjects to remember and recall stories using different methods of memorizing, such as description, repeated exposure, serial reproduction, and picture writing. In his theory of active memory construction, Bartlett highlighted the enabling role of social and environmental context via a process of “checking,” or relating cognitive structures to situational features and persons. These contextual and individualdifference considerations added a social component to the framework of schemata. Later additions to schema theory further differentiated schemata from other forms of representation and processing mechanisms (Norman & Rumelhart, 1975; Anderson, 1977; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977). Rumelhart and Ortony (1977) described the structure, orientation, and organization of schemata as associated networks of concepts which: contain value-related properties; perform the function of embedding; represent generic concepts varying in level of

65 abstraction; and encompass knowledge instead of definitions (p. 101). Given these specifications, the authors described the process of perception as analogical, in which the mind refers to previously formed schemata, and then fills in gaps with stored information. Another possibility is that the mind forms a new schema based on integrated feature information. This theory incorporates active reconstruction and knowledge building during schema activation. A common example in the literature is arriving at a restaurant (Brewer, 1987). If we encounter a restaurant without menus, the restaurant schema would be modified to include this feature. Or, a new schema would be devised and labeled as café to deal with any similar circumstances in the future. In this example, there is a direct relationship between the formed structure in memory and the way an object is processed. Likewise, Rumelhart and Ortony (1975) challenged the idea of separate memory and processing mechanisms, coupling the two to form a unified theory with simultaneous perception and memory-retrieval. They suggested that features activate a schema, which simultaneously affects the interpretation of those features. In light of this basic process, schema theory can be incorporated into bottom-up, feature-driven models of perception. Anderson (1977) echoed these claims, further arguing that comprehension involves much more than the cataloguing of stimulus features. He also reemphasized the complexity and elaborate nature of schemata and related the theory to practical learning situations.14

The Impact of Social Group and Culture on Cognitive Behavior Introduction What sociocultural and experience-related factors influence the content, structure, and function of memory? Although not a well-researched topic in cognitive psychology, a handful of

It is worth noting that his ideas harkened back to Piaget’s concepts of assimilation and accommodation in learning.

66 scholars have studied the influence of group affiliation on the accessibility of semantic memory and processing systems. Activation of these systems is influenced not only by individual differences in motivation for retrieval (e.g. speed and accuracy), but also on contextualized experience and knowledge. Therefore, increased knowledge in a domain may result in both perceptual and conceptual processing differences. Two of the field’s foremost scholars on the topic of expertise, Chase and Simon (1973a, 1973b), conducted perception and memory experiments with novice and expert chess players. Motivated by chess-player and psychologist Adrian De Groot’s original thesis on verbalized problem-solving in chess players, Chase and Simon designed an experiment that tested memory for predetermined chess positions. In their first study, Chase and Simon asked participants to memorize naturally-occurring as well as and random chessboard positions. Their results revealed different strategies in processing for the experts, based on chunking: the superior performance of stronger players derives from the ability of those players to encode the position into larger perceptual chunks, each consisting of a familiar subconfiguration of pieces (p. 80). These and other results implied that experts have the ability to consolidate a larger number of concepts in semantic memory, which increased their density of knowledge. Moreover, this consolidation facilitated processing time,15 freeing up mental resources to focus on moment-tomoment changes in expectation. Experts take advantage of the contextual opportunities for building knowledge structures in chess and use this information in performance situations; thus, the content becomes reinforced and solidified in memory. Since these classic studies, additional evidence of richer semantic representations for experts has been observed in other domains such as text comprehension and medical diagnoses (Voss et al., 1980; Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995).

Processing time in the study was measured by observing glancing behavior.

67 Likewise, music educators have demonstrated the efficacy and speed of response from experienced respondents in association and priming tasks, claiming that “content knowledge facilitates the rate of retrieval of domain-specific information” (Muir-Broaddus, 1998; p. 119; Bjorklund et al., 1990). Although these studies were somewhat limited by the younger age of participants in the samples, their findings are similar to those in other domains, in that they show cognitive-grouping strategies like chunking. Knowledge-specific differences may also be the result of social and cultural context, and thus, sociocultural variables may impact the processing of information. I will now turn to two other broad topics, social groups and culture, to consider the role of contextual experience on perception and cognition. In addition, some characteristics of these groups are explored for their potential influences on the structure and function of knowledge as well as cognitive behavior.

Social Groups and Cognitive Behavior The impact of social group affiliation on behavior is a widely studied phenomenon, primarily stemming from the work of sociologists. Early sociological studies on this issue centered on cases of violence and crime and included observations of gangs, delinquents, and the homeless, as well as explanations for the organization of crime and theories of community relationships (Anderson, 1923; Thrasher, 1927; Shaw & McKay, 1942). One of the leading researchers in the Chicago school of sociology, Frederic Thrasher (1927), suggested that gangs have natural histories, developed out of handed-down traditions and distinct heritages. In his analysis, he specified that various characteristics – such as geographic territory, boundaries, power relations, and patterns of behavior – materialize through socially-defined interactions, memories, and personal narratives. Additional contributors to the Chicago school focused more

68 on groups’ shared values, interests, and social facilitators, which act in opposition to social disorganization and delinquency (Shaw & McKay, 1942; Cohen & Short, 1958). Shaw and McKay (1942) stated that “traditions of delinquency are transmitted through successive generations of the same zone in the same way language, roles, and attitudes are transmitted” (p. 382). On the other hand, Cohen and Short (1958) hypothesized that delinquent subcultures arise when alienated members of society, unable to attain social success, fuel their actions with their frustrations. In Cohen’s and Short’s words, the delinquent subculture was: …a system of beliefs and values generated in a process of communicative interaction among children similarly circumstanced by virtue of their positions in the social structure, and as constituting a solution to problems of adjustment to which the established culture provided no satisfactory solutions (p. 20). Their definition concentrated on the characteristic beliefs of a system, rather than on the people enforcing the system, a common mark of sociological research. Another unique feature was the lack of emphasis on group structure, organization, and power within the group. Cohen and Short emphasized demographics, such as age, sex, income bracket, ethnicity, and geographical placement, as well as a group’s processes of communication and interaction, as staples in the concept of a social group. Sociological contributions to the study of groups have been criticized by psychologists as being too broad and focused on general group characteristics, especially considering the differences between groups and individuals within those groups (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Nevertheless, they have had a significant impact on the concept of a group by focusing on the importance of overall group features, structure, and traditions. Early influential research on the impact of groups on behavior primarily targeted the facilitation of groups. Studies spearheaded by Harvard professor George Elton Mayo at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago sought to explain the impetus for differing levels

69 of workplace productivity. Mayo placed small numbers of workers, or groups, into the same work conditions, including days with earlier release, breaks, better lighting, and free meals. One study (1933) concluded that efficiency improved in many of these conditions; however, the effect was most pronounced when workers identified with each other. In the experiments where workers actively formed working groups, the productivity was even higher. “The consequence,” Mayo concluded from interview sessions, “was that they felt themselves to be participating freely and without afterthought, and were happy in the knowledge that they were working without coercion from above or limitation from below” (p. 64). In addition, workers felt a sense of “security and certainty” in the group—a feeling of ‘we’re in this together.’ These and other studies suggested that affiliation with a group results in increased motivation, productivity,16 and emotional support, although individual preferences may override this effect (Pritchard et al., 1988).17 The Gestalt psychologist Kurt Z. Lewin (1936) aimed to understand the influence of group involvement on child activities, including infant stretch vectors and toddler problemsolving direction. Over years of observations, he noticed differences between American and German children on their “space of free movement.” Since American children were provided with more choices than German children, they had access to a larger region of psychological and social space. These early theories of space and social independence formed the basis for his later work on the subject of group dynamics and conflict. It is in these papers that Lewin and his

Research has also suggested that working in groups results in performance loss, or a decrease in task effectiveness. This finding may be due to a phenomenon called “social loafing,” in which members of the group have unequal work-efforts and one or two people work the most (Levine et al., 1993; Shepperd, 1993). 17 Musicians experience similar ups and downs in motivation, depending on structure- and preferencerelated features of the group (Davidson & Good, 2002). On the other hand, there is also the notion of the musician in solitude, who relies on his own devices to motivate and propel his own creativity (Storr, 1993).

70 colleagues described groups as “sociological wholes; the unity of these sociological wholes can be defined operationally in the same way as a unity of any other dynamic whole…by the interdependence of its parts” (p. 73, 1939). This holistic concept was undoubtedly related to Gestalt psychological structure; but, individual and group behavior was said to depend “upon their situation and their peculiar position in it,” which placed emphasis on the individual’s affiliation to the group (p. 74, 1939). It is with Lewin’s early studies that the concepts of individual versus group identity took shape, thus affecting many later studies on group influence. Unlike Mayo and Lewin, Muzafer Sherif and colleagues observed social processes by manipulating groups in laboratory settings. Sherif and colleagues (1955) characterized the small group using the following distinctions: 1. 2. 3. 4. Shared motives, conducive to interaction Differential effects on individual behavior Group structure, with a hierarchy of status and roles, delineated as in-group Set of norms or range of acceptable behavior (p. 371-372)

They expanded previous researchers’ delineations by explicating the role of group communication and interaction in group formation. Since prior researchers had tended to focus on two dimensions – structure and norms – that related to power distribution and behavioral expectations in groups, Sherif and colleagues (1954) incorporated these concerns in a comprehensive definition: A group is defined as a social unit which consists of a number of individuals who, at a given time, stand in more or less definite interdependent status and role relationships with one another, and which explicitly or implicitly possesses a set of norms or values regulating the behavior of the individual members, at least in matters of consequence to the group (p. 8). The authors emphasized the individual and his relation to the group, elaborating upon Lewin’s earlier claims regarding group identity and affiliation, and hinted at the separation of group

71 versus individual behavior. In addition to setting the stage for ingroup and outgroup boundaries, the authors outlined a number of dimensions which could be used to observe and measure behavior in experimental group settings. They placed participants into groups in a unique set-up, called the “robber’s cave.” Systematic observations took place in Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, where two groups, each with 12 boys, were placed in isolation. Activities were structured to provide bonding opportunities; in essence, a controlled induction of group-identification. The experimenters observed strong ingroup identity within five days, where the boys adopted names, roles, and status hierarchies. The boys were then informed of competitive activities in which the winner would receive trophies or other valuable items. Their results demonstrated increased motivation for those who identified more with the group over the three weeks. Moreover, the boys proceeded through at least three stages of ingroup processes: 1. Identification with the group through communication and interaction, 2. Production of conflict toward out-group, and 3. Reduction of friction. The study’s conclusions underscored the importance of hierarchical structure and commonly identified goals and attitudes in group formation. Sherif’s largest contribution was his emphasis on identification and boundary solidification, which opened doors for new studies of groups. An additional unique aspect of this study is how it related to real-world, naturally manipulated settings, although it still did not maintain the ecological validity characterized by earlier sociological studies. Following Sherif’s studies, group identification studies proliferated in social psychology. Showing an awareness of the various combinations of demographic variables such as age, gender, race, geographical location, and socioeconomic status, Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) fleshed out the concept of group identification with social identity theory (SIT). Inspired by the cultural milieu of discrimination and racism in the 1960s, Tajfel and Turner were

72 concerned with group conformity and influence. They were also the first to distinguish between internal and external properties of the group; in other words, how individuals perceive the ingroups, defined as the group(s) with which they identify, and outgroups, group(s) in which they do not belong, but of which they still remain aware. SIT maintains that there is an interaction between the view of the self, or self-concept, and social group membership, that results in classification of the self and others into categories with descriptive characteristics. Tajfel and Turner explained this with three theoretical propositions, each with its own behavioral ramifications: 1. Individuals strive to achieve or to maintain positive social identity. 2. Positive social identity is based to a large extent on favorable comparisons that can be made between the in-group and some relevant out-groups: the in-group must be perceived as positively differentiated or distinct from the relevant out-groups. 3. When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will strive either to leave their existing group and join some more positively distinct group and/or to make their existing group more positively distinct (p. 60). A number of controlled experiments, where groups were defined by shared values, supported these claims. Turner (1978) asked two groups of undergraduates (Arts and Sciences) to discuss an issue, and then asked them to assess ingroup and outgroup performance. His results showed lower and more biased verbal-intelligence ratings from the Arts students, since they selfidentified themselves as valuing verbal intelligence in their field. Additionally, different comparison conditions (explanation of Arts as more verbally positioned versus no explanation; and similar versus dissimilar out-group) changed the resultant ratings, such that out-group biased ratings were not always observed. A later publication by Turner and colleagues (1987) detailed these stages of the comparison process further, so that the role and prioritization of multiple “levels of self” were considered. Applications of this research to ecologically-valid situations

73 associated issues of identity and group affiliation to stages of social comparison and changes in self-esteem.

Culture and Cognition Anthropologists are best known for studying culture, but the range of views they provide is enormous. Modern anthropological texts tend to define culture as some combination of the following: belief systems, ethnicity, technological availability, geographical location, and worldview. Rather than provide a list of these cultural theories as applied to thoughts and behavior, I will first review the notion of “culture” from the perspective of traditional psychology and second from the perspective of cultural psychology. Throughout this discussion, I will complement these views with examples from perception and cognition studies. In contrast with anthropologists, psychologists typically gather data from many cultures to support or oppose some assertion about cognitive or behavioral universals. In psychological experiments, culture is either assumed to be a fixed category, or measured by belief and attitudinal scales. In the former paradigm, participants are categorized into groups based on demographic or status variables, and experimental outcomes are attributed to cultural differences (Neville & Heppner, 1999). If participants are assigned to a particular status group, they are rarely queried on their identification and affiliation with the group. A questionnaire may present the survey item, “ethnicity: African, Caucasian, Asian, or European, please circle one,” and respondents must choose from these preexisting categories. The alternative classifies respondents on their identification with a group, set of beliefs, or attitudes, given trends discovered in the data (Ross, 2004; Kitayama & Cohen, 2007). In such studies, instead of relying on preformed categories, these results are used to form groups of related individuals. Even though both

74 approaches provide a useful starting point for studying cognitive behavior, the latter view sees a group as a more dynamic, fluctuating entity. Studies in cognitive psychology present contrasting evidence, compared to those in anthropology or sociology, for cultural influences on memory and processing systems (Labarre, 1947; Graham & Argyle, 1975; Moore et al., 2002; Roberson et al., 2000). For instance, Labarre (1947) detailed culture-specific trends in particular gestures, such as head movements for indicating ‘yes’ and ‘no’: “The Semang, pygmy Negroes of interior Malaya, thrust the head sharply forward for ‘yes’ and cast the eyes down for ‘no’” (p. 50). Emotional behavior also appears to have cultural dependencies. On the topic of explicit emotions, one author found that a particular African tribe associated “black laughter” with “a mistake of supposing that similar symbols have identical meanings” (Gorer, 1935, cited in LaBarre, 1947, p. 52). Clearly, laughter can be used to communicate more than simple amusement. Ekman and Friesen (1969) advanced the study of culturally-specific emotions by focusing on the question of universal trends in cultural display rules, instead of gestures. In this and later studies (Ekman, 1972), they observed American-Japanese cultural differences in display of reactions to films. Japanese respondents were particularly private in their display of negative emotions, especially in the presence of the experimenter. Despite this finding, the majority of studies in Ekman’s lab (Ekman & Friesen, 1969, 1971; Izard, 1971; Ekman et al., 1987) have demonstrated universality in categorical perception of facial expressions, including happy, sad, fearful, disgusted, and angry faces. Likewise, reactions to films in the experiment’s alone condition were found to be similar across cultures (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Ekman, 1972). In contrast, James Russell (1991b) has argued against the universal quality of emotional meanings. Russell distinguished emotional thoughts by the way they are communicated by the culture’s lexicography. His ideas stem from the linguistic

75 relativity hypothesis, developed by the work of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf (Sapir, 1929; Whorf, 1956). This theory specified that a culture’s specific lexicon determines systems of cognitive representation and processing. Regarding the principle of relativity, Whorf stated that …users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world (1956, p. 221). This passage claims that local conditions emphasize the interaction between language and cognitive thought. Russell (1991b) supported this theory and the non-universal quality of emotion words with English concepts of shame and anxiety. Behavioral evidence for these patterns in the lexicon span from differences in cultural display rules (like social norms in group research) to conventional norms of cognitive appraisal. Russell also suggested that these forcedchoice designs have missed the mark with their predetermined, strict category boundaries for emotions. He argued that “…some emotion categories in non-Indo-European languages differ enough from their assumed translation equivalent in English to influence the categorization of facial expressions” (p. 436). Here and elsewhere Russell (1993, 1994) has argued that participants may respond more realistically to free-response or open-ended designs. Such methodological arguments may have the power to shape later interpretations of these matters. Contrasting results of cultural influence have also been observed in the cognitive processing of more objective stimuli, such as colors, ethnic boundaries, and family roles. Regardless of lexicography, it is widely accepted that color spaces are labeled similarly between cultures (Berlin & Kay, 1969; Moore et al., 2002). Moore and colleagues (2002) asked Taiwanese and American respondents to judge focal colors in paired comparison tasks. The authors focused on the semantic structure of color representation, which they defined as “a

76 cognitive representation in which the meaning of terms…relative to each other is represented in Euclidean space” (p. 7). This method of analysis attempts to deal with both between- and within-culture differences. The study’s results demonstrated similar knowledge of colors between cultures, with a slight amount (1.5%) of the variance due to lexicon differences. Although the authors differentiated these cultures on the basis of their color lexicons and cognitive access to color terminology, most of the variation in the data could be explained by interactions between gender, task, and language. The authors stressed the importance of individual difference and complexity in cross-cultural studies of this nature. As opposed to color studies, evidence for culture-specific concepts in ethnicity and word meaning suggests a sizable effect of lexicography. Gil-White (2001) contended that cultures have distinct approaches for defining ethnic boundaries, based on descriptions of appearance, essence, biological ancestry, and enculturation. Studies of abstract concepts also exemplifies cross-cultural differences in category boundaries. Wober (1974) surveyed two African cultures, the Baganda and Bataro, on their conceptual understanding of intelligence (obugezi) in their native languages. These participants rated each concept on bipolar semantic differential scales. Controlling for translation effects, Wober found that the Baganda linked intelligence to “mental order,” while Batoron respondents associated it with “mental turmoil.” Ratings on three bipolar scales (happy/sad, rare/common, and unyielding/obdurate) differed significantly between groups. Wober suggested that enculturation and access to knowledge were the most influential factors in these results and attributed them to societal norms of prestige and resource proximity. In an article on familial roles, Sharifian (2003) proposed that shared conceptualizations arise from the interaction between members in a culture or social group. Moreover, since not all individuals

77 within a culture submit to the same meanings, uniformity interacts with resultant coherence of cultural belief systems. A body of recent research supports the notion of distributed agreement within culture groups. In Culture and Resource Conflict, Medin, Ross, and Cox (2006) explored the basis of conflict and misperception between Menominee and majority cultures in Wisconsin. They described culture as “causally distributed patterns of ideas, their public expressions, and the resultant practices and behaviors in given ecological contexts” (p. 28). Their previously developed cultural-consensus model (CCM) offered a statistical measure of shared knowledge and assumed that “widely shared information is reflected by a high level of agreement across individuals” (p.29). Romney and collaborators (1986) used the CCM to compare task results to assess response distribution within a culture.18 Medin and colleagues (2006) claimed that cognitive processing informs knowledge organization, as well as attitudes and belief systems regarding meaningful stimuli. In a related experiment, Medin and collaborators (2006) asked Menominee and majority cultures to perform several sorting and timed tasks involving judgments on a variety of fish. In one experiment, the Menominee group sorted fish on the basis of ecological distinctions (e.g. habitat), whereas the majority group focused on taxonomic and goal-related characteristics (e.g. desirability and adult size). Overall, the study’s results exhibited a shared model for the fish, but peculiarities arose in the functionality of the model. In other words, the cultures organized their knowledge quite differently. In their study of animals and kinship terms, Romney and Moore (1998) devised a quantitative model of culture as a set of shared cognitive structures based on internal knowledge representations. According to their theory, members of a culture “share similar cognitive

Another term for “within culture” phenomena is intra-cultural.

78 structures for common semantic domains, even abstract ones like kinship terms” (p. 332). Cognitive structures are based on cross-cultural similarity judgments between terms, such as grandmother and grandfather in the abstract kinship domain, or elephant and giraffe in the concrete animal domain. Romney and colleagues observed a distinct difference in similarity judgments between monolingual versus bilingual English speakers: the latter had higher variability within participants than the former group. The authors interpreted these structures as culturally shared knowledge structures, highly dependent on linguistic, social, and contextually defined meaning systems. Furthermore, they associated their model to Searle’s (1995) idea of a social reality, in which cultural concepts (e.g. money) are defined by institutionally bound systems of meaning construction. Looking at sociocultural affiliations from several viewpoints is a valuable step in understanding the relationship between culture and cognition. From the view of traditional psychology, we may be on our way to uncovering universal, innate capacities of the human mind. From cultural psychology, we may be able to see culture not as a solidified entity, but as a unique pattern of belief systems, attitudes, and behaviors, unequally distributed across a network of individuals.

Cognitive Representations and Processing of Music Introduction As the psychological studies referenced above suggest, any person’s representation and processing of stimuli depends on relevant perceptual features and interpretive knowledge structures, which are in turn influenced by accumulated experience and cultural affiliation. Many studies that integrate psychological and musicological approaches presume that representation

79 and processing are influenced by certain absolute properties of music, such as pitch, harmony, rhythm, and meter19 (Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Dowling & Harwood, 1986; Krumhansl, 1990; Desain, 1992; Huron, 2006). This tendency seems to be influenced by the traditional music theoretic view that underlying structural properties of music, most typically pitch and harmony, account for cognitive experiences (Salzer, 1952; Schenker, 1954; Meyer, 1956).20 However, as Thompson and colleagues (2008) recently suggested from a study on audio-visual integration, multiple features of music are integrated to form an understanding of the work; thus, it is difficult to distinctly parse out the direct influences of perception. Moreover, the integration of features on one level mirrors the integration of larger unified systems of meaning, such as those explored by Meyer (1956), Clarke (2005), and Koelsch (2004) described in Chapter 1 of this dissertation. As suggested by Clarke, the representation and processing of music requires multiple levels, similar to those noted previously with regard to models of semantic memory. Not only do these models specify multiple units of embedded structures, but also, every level is connected to every other via network-like webs of interaction. The hierarchical levels may be situated vertically, to include subordinate, superordinate, and modifier interactions, or horizontally, such that different types of processing are on the same level. Although this study concentrates primarily on music’s referential (associative) meaning, influential models of music processing will be summarized as systematic templates for the development of a modified interactive system. Specifically, multiple levels of physiological explanations, Gestalt


Of course, these are not mutually exclusive, nor do they represent the entire gamut of properties in a musical work. Additional properties such as “loudness, duration, and timbre” may be included in this list (Dowling & Harwood, 1986; p. 19). 20 One of the most problematic assumptions of these models is an overdependence on accumulated knowledge of these representations (Narmour, 1977). Although these models focus more on the underlying “deep” structure of musical systems, they are directly related to Meyer’s absolutist perspective, such that meaning lies in moment-to-moment musical relationships.

psychological theories, and schema-driven mechanisms will be discussed. Following these summaries, several theories and studies on referential musical meaning will be reviewed to illustrate the connection between concepts22 and music. Finally, studies on the influence of culture and accumulated knowledge will be included and followed by a discussion on the relevance of previous research to this study.



Models of Music Representation and Processing Early models of representation of music focused on the relationship between physical patterns in sound, such as frequency, amplitude, and spectra, and top-down, sensory processing mechanisms in the auditory system (Helmholtz, 1877; Schouten, 1938; Békésy, 1960; Plomp & Levelt, 1965). This reflected the hierarchical character of processing models, where sensation is often presumed to be the first level of perceptual experience. Pitch consonance and dissonance, or perceptual “roughness,” was explained by the interactions between sound waves and the resultant activations within the basilar membrane (Helmholtz 1877; Francès, 1958). Specifically, Helmholtz posited a causal relation between anatomical structures in the ear and the salience of certain tones. He concluded that implicit sensations affect the perception of beauty in music: No doubt is now entertained that beauty is subject to laws and rules dependent on the nature of human intelligence. The difficulty consists in the fact that these laws and rules, on whose fulfillment beauty depends and by which it must be judged, are not consciously present to the mind, either of the artist who creates the work, or the observer who contemplates it (1877, p. 366).


The format of this section is slightly different than the former, such that studies on mental representations and cognitive processing will be considered simultaneously. This is generally the case for research in the field of music cognition. 22 The use of this term (concept) will be used interchangeably with the term category, unless noted otherwise.

81 Both perception and the development of musical styles were thought to be influenced by bottom-up interactions between physical sound patterns; however, extensions of Helmholtz’s theory presumed that these perceptual mechanisms were built-in capacities, and thus, top-down in nature (Plomp & Levelt, 1965). Likewise, studies relating physical amplitude and psychological loudness showed that listeners form a reference point, to which all other experiences are compared (Stevens and Davis, 1936). “Just noticeable differences” (JND), or thresholds of subjective distance, were determined and shown to be dependent on particular frequency ranges (e.g. higher pitches were judged louder than lower pitches at the same amplitude). These judgments were, however, found later to be affected by additional factors, such as frequency interactions and masking effects, further confirming the assertion that the integration of complex properties, on one level, affects perception and judgment of sound, on another (Zwicker et al., 1957; Dowling & Harwood, 1986). More recent research argues that these and other perception-based models more accurately predict goodness judgments and expectations of listeners (Povel & Jansen, 2001). In the latter part of the twentieth century, research turned again toward the Gestalt notion of cognitive grouping mechanisms (Deutsch, 1975). Instead of looking to anatomical structures, these researchers focused more on the signal and its relation to cognitive frameworks of perception. Gestalt theory had proposed laws that affected the cognitive ability to parse stimuli into highly related entities (Wertheimer, 1924). Dependent on physical properties of space and time, these laws were later borrowed to illustrate perception of pitch information (Miller & Heise, 1950; Bregman & Campbell, 1971; Dowling, 1973; Deutsch, 1975). Researchers set up studies to test the integration of the two signals. Deustch (1975) asked participants to describe what they heard when two contrasting, angular melodies were played simultaneously in the right

82 and left ears. Her results showed that participants heard parts of ascending and descending major scales, instead of angular melodies, which she attributed to relations of pitch proximity. Deutsch named this phenomenon the scale illusion and illustrated the cognitive tendency of grouping pitches based on relative closeness in frequency. Similar perceptual illusions have been illustrated in the perception of rhythmic and metric groupings, even in spite of interruptions in the signal (Norman, 1967; van Noorden, 1975). Other models emphasized the role of implicit knowledge of musical structure and organization in the experience of music. The music theorist Fred Lerdahl and the linguist Ray Jackendoff (1983) aimed to represent the relationship between the musical score and the knowledge that listeners bring to a musical experience. They attributed this to a listener’s intuitive mechanisms of grouping, structuring, and reduction of features. Based on concepts from Gestalt psychology and transformational grammar, Lerdahl and Jackendoff devised a set of rules based on feature grouping and metrical structure, as well as time-span and prolongational reduction, and applied these rules to pieces from the Western classical music canon (e.g. Schubert, Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven). The authors theorized that listeners hear hierarchical groupings, structures, and prolongations because of patterns of tension and release, which arise out of contextual consonance and dissonance. With certain formalized principles of voiceleading and tonality as their foundation, Lerdahl and Jackendoff provided “prolongational trees” based on implied patterns of tension and relaxation of pitch and rhythmic events. For example, their prolongation reduction well-formedness rules (PRWFR) seek to illustrate the degree to which the interaction between pitch and rhythm create long-range musical structures. Their model was framed within traditional music theory and signified a hierarchical, feature-dependent structural component, embedded within higher-level semantic representations of music.

83 Studies proposing empirical testing of Lerdahl and Jackendoff’s theory surfaced not long after their work was published. Several of these studies focused on rules of segmentation and parsing of relevant musical stimuli, but suggested feature-interaction rules that differed slightly from those proposed by Lerdahl and Jackendoff (Deliège, 1987, 1989; Clarke & Krumhansl, 1990; Krumhansl & Jusczyk, 1990). Deliège (1987) had participants listen to short excerpts of instrumental music from the Western canon and asked them to illustrate section boundaries by drawing lines between dots that represented musical events. Generally, she found that musicians’ segmentations adhered more to “rules” than did nonmusicians and specific rules, such as attack-point, change in dynamics, and change in timbre, were favored by both groups. Later experiments explored rules further by manipulating the stimuli, revealing more complex interaction between rules, and suggested additional rules of change in instrumentation and/or sound density. A study on real-time listening (Deliège et al., 1996) solidified a theory based on schematic cues, accessed in the process of relating musical surface structures. The authors argued that …the materials of one and the same piece appear to give rise to different “schematas of order” that are largely dependent on listeners’ previous musical training…cues memorized by musicians contain longer musical structures enabling the musicians more efficiency in establishing relations between musical structures during listening (p. 155). Essentially, the saliency of surface cues allows listeners to activate larger structures, or schemata, and form abstractions based on the information in the memory traces, or “imprints” (Deliège 1989, 1991, 1992). Unlike the theory set forth by Lerdahl and Jackendoff, this theory is most like that shown in theories of categorization of local, rather than global features. In support of the influence of local features, Cuddy and Badertscher (1987) found that the presence of a major

84 triad tended to influence a sense of tonality, or key. Instead of focusing on hierarchical stages and units, this approach relies more on bottom-up, feature extraction tendencies in perception. The psychologist Carol Krumhansl showed a similarly Gestalt-influenced approach to modeling musical experience, by designing a technique to test the stability of tonal schemata as applied to the contextual appropriateness of certain pitches (Krumhansl, 1990). Dubbed the “probe tone paradigm,” this methodology first presented a tonal context, then an isolated tone, and then asked respondents to rate the overall “fit” for the tone. Her results illustrated a hierarchical model of pitch, suggesting, for example that certain pitches in the C major scale (e.g. C, G, E) were judged more likely to occur in the major context than did non-scale tones (e.g. C#, D#, F#, G#). She argued that non-scale tones were not part of the organized memory trace for C major; and more generally, “…the quality of individual elements is determined, and sometimes distorted, by the organizational processes operating on the configuration,” which contribute to the contextual identity of a particular tone (p. 143). Krumhansl’s model, like that proposed by Deliège, specifies feature extraction processing systems, such that multiple features, based on contextual identity and psychological pitch distance, are combined additively to influence an overall impression. Schemata for musical events have also been found to influence the structure and function of mental representations and the resultant processing of musical stimuli. As previously mentioned, Deliège incorporated the abstraction of features into rule-based schemata accessed during musical segmentation. In a more recent text on creativity, Deliège (2006) commented on the structure and organization of these categories23 in music, directly relating them to principles of knowledge organization explored by Eleanor Rosch (1975, 1978). The following passage

In this paper, Deliège refers to “categories” as representations and “schemata” as involved in processing.

85 illustrates Deliège’s thoughts on the differences between horizontality, or concepts that are on the same conceptual level, versus verticality, or concepts that embed each other: the concept of horizontality could apply immediately to music listening. But for verticality, some adjustment is required. You cannot simply transfer to music the hierarchical principles that come from language and refer to precise concepts and semantic contents. But by analogy, one could say the following: (1) The reference to a basic level could cover the abstraction of the different cues within a single piece. Each cue generates its own horizontal relations. It has its own specific function and creates its own auditory image, independently from all the others while sharing with them a common reference: the style of the piece. (2) The superordinate level can be assigned to the reference of each cue to a group or section, within the overall mental representation of the work. (3) The subordinate level refers to relations between the patterns that share analogies within the auditory image, and this leads back to the concept of horizontality (p. 72). She then likened Rosch’s prototype to her notion of an imprint, which she defined as the best representation of the category, or a “prototypical summary that facilitates the recognition of musical patterns” (p. 73). Deliège did not consider extensions of the hierarchy in the opposite direction; that which subsumes the superordinate level could include the overall concept of the piece represented in the listener’s terms, communicable to outsiders via a set of abstract terms. She argued against the presence of ostensible referents and semantic content in music, since it is the role of the listener to form these abstractions. This will be discussed in more detail in the next section. Other studies focus on the role of distinct musical features in the formation of schemata. Dowling (1978) found that listeners process melodies primarily by their contour, or patterns of

86 ups and downs, such that scrambling of contour and range information made melodies indeterminable. In a later publication, Dowling and Harwood (1986) suggested that “both the label and the contour can serve to retrieve a particular melodic schema from among the many stored in long-term memory” (p. 129). Regarding schemata in jazz, Williams (1988) applied Meyer’s theory of “archetypal schemata” (1973), or exceptionally representative cases, to bebop themes. According to Williams, Archetypal schemata, then, are the normative classes that serve, collectively, as a conceptual frame of reference for the perception and comprehension of melodic events. In the act of listening, one constantly but unconsciously compares what is heard to one’s conception of what melodies generally do. It is the mental results of such comparison that provide the basis for critical evaluations of originality and esthetic value (p. 55). Referencing Meyer’s famed “gap-fill” schema and Narmour’s (1974) elaborations, Williams presented common octave-leap and axial patterns in jazz themes,24 implying that they play a significant role in bebop improvisations and compositions. These comments from Dowling and Williams support an integrated view of musical schemata; recognition of familiar melodies and archetypes depends not only on contour information, but also on chunks of categorized information that may depend on interactions between musical features.

Referential and Associative Representations of Music Referential meanings of music are largely explored by theorists and musicologists, with the exception of a few cognitive studies relating music to emotional qualities (Tovey, 1935; McClary, 1991). The main thesis from a theorist’s point of view is that composers refer to extra-


Colloquially, jazz musicians refer to these as “heads.”

musical ideas in the work itself. The Sinatra-Basie recording of Fly Me to the Moon was mentioned at the outset of this dissertation to support this view. In the world of classical music, Richard Strauss was a composer who utilized typical references, by relating musical patterns, timbres, and instrumentation to specific images and emotions. Of his early operas and unfinished works, Schmid (2003) noted that Strauss presented a variety of emotional ideas and concepts, albeit more abstract than those presented earlier in works by Richard Wagner. Similar claims have been made for the presentation of unified, structural narratives in Brahms’ symphonies (Knapp, 2001). Due to its culturally significant recording history, jazz has also been the subject of referential analysis. The ethnomusicologist Ingrid Monson (1994, 1996) submitted a view of jazz “as a mode of social action that musicians selectively employ in the process of communicating” (1994, p. 285). In her analyses of recordings by Coltrane, Roland Kirk, and Jaki Byard, Monson (1994) associated elements of music with a typology of concepts relating to social action. Of Coltrane’s My Favorite Things, she argued:




Duly noted is the vehement opposition to this claim in mid-century aesthetics of music, including the work of Eduard Hanslick (1957), who stated, What part of the feelings, then, can music represent, if not the subject involved in them? Only their dynamic properties. It may reproduce the motion accompanying psychical action according to its momentum: speed, slowness, strength, weakness, increasing and decreasing intensity. But motion is only one of the concomitants of feeling, not the feeling itself. It is a popular fallacy to suppose that the descriptive power of music is sufficiently qualified by saying that, although incapable of representing the subject of a feeling, it may represent the feeling itself—not the object of love, but the feeling of love. In reality, however, music can do neither. It cannot reproduce the feeling of love but only the element of motion….This is the element which music has in common with our emotions and which, with creative power, it contrives to exhibit in an endless variety of forms and contrasts (pp. 24-25). Susanne Langer (1954) wrote of similar dynamic properties with her concept of “morphology of feeling.”

88 Coltrane…demonstrates the power of his musical intelligence and imagination…to transform a European-American musical theater song into a vehicle for expressing the improvisational aesthetic of jazz (p. 293). Monson also interpreted this recording as a commercial attempt to appeal to a more diverse audience. Essentially, she associated abstract concepts, on one level, with lower-level surface features, such as modification of meter, presentation of static harmony,26 and reharmonization of standard repertoire, on another. Similar descriptive methods have been used to approach associations of irony, humor, and playfulness in Thelonious Monk’s music (Solis, 2009). In sum, these theories are hierarchically situated, as they presume that there are chunks of musical features embedded in multiple layers of referential meaning. As an alternative to associating ideas and concepts to music, Deryck Cooke (1959) attributed the pairing of emotional qualia and music to three distinct processes: “direct imitation, approximate imitation, and suggestion or symbolization” (p. 3). He presented evidence to support the emotionality of musical intervals and motifs, including those that communicate pleasure, happiness (major third), sadness, and pain (minor third).27 With regard to isolated pitch relations, listeners have shown similarities in their adjective descriptions of two-note intervals (Edmonds & Smith, 1923). These authors suggested that this finding depended on “auditory categories” developed through experience. They observed that listeners referred to taste and touch sensations, such as smooth, dilute, gritty, and harsh, to describe musical intervals, or auditory categories. Huron (2006) conducted a similar experiment, in which similarities in “qualia” of musical chords were observed. Like those set forth by Edmonds and Smith, Huron devised four categories – expectedness (surprising, sudden), tendency (leaning, urging), valence
26 27

In this case, a “vamp.” This may be more of a Eurocentric view of emotion and music, as there are many examples of happy songs in minor keys in the traditional Eastern European canon.

89 (happy, somber), and other (whole, fuzzy) – to explain adjective-descriptor responses to chromatic-mediant chords. Huron’s classification implied that judgments were based on the statistical compilation of musical properties that tended to be associated with typical emotional experiences. In several experiments, Isabelle Peretz and colleagues (1998a; 1999; 2001) have also paired emotional terminology with musical stimuli, and proposed that listeners consistently required only one quarter of a second of an excerpt to categorize music as “happy” or “sad” (1998a). In further case studies of neurologically impaired patients, Peretz and collaborators (1998a; 1998b; 2001) showed that neural correlates of these emotional processing units depend on distributed, as opposed to localized, cortical interactions. Despite these theoretical and empirical advances, only a few scholars have attempted to incorporate referents into a comprehensive model of musical meaning (Coker, 1972; Zbikowski, 2002; Burkholder, 2007). The music theorist Peter Burkholder (2007) constructed an analytical framework for interpreting associative meaning in music, with the following objectives: …the listener’s sense of what the music means is created through a process of five steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recognizing familiar elements. Recalling other music or schema that make use of those elements. Perceiving the associations that follow from the primary associations. Noticing what is new and how familiar elements are changed. Interpreting what all this means (p. 79, emphasis his).

He humbly acknowledged these stages as highly personal processes that result in varied meanings between listeners, but contrastingly, he contributed analyses for musical innuendos with “associations…beyond dispute” (p. 81). His examples were described by their means of association and included “arbitrary encoding,” “performance,” “quotation,” “stylistic allusion,” “topic and timbre,” “allusion to a specific piece,” “interaction with generic and formal

90 conventions,” and “reference to musical syntax” (pp. 81-97). In one example, Burkholder applied his model to the presentation of bugle calls in Aaron Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man and implied that the timbre of the trumpet coupled with the well-known topic of fanfare creates the potential for associating the work with concepts of humanity, dignity, and nobility. Caveats were included to exemplify the role of knowledge of these referents, and with Copland’s work in general: “meaning depends on what the listener knows” (p. 101, emphasis his), and further, “Music acquires associations, and thus meanings, through use” (p. 102, emphasis his). Although this model is underdeveloped due to its simplicity and reliance on personal experience, it attempted some systematic views on the associative nature of music. The music theorist Lawrence Zbikowski approached the modeling of music’s relational structure somewhat differently. Although his work is generally more concerned with musical features, in Conceptualizing Music (2002), he explained his philosophy in terms of cognitive notions of typicality and categorization (Rosch & Mervis, 1978; Barsalou, 1992). His proposed theory specified that the act of categorization creates a musical concept, and further, conceptual models are composed of hierarchically nested concepts, such as the association between “pitchevents and objects” (p. 102). The listener goes through a process of “conceptual blending” to solidify these associations, which Zbikowski defined as “…a dynamic process of meaning construction that involves small, interconnected conceptual packets called mental spaces, which temporarily recruit structure from conceptual domains in response to local conditions” (p. 94). After these processes unfold, the listener extends his or her conceptual domain and generates theories, based upon associations within the domain, to solve problems. Further into the text, he applied these constructs to Mozart’s compositional strategies, apparent in Musikalisches Würfelspiel, the Musical Dice Game, and musical patterns in String Quartet K. 465. Zbikowski

91 described one category in the first movement, which contained relations between a “rhythmic pattern…,diatonic contour…, and an implied harmonic change” (p. 155). Additional musical patterns contribute to the meaning of the piece and to an abstract concept of Mozart’s music in general – “…something to be introduced, varied, and ultimately reprised” (p. 168) – which he then compared to the compositional strategies of the style and time period. Although he did not incorporate it formally, Zbikowski hinted at this higher level of description. Multiple layers of meaning are implied in both models, mirroring the network-like structure and organization of the music-centered models of processing. Both Burkholder and Zbikowski propose that listeners should have a developed sense of these associations, built up from learned and shared experiences in sociocultural circles, to ensure reliable accessibility and retrievability during the listening process.

Social Groups, Culture, and Music Introduction Music, like other domains, is characterized by an interactive relationship between its numerous experiential, social, and cultural variables. Meyer, commenting on the role of these distinctions on the experience of art (1989), wrote: There is no such thing as understanding a work of art in its own terms. Indeed, the very notion of work of art is cultural. The choices made by some compositional community can be understood and explained only if relationships can be discerned among the goals set by culture, the nature of human cognitive processes, and the alternatives available given some set of stylistic constraints (p. 351). Meyer was thus concerned with the strategies composers use to develop common practices, and further, how enculturated listeners build up knowledge structures to interact with musical stimuli.

92 Since knowledge of a style presumes knowledge of “what might come next” in the structure of a musical work, his theories imply that this expertise may be defined beyond culture, to experience and learnedness (p. 24). Anthropologists have explored music as a culture-bound phenomenon and related it to behaviorisms and structural compositions of communities (Nettl, 1956; Merriam, 1964; Seeger, 1987). Some of these earlier studies were specifically targeting “primitive” practices of music in hopes of expanding the distinction between musicians and nonmusicians (Blacking, 1974). More recently, social psychologists have argued that groups and institutions significantly influence responses to music (Hargreaves & North, 1997; MacDonald et al., 2002; DeNora, 2003). Moreover, recent research in music cognition has incorporated the study of cultural differences in perception and cognition (Castellano et al., 1984; Walker, 1987, 1997, 2004; Kippen, 1987; Moisala, 1995; Meyer et al., 1998; Balkwill & Thompson, 1999; BarYosef, 2007; Curtis & Bharucha, 2009). The following summarizes some current trends on the relationship between sociocultural variables, musical experience, and cognition. Social groups will be considered as entities that impact preferences, stereotypes, and functionality, while cultural affiliations will be related to music cognition and perception.

Social Influences on Musical Experience Recent research in the area of the social psychology of music has seen an upsurge of focus on the topics of group influence, identity, misperceptions, and stereotypes. This interest stems from a desire to understand the ways in which different groups use music as social boundaries. As social groups display characteristic patterns of musical taste, delineations between groups become clearer. The sociologist Simon Frith (1989) focused on shared values and experience: “To be a rock fan is not just to like something but also to know something, to

93 share a secret with one’s fellow fans…” (p. 4-5). Contrastingly, Ian Cross (2001) contemplated social qualities as an inherent feature of music: The polysemic potential that characterises proto-musical activity is likely to underpin the social functionality of music and to contribute to, but not determine, music’s meaning. The functionalities and functions of music or proto-musical behaviors for the individual, whether in their own cognitive development or in their socialisation, must be set in the context of the functionalities and functions of music as a cultural phenomenon. Music, like language, cannot be wholly private; it is a property of communities, not individuals (p. 9). Cross argued against the notion that music is a wholly individual experience and advocated for a sociocultural means of musical analysis. In light of these and other comments, different scholars interpret music as a way of “bringing people together,” and creating a sense of shared identity and group solidarity (Bakagiannis & Tarrant, 2006; MacDonald et al, 2002). The majority of research on music’s use in social groups concentrates on musical preferences, and the sampled populations tend to be adolescents and young adults (Inglefield, 1968; Frith, 1981; North & Hargreaves, 1999, 2003; Bakagiannis & Tarrant, 2006). Phillip Russell (1997) proposed that the musical preferences of young people “act as a framework for a set of socially shared meanings and common states of awareness through which individuals identify with others in their peer group” (p.152). Tarrant and colleagues have conducted a number of studies on adolescent groups and music preferences, and one of their earlier studies (2001) illustrated their participants’ motivations for listening to music. A factor analysis performed on their questionnaire data suggested that the majority of adolescents’ responses could be explained by 3 factors: self-actualizing, fulfilling emotional needs, and fulfilling social needs. A later study by Bakagiannis and Tarrant (2006) sought to illustrate how these factors were revealed in manipulated group settings. In this experiment, adolescent participants were led to

94 believe they were placed in different groups based on the way they “think;” but in fact, group placement was random. They were then told that members of their group possessed either similar or different music preferences. Participants in the former condition identified more with the ingroup and less with the out-group, and when asked to rate both groups on trait adjectives (i.e. nice, intelligent, selfish, snobbish), they used more positive terms to describe the in-group. These results highlighted the interaction between musical preferences and intergroup biases. Other scholars’ work relates closely to these findings. Frith (1981) has commented on the function of music as a “badge” for adolescents, providing “a means of identifying and articulating emotion” (p. 217). North and Hargreaves (1999) explored this notion through a questionnaire, in which they asked adolescents of different ages to indicate their involvement with, and attitudes on, music. Their results indicated that adolescents listened to music between 3 to 4 hours a day and used it to express their attitudes and values in life. When asked to associate fans of particular genres (“chart pop,” “jazz,” “classical”) with attitudinal statements, such as “physical attractiveness is important to them” and “see technology as a good thing,” North and Hargreaves’ participants exhibited a number of stereotypes and biases. For example, they associated “classical music” with older age, “chart pop” with females, and “indie pop” with political activism. Although there were other significant factors in this study, both age groups (10-11 and 18-19 years) revealed similar patterns of associations, illustrating longitudinal effects of these biases. Their responses to value-laden statements were also influenced by their music preferences. On average, adolescents associated classical music preference and older age with statements such as “This person is more likely than others to be successful in later life,” and “This person might find it more difficult than others to get a date with a member of the opposite sex.” These results, as a whole, speak to the relationship between the participants’ perceived

95 music preferences and these preferences’ social consequences (North & Hargreaves, 1999). The results also suggest that adolescents subscribed to numerous stereotypes and misperceptions regarding musical preference. The presence of others has also been examined as an influence on musical behavior and perceived status. Howard Inglefield (1968) paved the way for research on group presence and music preference in his dissertation. His additional study investigated conformity behavior “as a factor in the formation and fluctuation of adolescent musical preferences” (1972, p.57). Inglefield asked about pretest music preference in a population of 9th grade adolescents and then assessed his participants’ personalities with inventories that specified inner-otherdirectedness, need for social approval, and independence. His participants were then asked to rate pieces of music on preference, both alone and in the presence of social leaders28 in their school. His participants’ conformity scores, or the response change between pretest and posttest music preferences, reflected an influence of social leaders on overall preferences. His results also indicated significant differences in the amount of conformity behavior between musical genres: “…participants conformed most when responding to jazz music, next to folk music, thirdly to rock music, and least to classical music” (p. 65). Inglefield interpreted his findings as lending support for the strength and stability of musical preference among his participants. For instance, he claimed that adolescents’ preferences for classical music were more stable than those for jazz, because “most classical music responses were well-established negative responses and not likely to change under peer group pressure” (p. 65). In another study, Finnäs (1989) set up a similar experimental paradigm, requiring adolescents to submit their music preferences either privately (on their own) or publicly (by holding up a piece of paper in front of their classmates). He asked

These leadership labels were based on students’ responses to the personality inventories.

96 students to rate musical excerpts, representative of rock, traditional, classical, and folk, on their degree of preference alone and in relation to other excerpts. They were then asked to estimate their classmates’ general music preferences. His results revealed a significant effect of public influence on personal submissions and estimations of preference: adolescents tended to give lower preference ratings to folk and classical music in the presence of their peer group than in private. His findings also showed a tendency on the part of his participants to misperceive preferences of their in-groups; specifically, his respondents underestimated their peers’ preference for particular folk and classical music excerpts. Overall, the results of this study imply that adolescents are significantly influenced by their perceptions of both in- and out-group, and by extension, that social context broadly affects estimations of others’ preferences. Research underscoring the importance of SIT (Social Identity Theory) contends that group identification shapes perception of both in-group and out-group music preferences. In a study conducted in an all-male school, Tarrant and colleagues (2001) asked adolescents to rate students both inside (in-group) and outside (out-group) of their school on personality characteristics and likeability. Respondents favored the in-group more than the out-group by associating positively stereotyped music (e.g. pop) with the in-group and negatively stereotyped music with the out-group (e.g. classical, jazz). In addition, the authors found that the lower a student scored on a self-esteem inventory, the more he differentiated between the groups. These results imply that lower self-esteem promotes stronger delineations of group boundaries. Although generalizing these findings to a population of adults is cautionary, this study also supports the notion of similar in-group music preferences as well as attitudes towards the outgroup. Gender also been shown to influence the delineation of group boundaries and thus

97 differences in musical experience. Toney and Weaver (1994) conducted a study that explored the role of gender on the socialization of affect: …it is argued that gender-specific rules of social conduct - which result from the fact that most young men and women in our society are socialized according to “traditional” cultural gender roles-include gender-specific proscriptions concerning the expression and exhibition of affect (p.568). However, adherence to these roles depends on “gender schematicity,” or how well one’s selfperceptions match those of salient gender-role norms. In their experiment, Toney and Weaver found that participants’ ratings of music videos on scales measuring enjoyment and disturbance did not depend on gender schematicity. Females showed an overall negative relationship between enjoyment and disturbance, while males showed the opposite. It may have been that these gender roles were so ingrained that respondents were not aware of the influence on their responses. The participants also misperceived out-group musical preferences: males overestimated female preference for soft rock, and females overestimated male enjoyment of hard rock. Regarding misperceptions, however, gender only accounted for 1/5 of the variance, implying that additional variables and complex interactions between them create these effects. Other studies have looked at the impact of stereotypes and misperceptions on music evaluation, performance, and musical-instrument associations. In a study assessing the effect of judgment biases on evaluation of music performances, college students were instructed to evaluate several video performances of Western piano music (Davidson & Edgar, 2003). The authors manipulated the materials so that in a “dubbed condition,” the visual mismatched the aural information. Results illustrated significant in-group effects, related to demographic variables. For instance, in the dubbed condition, Caucasian judges rated Caucasian performers higher than African-American performers. This study’s results also implied that judges,

98 regardless of gender, tend to rate female pianists higher than male pianists. In a paper exploring the effects of gender bias on music evaluations, North and collaborators (2003) asked adolescents to evaluate pieces as more likely composed by a female or a male. Their participants also rated the pieces using characteristic adjectives, including forceful, individualistic, innovative, soothing, warm, and expressive. Males were perceived as more likely to compose in certain genres, notably jazz, more than new age or classical. Furthermore, males gave lower ratings of artistic merit to music composed by females, and females gave lower ratings of artistic merit to music composed by males. The results of this study stand in opposition Davidson and Edgar’s, where there was a higher overall evaluation of female pianists. The interaction of demographic variables, such as age and gender, with group context provides a complex set of concerns, not addressed in either of these studies. Bruce and Kemp (1993) explored the nature of gender biases in music by focusing on association for musical instruments. After attending two concerts on different days, children aged 5-7 were invited to approach and explore one instrument. This study’s data included the number of children approaching each instrument, the gender of both the child and the musician, and the instrument. The study’s results showed a larger number of children approaching the instruments performed by members of the same gender. Children were also asked to draw a picture of a musician playing one of the instruments they preferred. Males depicted fewer female musicians in their pictures, and likewise, females depicted fewer male musicians. Although the researchers did not interview children on their attitudes towards musical instruments, this study suggests that stereotypes (e.g. female flute player), may disappear in atypical situations (e.g. presence of male flute player). From this overview of the literature on social groups and music preferences, stereotypes, and misperceptions, it is clear that further investigation of the complex interactions between

99 participant attributes is warranted. Affiliations with social groups affect music preferences, but do they affect cognitive activities? There are only a few studies that query adults on these gender and social group biases; is this observation due to the lack of social groups in adulthood, or do these effects diminish with age? Finally, if social affiliations are defined by demographic attributes in adulthood, which variables are the most strong for delineating groups? Are there other significant distinctions, for instance culture and profession, that contribute to group delineations? The study of culture-specific behaviors may help to answer some of these questions, especially with respect to self-identity and affiliation.

Culture, Music, and Cognition Generally, scholars who examine the role of cultural variables on musical experiences fall into one of two broad categories: 1) Those who believe that responses to music are universal. 2) Those who believe that responses to music are culturally shaped. Although the focus of this section will be on the second of these views, many studies acknowledge the existence of some universal qualities of music. In a recent commentary on the role of culture in music, Baily (1996) noted that ethnomusicologists, as a unified group, “have been more interested in the idea that human beings are intrinsically musical, and have evolved specifically to be music-makers” (p. 115) – the argument proceeding this generality being that cultures approach the perception, interpretation, and performance of music in different manners. The goal for ethnomusicologists, then, has become one of describing these practices within their cultural contexts (Hood, 1960; Merriam, 1964). Contrastingly, the goals of scholars involved in the cognitive sciences have focused on musical systems of analysis, perception, cognition, and

100 meaning-making. This viewpoint stems from the theory that musical behaviors arise a result of cognitive processes (Walker, 1997). The following review will briefly summarize a few studies that have contributed to the growth and development of culture and cognition, especially in the form of modeling culturally-specific structures in music analysis and cognitive representation of musical features. Many attempts at merging two domains into a “cognitive ethnomusicology” have examined cross-cultural patterns in musical systems. Early studies focused on modeling distinct features, such as vocal singing styles in folk songs (Lomax, 1959, 1968). Lomax (1968) characterized folk song styles for over 200 cultures in a system called cantometrics, in order to demonstrate “main paths of human migration and…known historical distributions of culture” (p. 3). The cantometrics project was designed to focus on certain dimensions in vocal music, including patterns of stress, repetition in text, length of melodic segments, intonation, pitch, ornamentation, tempo, and volume (p. 14). Lomax also observed contextual factors such as the social organization of the vocal and instrumental groups (e.g. spatial arrangement, dominance patterns), and audience behavior. His system incorporated ratings from independent coders, and resulted in a number of categories of cultural systems of song. The results of this lengthy project illustrated that musical patterns mirrored other dimensions of society, including production of food, delineation of status, and sexual activity. In the following passage, Lomax relates sexual practice and independence to vocal production in two arbitrarily labeled (A and F) cultures: In the A situation the girl is on her own in some degree; but in F cultures, where there are simply no rules that apply to sex, the girl is totally on her own, and thus less secure. The vocal tension in this situation approaches that of the restrictive set (p. 196).

101 These and other assertions were supported by statistical differences in the ratings obtained from Lomax and his collaborators; thus, the data collected and the assessment of the data were from Western listeners rather than being described by members of the cultures. Another study (Kippen, 1987) attempted to model a system of musical dimensions in North Indian tabla drumming by interviewing an expert musician. Rather than focusing on differences between cultures, Kippen used ethnomusicological methods of ethnography, interview, and in situ observation to model the grammatical dimensions of one musical system. In this case, data were used to construct an expert model, called the Bol Processor, that performed variations of patterns based on grammatical rules. Essentially, the system acts as a human listener and performer of Indian drum patterns, accounting for moment-to-moment experiences specified by the culture. Other research has provided cultural details of semantic associations (Baily, 1988), durational contrasts (Huron & Ollen, 2003), and analogies for pitch and time (Bar-Yosef, 2007), in music, indicating a significant interaction between cultural context and musical systems. A number of empirical studies have illustrated different degrees of cultural impact on cognitive responses to music. Robert Walker has been a leading proponent of these cross-cultural experiments, especially concerning reactions to basic properties of physical sound. In his earlier work, Walker (1978, 1985, 1987) hypothesized that “subjects acculturated in different auditory environments and language traditions might be expected to have formed different auditory gestalts at the higher levels of neural processing” (1987, p. 493). To test this theory, his study (1987) analyzed agreement patterns for visual-sound metaphors between experience- and culture-related groups. Respondents from six groups – musically trained, urban (musically inexperienced), Inuit, Haida Indians, Shuswap Indians, and Tsimsian Indians – were asked to

match short sounds to visual metaphors by circling pictures on a response sheet. His results showed overall differences in visual metaphors between sounds. These differences were ultimately dependent on the feature to which it was manipulated (e.g. size matched amplitude; vertical changes matched frequency; horizontal changes matched duration; and pattern matched waveform). In addition, group identity influenced the responses, such that those who were musically trained responded more conventionally than musically naïve groups, and the Shuswap Indians responded with fewer typical matches than the other groups, especially for frequency and duration. Even though musical experience had a larger effect on the results, Walker suggested that cultural factors, such as remoteness of location, impacted participants’ knowledge of Western-influenced metaphors for sound. In a later publication, Walker (1990) further claimed that “…our perceptions are mediated in powerful fashion by our acquired beliefs and cultural knowledge, which supply the requirements our perceptual apparatus seems innately designed for” (p. 173). By examining pitch relations between intervals in Western and Pacific Northwest Indian cultures, he postulated a direct influence of cultural definitions of pitch, implicitly apparent, on resultant perception. A different study illustrated similar cultural deviations for vocal production of sound, specifically evident in patterns of spectral energy (Walker, 1978). Walker postulated that repetitive musical behaviors, passed down as cultural knowledge, create these variants in sound and resultant perception: …as our experience grows we develop systematic ways of coding information…Incoming information that can be recognized as language or music known by the perceiver is processed through these pre-existing codes (Walker, 1978, p. 24).




Each sound was manipulated within one of four features: frequency, amplitude, duration, and waveform.

103 The features of these specialized codes show a striking resemblance to cognitive mechanisms of schematic and categorical processing, previously mentioned in this review. Although he shows strong effects of experience, and slight effects of culture, Walker’s studies do not consider self-reported identities and affiliations of his respondents; there is no indication as to whether participants would describe themselves as “musically-experienced” or affiliate with the “Pacific Northwest Indian culture.” Instead, there is an implicit assumption of affiliation. Additional experiments provide conflicting evidence on the extent of culture-specific aspects of in real-time processing and judgments of musical stimuli. In an application of Krumhansl’s (1990) probe tone paradigm to North Indian music, Castellano, Bharucha, and Krumhansl (1984) asked Western and Indian listeners to judge the contextual appropriateness of tones in North-Indian themes. Their results suggested specialized tonal hierarchies for Indian music, dependent on interactions between scale membership and tone duration. No betweengroup differences were discovered for these probe-tone judgments; however, further analyses revealed that Indian listeners’ responses adhered more to fundamental aspects of the “parent scale,” or thaat. The authors suggested that certain elements, such as the hierarchic nature of tones in a harmonic system, are perceptible regardless of cultural experience; thus, listeners may have referred to their preexistent, culturally-influenced knowledge structures to make judgments about these stimuli. However, others have argued that listeners are unable to process music from outside their culture, especially considering potential variations in musical syntax between cultures. In a recent experiment, Curtis and Bharucha (2009) used a memory task to test schematic knowledge, or information about musical syntax and semantics. Their paradigm required participants, unfamiliar with Indian music, to judge whether tones were included in preceding Western- or Indian-derived melodies. Their measurements of reaction time and

104 accuracy showed that listeners thought they heard Western-derived more than Indian-derived scale tones (a case of a false alarm) and took longer to reject Indian-derived scale tones. These results were considered in light of previous research on factors of musical experience: “…when listening to music from an unfamiliar modal system, we may impose our own cultural expectancies on that musical system” (p. 373). Experiments on emotional judgments of music also show a range of results. Basic emotions, including happiness, sadness, and anger, as well as affective sounds (e.g. gasps) have been shown to be perceptible, regardless of the listener’s musical or cultural background (Meyer et al., 1998; Balkwill & Thompson, 1999). However, further analyses in this latter experiment revealed cultural differences in judgments of phrase structure as related to emotional perception. These discrepancies imply that relationships between culture and musical experience are characterized by a complex, detailed set of interactions.

Professional Musicians Since the present study involves participants who are professional musicians, a brief survey of the research on musicians as groups is helpful. Beyond differences in their musical processing and their patterns of music preference, music plays a large role in musicians’ social lives, contributing to distinct subcultures of sociocultural activity. This section of the paper will provide a summary of previous research on the activities and relationships of professional musicians. In particular, recent evidence on the identity of jazz musicians, as contrasted with previous outlandish depictions, will be presented as providing a framework for the present study. Descriptions of musicians’ relationships and practices are almost exclusively ethnographic, and musicians in social groups are often referred to as cultures. The sociologist

105 Ruth Finnegan’s seminal work in Milton Keynes (2007) described the daily and local routines of amateur musicians as separate from those of the conventional practices of outsiders. She revealed a social structure of independent music worlds, such as jazz, rock, and pop, in Milton Keynes, with sufficient numbers of connections between them. Portions of her work also depicted the differences in skill acquisition, practice routines, and creative process which are seen between these worlds. She concluded that music-related activities served as means of identity formation for actors in each musical world; her contentions thus matched one of the defining features of groups discussed earlier. In a similar study, the anthropologist Sara Cohen (1991) explored activities of professional rock musicians in Liverpool, England. She concentrated on those activities dealing with the music industry and business, including the topic of attaining individuality in a commercialized market. Even though her observations were limited to the tradition of Liverpool rock music, she provided a valuable glimpse into the giveand-take processes of rehearsing music, constructing identity, and surviving in the industry. Jazz musicians are often depicted in a variety of ways, although some early studies have focused on their isolation in a difficult industry (Merriam & Mack, 1960; Becker, 1963). An article by the ethnomusicologists Merriam and Mack (1960) related jazz communities to groups, namely “…people who share an occupational ideology and participate in a set of excepted behaviors” (p. 211). According to the authors, jazz musicians in the time period under study enacted the norms of their group, including language use, musical tastes, clothing, and interpretation of music. Merriam and Mack saw isolation as a central theme in the jazz musician’s life, resulting in anti-social behavior, dislike of nonmusicians, and display of accepted group norms. They supported their claims with numerous examples, ranging from language use (e.g. “ya dig, cats?”), dress, and jam session participation. Since this study was

106 painted in the light of jazz culture during the late 1950s, it is now severely outdated. Nonetheless, these authors provided a systematic view of the implicit activities and assumptions within jazz communities. Several years after this article, sociologist Howard Becker (1963) addressed similar aims with a book on deviant cultures, in which he included a section, published earlier (1951), on the working dance band musician. His sociological roots were palpable throughout the chapter in his view of the relationships between musicians and their audience. An outsider, specifically a nonmusician or sellout, was described as a “square,” or, …the kind of person who is the opposite of all the musician is… and a way of thinking, feeling, and behaving (with its expression in material objects) which is the opposite of that valued by musicians (1963, p. 85). This distinction promoted a view emphasizing the separation of the musician from the rest of society, dependent on ostensible social attitudes and behaviorisms. Becker opined that these practices served as a means of isolation, removing the musician from popular society. Musicians were observed distancing themselves by proximity in venues, avoiding eye contact, and making use of symbolic expressions (e.g. “square”). According to Becker, these characteristics influenced the formation of clique membership; these cliques in turn “allocate the jobs available at a given time” (p. 104). At the time of Becker’s text, and as is still true today, musical-network affiliations increase job security, because musicians pass along job opportunities to those in their close circles. Becker described the network as an interlocking web of connections, but also as a hierarchy musicians can transcend, in order to gain prestige in the entertainment industry. Although somewhat outdated, Becker’s sociological study provided an in-depth look at the personal reflections of working musicians, which helped to validate his statements on the culture of deviant groups.

107 Within the past fifteen years, jazz scholarship has seen two major works on the processes of creating, improvising, and interacting with music. Paul Berliner’s Thinking in Jazz (1994) covers the topics of skill development, creative acts of improvising and composing, and social and musical interactions between musicians. Berliner emphasizes the importance of rich cultural environments, including performance opportunities in church, school, and at home, often using interview statements from professional jazz musicians: Many serious young performers ultimately supplemented their training at school with coaching by relatives at home or in the neighborhood. In Vea Williams’s household, her earliest “voice lessons” consisted of singing with her mothers and sisters as they all washed dishes after meals and did other household chores. When Max Roach grew up in New York city, “there was always somebody’s uncle next door or across the street who had a band, and when they took a break, the kids were allowed to fool with their instruments” (p. 27). As this passage implies, the development of musical skills in jazz often occurs through both observation and participation. This mirrors the aforementioned practices of social groups in their development of traditional histories, which involve reexamination of rules and conventionalized practices by the group (Thrasher, 1927). Like Merriam and Mack, Berliner further defined the jazz community, but in a more informal manner: “At its core are professional musicians and aspirants for whom jazz is the central focus of their careers. Overlapping with the core are accomplished improvisers who divide their professional energies and talents between jazz and other musics” (p. 36). His definition incorporated fundamental experiences in community development, including informal study sessions and apprenticeships, jam sessions, and “paying dues.”30 Berliner does not explicitly consider the effects of these practices on cognitive


“Paying dues” is described by Berliner and others as a set of activities aimed at professional success, such as attending jam sessions, playing “sensitive renditions” of jazz standards, and performing as background musicians (Vargas, 2008). They are unified by their contributions to adversity, or the hardships of being a professional musician.

108 frameworks for jazz listening and performance. However, Ingrid Monson’s study (1996), appearing two years later, framed analyses of musical interaction and communication within interview statements from professional jazz musicians. Her proposal concentrated on the link between music and interpersonal factors, as exemplified in this selection from the text: In an improvisational situation, it is important to remember that there are always musical personalities interacting, not merely instruments or pitches or rhythms. It is not uncommon for players to express this musical process of interaction in interpersonal rather than musical terms, which makes sense in a form in which performance and the creation of music ideas are not separated (p. 26). Interpersonal talk about music between musicians could, then, create musical metaphors that characterize musicians’ identities. Monson suggested that this could arise within the interplay between “intercultural associations” and musically performed patterns, which presumably connect a sonic environment to the meaningful structures and patterns of which musicians speak. Thus, although not explicitly cognitive in scope, her text indicated a move to the connection between thought process (expressed as a musical identity) and action (performance). At the turn of the new millennium, several articles related to Berliner’s and Monson’s ethnocentric studies were produced from a group of researchers in Great Britain. MacDonald and Wilson (2005; 2006) investigated jazz musicians’ identity formation, drawing upon the rich research literature in social identity theory and inter-group relations summarized earlier. They used focus group settings as a way of creating natural, ecologically valid environments in which their participants could discuss musical activities. An earlier text by MacDonald and colleagues (2002) assumed that “we all operate musical identities,” and “how we see ourselves and how we relate to the world around us is…influenced by music” (p. 343). Their focus group studies emphasized the importance of engaging in identity-forming activities, such as appreciation of

109 and resourceful engagement with the jazz tradition. Their further definitions of musical identity in the jazz community were specified by a set of subjective criteria. Particular examples were musicians’ awareness of the failure to understand the jazz language, and of musical moments when “everything comes together,” securing a place for the experience in a musician’s memory. Overall, their results supported their assertion that speech and conversation about music significantly informs the conceptual identities of musicians. In addition, they provided evidence for the relation between constructed identities and the creative process of improvising and performing jazz. Not only did these psychological studies elaborate upon the interviews and analyses presented by Berliner and Monson, but they also paved the way for projects linking professional activities to cognitive processes in musicians.

Chapter Summary The preceding review of literature illustrates the multifaceted nature of this dissertation. Semantic systems of associative representations may be viewed in a number of ways, including the structure, function, and organization of items in semantic memory, as well as through modeling mechanisms of cognitive processing. Previous studies have demonstrated the impact of sociocultural variables on behavior, preferences, and cognitive representations, as related to domain-specific knowledge. Still, theoretical and empirical studies of associative semantic memory have yet to be addressed in music as they have in other domains. Although the degree to which collaborative affiliations affect cognition of meaningful stimuli can be related to previous findings on research in social and cultural groups studies, the extension of these previous methods to music has not yet been attempted. Thus, the present study represents a new line of

110 inquiry for understanding the relationship between associative structures and affiliations by providing an integrated view of cognition and collaborative activity.


Introduction: Restatement of Purpose and Chapter Overview This chapter details the design and methodological procedures of the present study. Chapter 2 provided a synthesized picture of the research issues. Here, I will briefly readdress my questions to frame my methodology: 1. What governs the content and structure of semantic knowledge of music in a specialized style system, namely mainstream jazz? 2. What is the relationship between musicians’ characteristics such as experience, education, and community affiliation, and the semantic knowledge used to interpret mainstream jazz? These two questions will be addressed with focus group interviews as well as more traditional methodological paradigms, such as comprehension studies, in cognitive psychology. Following an overview of these methods, I describe the ecological approach framing this study’s motivation and design, and comment on its potential complications. The bulk of this chapter details the design and results for the preliminary focus group interviews and describes the eminent performer study, which included three components: social network analysis, association of names to musical excerpts, and matching of terms to musical excerpts. Previous experiments on categorical perception and music helped to form my speculative hypotheses, which will be presented at the end of the chapter.

112 Methodological Overview The goal of the present study is to describe the structure and function of the knowledge and abstract representations, which are critical for, and govern expertise for, a familiar style system. As specified in chapter 2, studying various forms of mental representations provides a useful way to both organize knowledge and elucidate processes of meaning making in a given domain. However, before the structure and function of knowledge can be modeled, the content and relative strength of this memory must be considered. Thus, for this study, a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis procedures will be used to investigate this question. Although I will not systematically evaluate the two methods with respect to a mixed methods approach, I will use both approaches (as seen in chapter 4) attempting to find both ecological and descriptive validity, while at the same time knowingly relaxing experimental control. Since few published investigations in jazz have attempted to explain musical meaning as a network of associations in memory, I will use free recall, verbalization, and matching tasks to explore these knowledge systems. This variety of tasks will allow me to compare multiple responses to the same stimuli, while still maintaining an aspect of relevance for the participants31. An ecologically valid method considers the nature of tasks presented to the respondents and attempts to relate the results to everyday activity (Neisser, 1982). Researchers who value ecological validity have argued that the majority of laboratory experiments ignore the influence of contextual information and fail to acknowledge the importance of conventionally framed inquiries (Gibson, 1979; Shepard, 1984). Results from ecologically valid experiments have a greater probability of application to “real world” phenomena (Brewer, 2000). By including two

“Relevance” meaning that the participants will be able to identify with the stimuli because they may already be familiar with it.

113 focus group interviews, I intend to understand real world activities of professional musicians, such as the verbalization of meaning in conversation, in order to account for their points of view in the study’s design.

Focus Group Interviews Traditionally, focus group research has allowed the consumer industry to understand how potential buyers feel about a certain product or material (Merton & Kendall, 1946; Merton et al., 1990). Using guided group conversation, focus group studies have typically yielded group consensus and reflections upon variations within the consensus (Krueger & Casey, 2000). Krueger and Casey (2000) defined focus groups in terms of five broad characteristics: focus groups consist of “(1) people, who (2) possess certain characteristics, (3) provide qualitative data (4) in a focused discussion (5) to help understand the topic of interest” (p. 6). With reference to qualitative research in the social sciences, Morgan (1997) stated that the most meaningful data from focus group research arises out of the interaction between the members in the group, because it highlights the variation between individual opinions and experiences. However, since the interview sessions are conducted by moderators with research agendas and include participants with preexistent group influence, the setting of a focus group can also create noticeable drawbacks. Despite this and other critiques regarding the inconclusive nature of many studies’ results (see, for example, Stycos, 1981) focus group research has proved to be a useful source for understanding any understudied phenomenon, whether it is food, music, or work atmosphere. In the present study, two focus group interview sessions were conducted with professional improvising musicians to determine the content, structure, and function of

114 purposeful listening. The term was used by the composer David Dunn to denote the active process of assigning meaning to a piece of music. In the directions to his piece, Purposeful Listening in Complex States of Time, Dunn (1999) stated, “…not only does music primarily consist of the perception of sound in time but…it is the perceiver that is engaged in both organizing that perception and assigning it meaning” (p. 1). Dunn further explicated his compositional goal as opening “a different universe of musical perception where…an emphasis is placed upon the processes of perception and not materials” (p. 2). Studies of jazz musicians have indicated that purposeful listening plays a significant role in their development both in the practice room and in performance (Murphy, 1990; Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996; Lewis, 2008). Elucidating the process of active listening, or the sense of attending to certain features implied by or realistically present in the music, was the main goal of the focus group interviews. Specifically, my interview questions and tasks were designed to address when and where musicians listen, how they listen, and what they listen for.

Participants A database of 400 names of professional improvising musicians in the greater Chicago area was created, through personal communication, online listings, and websites. The email addresses for 200 of the musicians were collected from personal friends and websites. From this database, an email message was sent to 40 professional improvising musicians in the Chicago area who had expressed an interest in the study, and the first 7 who responded were included as participants in the focus group. Each of the musicians was asked to invite a musical collaborator to one of two focus group sessions, based on their availability, since a total of six to eight participants in each group is considered ideal to promote fluid discussion and turn-taking in the

115 focus group setting (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990; Krueger & Casey, 2000). Two out of the seven participants were unable to complete this request; thus, focus group 1 included 7 musicians (7 males; aged 25 to 45 years, M = 34 years; playing experience 15 to 35 years; M = 21.36 years), and focus group 2 included 5 musicians (3 males, aged 26 to 53, M = 36.8 years; playing experience 13 to 36 years, M = 23.8 years). As depicted in table 3.1, the participants had a variety of educational backgrounds, ranging from self-taught to years of private instruction, and 9 participants had university degrees in music.

Table 3.1: Focus Group: Participant Demographics32
Gender Age Instrument Experience (Yrs) Training Practice (Hrs) Education Gig/Wk Style


29 25 28 28 45 45 48 53 26 28 41 26

Gtr Sax Dms Bs Clo Tb Sax Vb Gtr Bs Perc Dms

18 15 19 18 35 35 36 34 13 15 25 16

private private/school group/self private

2 1.5 1 1


1 to 2 0 to 2 3 5 to 7 3 to 4 2 to 3 3 1 1 4 0 4

Jazz, Rock Creative Improvised Music Jazz, Jobbing, Original Improvised Music Improvised Music Gospel, Jazz, Original Original, world Jazz Jazz, Rock, Classical Improvised Music Improvised Music, Rock

private/group 2 group/private 2 private/school 4.5 private private self/private self private 1.5 3.5 1 0 1

All participants had at least two years experience in performing professionally in the Chicago area and played from 1 to 7 performances (M = 2.7) per week. The participants provided descriptions of the style of music they performed most regularly; these included “straight-ahead jazz,” “rock,” “instrumental creative music,” “music,” “original music,” “modern classical,”

Participants had either Undergraduate (U) or Graduate (G) educations.

116 “improvised music,” and “jobbing music.” Each participant was compensated $30 for participating in the study.

Materials and Procedure Each focus group session took place in the moderator’s home, and each lasted 2 hours. Each participant was instructed to bring a recording that he or she “knew like the back of your hand” to the focus group session. Since several participants asked for clarification on this requirement, an additional email specified that the participant should have listened to the recording numerous times, thus knowing the music very well, but not necessarily possessing a written transcription of the songs on the album. Upon arrival, the participants filled out an extensive musical background survey (Appendix A). After the participants introduced themselves to the group, the moderator explained the purpose of the group interview and then asked a series of questions about listening. The sessions were divided into four topic areas, the last of which included a set of listening activities: early influences on listening to music (topic 1), structure of listening (topic 2), and musical features of focus while listening (topics 3, 4). A series of questions was asked during the first three sections, while the fourth included a set of listening tasks and subsequent discussion. Specifically, the participants responded to the following: Topic 1: Describe the first time you experienced music that grabbed your attention, motivating you to listen with a purposeful direction. Topic 2: How often and under what circumstances do you listen to music? Topic 3: What features do you focus on while listening? Topic 4: Listen to each excerpt, completing the following tasks on your worksheet:

117 1. Write a description of each excerpt, focusing on the features that you think characterize the music. In addition, state your personal preference for the excerpt. 2. Please group the numbered excerpts within the circle below according to their musical resemblance. This classification must be based on your own set of criteria, but should reflect similarities and differences. As the moderator, I posed each question in an informal manner, and encouraged participants to respond to each other. I also directed questions to particular people in the group if they were reticent to participate in the discussion; however, both focus groups included participants who were more talkative than others. Discussion topics 1, 2, and 3 were allotted 25 minutes, while discussion topic 4 and the listening tasks were allotted a total of 45 minutes. For topic 4, a twominute excerpt of each participant’s recording was played for the group, while they completed the description and categorization tasks. The two control recordings that were used for both focus group sessions, as well as the participants’ self-selected recordings are listed in table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Focus Group Recordings
Focus Group 1&2 1&2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Artist Thelonious Monk Peter Brotzmann Charles Mingus Matthew Golombisky Biosphere Velvet Underground Latin Play Boys Luc Ferrari Lightnin' Hopkins Wes Montgomery Cedar Walton Trio Miles Davis Bill Frissell Thelonious Monk Year 1958 1968 1963 2005 1997 1968 1994 1967-70 1966 1965 1996 1954 1995 1961 Album Title Genius of Modern Music Machine Gun Mingus Plays Piano Unreleased Substrata White Light, White Heat Self Title Presque Rien Live Smokin' at the Half Note St. Thomas Bag's Groove Live Live in Italy

118 The two control recordings were chosen on the basis of their distinct stylistic mannerisms within the genres of improvised music and jazz in that the Monk recording can be distinctly catalogued as jazz, while the Brotzmann recording may be catalogued as improvised music (Erlewine et al., 1998). All discussion topics and tasks were completed over the two hours. Audio recordings of the conversations were transcribed and analyzed according to three qualitative coding techniques: text chunking, emergent theme analysis, and conversation analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003; Agar & Hobbs, 1985; Schiffrin et al., 2003). Text chunking involves separation of blocks of text in terms of a common topic, which is a framework for extracting themes from the text. The second technique, emergent theme analysis, distinguishes between broad themes, or those reported in multiple interviews, and specific themes, or detailed versions unique to particular participants. Finally, researchers who do discourse analysis have traditionally used conversation analysis to look at the significance of pauses, dynamics, and contour changes in speech patterns, thus uncovering potential implicit meaning from the speech signal. Table 3.3 provides a summary of the symbols used to denote such speech patterns.

Table 3.3: Discourse Analysis Symbols (Schiffrin et al., 2003)
Symbol [] (.), (..), (...) . ? , ?, :: ___ >< <> (hh) (( )) () Indication Overlap of 2 people talking Interruption Pauses Falling/Final intonation contour Rising intonation contour Continuing intonation Rise weaker than question Stretching of sound just preceding Dynamic emphasis Compressed talk Drawn out talk Hearable aspiration Description of events Unknown passage or word

119 Results Under the three discussion topics, several themes and sub-themes arose from examining the recordings and the transcriptions. During the discussion on early influences, the participants in both focus groups spoke about the importance of family members and close friends in developing listening habits and tastes. The participants characterized early experiences as vivid emotional and visual sensations, including those connected with live performance and bodily sensations: And it was in 9th grade(.) He’d just gotten out of college and took this job (.) And (.) I remember listening to it it was this really really hot day and I was mowing the lawn (.) Isthis (.) completely surreal I was just sweating listening to this youknow and if you know there Tim Berne is panned like hard left and Zorn’s like hard right (...) but it’s weird like its those-those experiences I can remember (.) like everything. I remember what everything looked like and where everything was my mom’s (scarf) I just (.) I remember that one specifically. This participant, as well as others, accentuated the importance of a recording by bringing to mind the contextual events that contributed to its representation in memory. The participants also referenced television and radio theme songs as being significant in the active separation of visual (the television image) and aural (the music) mediums. As these musicians discussed their early listening experiences, they framed them within a structured narrative, including periods of realization in which free will and choice determined their active pursuit of particular artists and songs. Typically, this active pursuit involved some way of preserving the music, such as recording songs off the radio or buying tapes, compact discs, and/or records. Although the participants spoke of the significance of these events to their development as professional musicians, their comments implied that at the time they were not explicitly aware of these developmental ramifications.

120 Due to time constraints, the participants in focus group 2 were only able to discuss the listening routine questions for five minutes. The difference in response in this group, compared to group 1, is illustrated in table 3.4. In response to the questions about listening routines, the participants’ contributions were categorized as finding time to listen during either routine activities or specific moments of the day. About half of the participants (n = 7) said they typically listen to music during routine activities, such as driving, cleaning, or emailing. The rest of the participants (n = 5) prioritized the act of listening without added distraction. Some discussion focused on listening to music alone versus with others. In the latter case, participants typically shared recordings or songs with musicians or friends for the purpose of introducing them to something new or significant. Seeing live performances of music and discussing music with friends were also classified as shared listening activities. On the other hand, many participants agreed that solitary listening experiences were structured and sacred parts of their days. In general, repeated listening was revealed as a significant theme in these discussions, especially as evidenced by the statement “over and over and over again.” This activity of repeated listening was seen as a way to build knowledge for a particular artist’s repertoire or to seek inspiration for practicing, composing, and performing. When asked about their listening foci, the participants mostly discussed topics that fell into seven themes: determine preference, hear new dimensions, imagine functionality,33 build knowledge, parse out distinct dimensions,34 promote mysteriousness, and provide emotional release. The participants in group 1 commented on the issue of mysteriousness of the listening process. For example:

Imagining the functionality of a performance involves the thought of “how I would feel playing this on my instrument.” 34 Such as certain pitches, melodies, harmonies, rhythms, or meter.

121 I don’t really wanna know what I like about music…Cause I feel like if I try to like identify it…And say like that I’m looking for this?, (.) then I get scared that…That I’m gonna like make these (.) judgments on this music and stuff that I normally just naturally would be drawn to (.) are somehow…tainted with these thoughts of like I’m looking f:or (.) a good sonic experience. In this case, the listener generally wanted to focus on the music in abstract terms that could not be expressed by a codified system.35 In opposition to this view, the participants in group 2 tended to focus more on distinct dimensions of the music, such as soloists, particular sections of the music, or interactions between members of the ensemble. These differences between groups can be explained by the robust differences in musical taste illustrated by the recordings from each group and between self-reported performance styles (table 3.2). In their written responses, the participants referred to distinct musical features, such as instrumentation, genre and style markings, reference to other musicians, functionality of performance, identification of emotion, feature descriptions, and preference (table 3.5). When the participants associated the excerpt with other musicians, they tended to do so with statements such as “sounds like Monk,” or “kind of reminds me of the Ahmad Jamal trio,” without describing the features that brought such musicians to mind. For the categorization task, participants employed several different strategies to organize the excerpts and usually began the process with an anchor or reference point. Illustrations of the twelve circle diagrams can be found in Appendix B. The participants referenced four dimensions that they used to structure their diagrams: genre or style, approach, lineage, and interconnectedness. Excerpts embodying the same genre (or in some cases subgenre) and time period tended to be grouped together


It is worth noting that this participant seemed to be presenting an alternative, somewhat reactionary viewpoint that was broadly agreed upon in this focus group. This is not a typical response from musicians during an interview, as many are willing to comment on musical features they find interesting on a recording.

122 instead of excerpts with the same tempo, tonality, or metric framework. However, many participants spoke about how they used different strategies simultaneously, which complicated the diagram and in some cases required an extra dimension, “outside” of the paper (depicted by arrows and lines in Appendix B; Focus Group 1, Participants 1, 2, and 5; Focus Group 2, Participant 3). There also seemed to be group differences for task strategy; group 1 participants referred to the importance of anchors, genre, lineage, and sound quality, while group 2 participants referred to lineage, connection to tradition, and style in guiding their diagrams.36 When these musicians were asked to reflect upon the listening tasks, the collective discussion centered on the complexities of describing the music, based on elaborated knowledge structures for the artists in the recordings. Several of the participants spoke about lineage, style, and collaborations, illustrating their depth of knowledge for the performers on the recordings. Notably, one participant in the first focus group spoke directly about how familiarity with a performer’s music affects the way the music is heard, and thus, how the tasks were performed: “…the only way I think itcouldbe different for me is if I became more familiar with (..)…with like (.) the overall catalogue of one of the artists that I didn’t know.” This observation also seems to be related to some of the associations in the written descriptions (e.g. “kind of sounds like Samuel Barber”). This different level of perception can be influenced by a listener’s knowledge

Again, this result may be an artifact of the group difference in genre and preferred performance style. Some research has linked genre preferences to gender, age, personality, social group, and political orientation (Frith, 1981; Weinstein, 1983; Peterson & Christenson, 1987). However, the focus group difference here may be due to a newer form of identity, whereby musicians on the “fringe” of the jazz genre seek out alternative styles of music to inform new styles of jazz. A recent interview article explored these issues in the “avant” jazz scene in Brooklyn by depicting the connections between this new form of “DIY” (Do-It-Yourself) avant jazz, indie rock, and punk music. Dorr (2008) wrote, “What all these New York musicians have in common is that ultimately, they care about jazz. They know its history and they believe in its ability to captivate and astonish. But they’ve also all been disillusioned with jazz at some point, and their work today is a product of complicated relationships, whether they’re attacking outmoded conventions, charting ignored or unknown territories of technique and style, or just pushing familiar forms to their best and brightest potential” (Accessed March 1, 2009). I would like to thank Geof Bradfield for his insightful comments on this matter.

123 of a performer’s history and influences, as a participant in focus group 2 indicated about Thelonious Monk: …you know like Monk is gonna use some Bebop because (.) he grew up listening to that (.) and that’s just part of his—his style but then in order for him to be an artist of his own right and not be someone who’s playing just Bebop he had to (.) go a step further (.) and find his voice— So therefore like I couldn’t say Monk is—is just—is Bebop.37 Along the same lines, another participant in the second focus group mentioned the importance of identifying with the music: “I was like oh yeah—I could tell that was Unit 7, although I didn’t know it was Wes you know but I knew the—the ch-changes and stuff so I was following (.) everything else much easier.” Her knowledge of the composition’s harmony not only eased the process of listening, but it also enhanced her experience of the recording. Such reflective comments from the participants provided some of the most useful information for developing the remainder of the study.

Discussion and Relevance to the Main Study Although the listening exercise proved to be the most relevant to the main study, additional themes, brought up by the other questions, served to highlight the role of listening in a musician’s life. The participants constructed their listening experiences with personal narrative, which included well-developed chronologies to support their status as professional musicians. The social psychologist, Dan McAdams (1993) elaborated on this process:


It is worth noting that this information is not necessarily the case. In fact, Thelonious Monk was heavily influenced by stride pianists such as Art Tatum and James P. Johnson, who were not playing in the style of bebop (Gourse, 1997). The participant seems to either be confused about Monk’s influence, or he was not capable of communicating his knowledge effectively.

124 Social scientists often point to the family unit as the major vehicle for cultural transmission in childhood…Through their actions and words, parents expose children to a wide assortment of images and symbols…Functioning as…“internalized objects,” these emotionally charged images may become parts of the self, continuing to exert an unconscious influence on behavior and experience through one’s adult years (p. 60-1). For the focus group participants, “internalized objects” included musical opportunities, made available by family members, like music from radio, television, movies, and in some instances, live performances. In addition, participants agreed on the significance of these objects in their early listening behaviors, as is common among professional musicians’ verbalized stories and biographies as well as in performed improvisations (Finnegan, 2007; Iyer, 2004; Jackson, 1998; Lewis, 1996). Regarding both verbalized narratives and performed improvisations, specific performers have been referenced as influential to the development of a musician’s identity. According to Bloom (1973) and Murphy (1990), the stamp of influence is most noticeable in the work of art, in which the artist transforms his understanding of his or her influences. Participants in the focus groups furnished this concept by referencing early influences and relating future experiences to these artists. Such attachment to a particular artist or catalogue of music can be likened to the stage of early childhood in a personal narrative, when the child becomes attached to a caretaker and relates their experiences to her own life, creating an agentic character (McAdams, 1993). The development of such characters allows the adult to search for a structured sense of meaning, or to “personify the general agentic and communal tendencies in human lives,” representing “how each of us chooses or desires to live as an adult in our own time and place” (p. 161). Musicians in this study hinted at their agentic characters by merging significant listening experiences into a solidified collection, bound by their musical identities. Given the data from the focus group interviews, I assert that musical identities are actively

125 formed by a three-stage process: seeking out influential musicians, listening to their catalogue of records, and sharing those experiences with peers and musician collaborators. The listening task results suggest that respondents used higher-level characteristics of music to explain what they heard. For example, musicians used terms like harmony and melody to describe the excerpts, instead of referencing specific pitches, chord progressions, or patterns in the music. This finding is not particularly surprising, given the results from previous experiments on the variety of adjectives required to describe the emotional qualia of music (Hevner, 1935a; Huron 2006). Huron (2006) categorized adjective responses to music into four classes: expectedness (e.g. surprising, different), tendency (e.g. leading, restful), valence (e.g. bright, sad), and other (e.g. simple, melodious). Studies by Hevner (1935a, 1935b, 1936, 1937), Gabrielsson and Juslin (1996), and Sloboda (1991) suggested that emotional reactions were explained by musical properties such as pitch height, tempo, timing deviations, and harmony, textural, and dynamic changes; however, specific musical terms were generally absent from participants’ responses. Results from the present study’s focus groups indicate that musicians referred to different features, including instrumentation, genre and style markings, reference to other musicians, functionality of performance, feature descriptions, and preference. This suggests that the focus of participants’ listening incorporated more than feelings or mood states. These musicians typically organized listening experiences intellectually – this process seems to be a significant part of their professional development (Berliner, 1994). Further more, the act of associating excerpts with other musicians’ names is a trend not only in this study, but also in previous anthropological investigations (Berliner, 1994; Jackson, 1998; Davis, 2005). In order to explore this phenomenon further, both the association and term-descriptor paradigms were reused in the forthcoming methodology.

126 Main Study: Concepts for Eminent Jazz Performers Since semantic knowledge for performers is a relatively understudied phenomenon, a variety of data collection methods based on the focus group sessions were used in the present study. Each of these methods – social network analysis, free association and descriptor tasks – will be discussed below. The combination of these methods was used to provide converging evidence for the content, structure, and function of semantic knowledge for eminent jazz performers and to speculate on the influence of experience and community affiliation on this knowledge.

The Network Approach Techniques associated with social network analysis (SNA) are used in this study as an indication of cultural and community affiliation. Social network analysis assumes that affiliations are defined by sets of interrelations, or links, between people. Wasserman and Faust (1994) accentuate four features that highlight this approach: • • • Actors and their actions are viewed as interdependent rather than independent, autonomous units. Relational ties (linkages) between actors are channels for transfer or “flow” of resources (either material or nonmaterial). Network models focusing on individuals view the network structural environment as providing opportunities for or constraints on individual action. Network models conceptualize structure (social, economic, political, and so forth) as lasting patterns of relations among actors (p. 4).

Typically referred to as the “network perspective,” these principles are used to study social patterns in a range of disciplines, including psychology, business marketing, anthropology, and

127 education. SNA aims to model the structure of social relationships and to explain transfer of information with specialized mathematics, terminology, and graphs (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Although the mathematics behind social networks is a particularly interesting topic that provides useful theory for software analysis programs, the present study is not concerned with these complex details. Techniques of social network analysis rely upon specialized terminology, based on matrix operations and graph theory. People in networks are referred to as actors, who are related to each other by links. Links between actors in a network are represented by their presence or absence in a square matrix, and the directionality and strength of links are denoted by numbers in the matrix (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Wasserman and Faust (1994) specified particular relationships between people in a network, including evaluation, transfer of materials, association, affiliation, behavioral interaction, movement between places, physical connection, formal relations, and biological relationships (p. 18). Given these complex relationships, multiple links between actors are defined as the relations that are unique to a particular number of actors, such as a dyad or a triad. Links among a larger number or “system” of actors are called subgroups or groups, and social scientists typically focus their projects on these structures. Terms are used to refer to similar phenomena in the network graphs drawn by computer software. Somewhat contrasted from matrix operations, graph theory distinguishes actors as nodes, points, or vertices, and links as ties, edges, or arcs. Graphs are analyzed in terms of nodal degree, or “the number of lines incident with each node in a graph,” which influences the graph’s overall density, or “proportion of lines actually present” (Iacobucci, 1994, p. 101). Features other than degree can be represented in network graphs, such as participant attributes (e.g. gender, age) and geodesic distance, or the smallest number of ties between two nodes.

128 Although additional concepts are used to describe network graphs, the following study will only consider the aforementioned terms. Social network analysts collect data on the relations between actors with several different methods. Generally, researchers specify a population of interest and represent it by surveying a sample of people from the larger population (Laumann et al., 1989). Then, a well-defined closed sample of participants is asked to provide information on their ties to others, given a set of instructions (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The present study uses ego-centric network methods to allow for flexibility around musicians’ schedules and willingness to participate. These procedures ask individual actors to comment on their localized relations and typically result in a network with an unknown number of actors (Burt, 1984; 1985). According to Hanneman & Riddle (2005), this approach models “the differences in the actors’ places in social structure,” and “make[s] some predictions about how these locations constrain their behavior” (p. 10). In addition, ego networks can be used to speculate on social positions and roles within localized communities that grow and change over time. This type of data collection was best suited for the current project, since professional music communities are constantly affected by the arrival and departure of musicians as well as part-time touring opportunities. Finally, the forthcoming methodology makes use of rating-scale questionnaires to gather information on ego-centric musician networks. Given the large number of members in the Chicago jazz and improvised music communities,38 participants were asked to list ties in the format of fixed-choice free recall, instead of free-choice roster.39 Although this method results in


This sample included approximately 461 actors; however, this is by no means a valid estimation of improvising musicians in the entire city of Chicago. 39 Fixed-choice free recall asks participants to name a specific number of contacts, but does not ask them to choose from a list. Free-choice roster asks participants to choose contacts from a preexisting list of names, but does not specify a limit to the number of names they can choose.

129 a larger number of names than free-choice roster, it was used to give respondents the freedom to name any musician in the Chicago community, rather than attempting to compile a comprehensive fixed-choice list of names from which to choose. Specifically, the participants were required to name twenty musicians in Chicago with whom they collaborate. Wasserman and Faust (1994) have asserted that this free-choice method may be less reliable because of its reliance on memory; however, considering the large number of people in the present network, the roster method would lengthen the survey time considerably.

Conceptualization Tasks The majority of previous research on mental concepts and categories incorporate stimulus priming as a method of collecting responses (Rosch & Mervis, 1975; Medin & Smith, 1978). However, these paradigms use standard or normalized definitions for categories, drawn from dictionary definitions or common sense information. Since no standard set of concepts or categories for eminent jazz performers is present in the literature, such information may be beneficial to the psychological study of jazz and improvised music. Given their extensive experience listening to and transcribing recorded music, professional musicians are a good resource for accurate and candid descriptions of performers and their music (Ratliff, 2009). Thus, the following methodology explores musicians’ knowledge in both qualitative and quantitative ways. This study employs a free association task as one method of uncovering knowledge about music. Traditionally, free association tasks have been used to determine the content of memory for prompted stimuli in a qualitative manner. In one of the earliest known studies using this method, Francis Galton (1879) reflected on the process of interpreting objects while he walked

130 down Pall Mall Street in London. By using a simple method of data collection, that is, informally observing the way in which the mind uses external prompts to create “free” associations, Galton came up with list of 75 word associations for objects on the street. After this, he furthered the process by associating more words with earlier sets of words, over four trials. These words were then classified into the following types: sense imagery, histrionic, names of persons, and verbal phrases or quotations. His analysis of the resulting associations revealed that all were related to the stimulus, even those produced later in time, despite Galton’s hypothesis that the words would relate more to fixed associations in memory. He also found that some of the words were associated with identical ideas during different trials at varying points in time. When the task was repeated with the same object, a standard set of ideas was devised. Galton explained this finding with the following conclusion: “This shows much less variety in the mental stock of ideas than I had expected, and makes us feel that the roadways of our minds are worn into very deep ruts” (p. 151). Galton’s informal observations suggest that free associations for concepts and categories, although large in number, have an upper limit. Later studies have provided a more formal set of requirements for participants and like Galton’s, have implied that mental associations are formed by considering both fixed associations in memory and stimulus features (Deese, 1965; Jenkins & Russell, 1952) Experiments that use the free-association method propose standard word banks to imply that memory contains similarly compiled information (Nelson et al., 2000, 2004; Fernandez et al., 2004; Steyvers et al., 2005). One study asked participants to “produce the first word that to comes to mind that is related in a specific way to a presented cue” (Nelson & McEvoy, 2000, p. 887). Although cues can be presented in any medium or form, most studies present syllables, words, or pictures (Nelson et al., 2000; Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980). In these studies,

131 associations are analyzed for their frequency and probability, providing an “index of strength” for the most typical responses for a word. When participants are asked to list as many words as possible, their first responses usually have the highest index of strength, especially when compared with second or third responses (Nelson & McEvoy, 2000). However, Galton’s (1879) results suggest that words produced later were equally as relevant and reliable as those listed first. This may depend on the type of information presented, since Galton’s experiment was prompted by external objects and Nelson’s and McEvoy’s was prompted by words. The results from free association tasks have shown remarkable agreement and consistency between participants and prove to be a reliable indication of memory content (Fernandez et al., 2004; Nelson et al., 2004). This technique is also significant to building semantic networks, which play a role in reaction time experiments (Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Previous studies also suggest that mental associations depend on social and cultural variables (Fernandez et al., 2004; Nelson et al., 2004). Nelson and colleagues (2004) asserted that free association studies provide information that “taps into lexical knowledge acquired through world experience,” which is created by “associative structures involving the representations of words and the links that bind them together” (p. 402). Provided there is a relationship between the content of knowledge and the process of interpretation, this method allows the researcher to analyze how a specific group of people normatively interprets a stimulus. In their study on word associations, Nelson and Zhang (2000) found that previously experience accounted for approximately 50% of the variance in word recall. In the free association literature, there has also been an active move to create databases of word associations for various cultural groups (Fernandez et al., 2004) and to compare different populations on related cognitive tasks (Stacy et al., 1997).

132 To test the hypothesis that musicians tend to focus on higher-level processes of interpretation, the following study also asks participants to reflect upon their associations by referring to the music and their knowledge of it. Typically, verbalization tasks like this require participants to describe reasoning strategies and inner dialogue during a cognitive task (Ericsson & Simon, 1993). Studies that require either written or spoken description, or verbalization, show a facilitation effect for learning and retrieval of stimuli (Spearman, 1937; Richards & Waters, 1948; Brown & Lloyd-Jones, 2006). Furthermore, verbalization increases the amount of attention and detail of focus on stimulus characteristics, such as its particular features and the interpretation of those features. This process characterizes the level-of-processing as tapping into a higher-level of interpretation, which has been shown to engage in the processing mechanisms involved in long-term memory retrieval and feature comparison (Brown & Lloyd-Jones, 2006). For the purposes of this study, the verbalization task was modified slightly by asking respondents to type instead of speak aloud their responses.

Pilot Study: Participants To ensure clarity of instructions, a pilot study was included before the development of the main (eminent performer) study. Typically, pilot studies are used to improve the methodology, given comments from participants who fit the projected sample population (Mertens, 1998). The following guidelines, provided by Mertens (1998), were used as a reference for the present pilot study: ask the pilot participants to tell them what they think the questions mean and to suggest ways of rewriting them if they are unclear or too complex…include a section at the end of every questionnaire where participants can record any additional questions they think should have been asked (p. 117).

133 After considering these comments, Mertens advises experimenters to revise the study accordingly. The present pilot study asked 3 professional jazz musicians (table 3.6) to reflect upon the length and comprehensibility of the tasks.

Table 3.6: Pilot Study Participant Demographics
Gender Age Instrument M 29 Tpt M 23 Pno M 38 Sax Experience (Yrs) 18 12 25 Education Graduate Undergraduate Graduate

Participants were asked to specify a date, time, and location that suited their schedules. Locations included the experimenter’s residence (n = 1), the participant’s residence (n = 1), and a local café (n = 1).

Pilot Study: Materials and Procedure The experiment was designed in MediaLab, a research software developed for standard presentation of stimuli (Jarvis, 2008). The interface presents instructions to participants and provides options for variety of responses, including rating scales, fill-in-the-blanks, and multiplechoice. The experiment was divided into four sections,40 presented in the same order between participants, and lasted between 100 and 120 minutes. Section one instructed participants to type twenty names of Chicago musicians with whom they collaborate regularly. I defined collaborations as frequent and significant relationships with musicians in creative performance


This dissertation will not present methods or results from the third (card sorting) task.

134 situations. For each collaborator who was listed, participants were prompted to rate how well they knew him or her, on an endpoint-defined Likert scale from “not very well” (1) to “very well” (5). Each time they entered a new name, they were reminded of whom they had already named, until they had entered the required 20 names. Then, participants were asked to rate how much they identify themselves as a consistent part of a music community in Chicago, on a scale from “not at all” (1) to “a great deal” (5). This provided a measure of self-reported community affiliation. In addition, participants typed free-response descriptions for the music communities with which they affiliated themselves. A third question queried participants on the extent to which others’ opinions influence their thoughts on music, on a scale from “not at all” (1) to “a great deal” (5). This provided a measure of self-reported social and community influence. This collaborator portion of the experiment typically lasted 15 minutes. The second part of the experiment presented 20 excerpts, each representing an eminent jazz performer, and asked musicians to complete a free association task for each excerpt. The 20 eminent jazz recordings (table 3.7) were chosen by referring to the Jazz Innovators list in the essay section of the All Music Guide to Jazz (Erlewine et al., 1998).

135 Table 3.7: Pilot Study Excerpts
Excerpt A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T Performer Armstrong, Louis Art Ensemble of Chicago Blakey, Art Brotzmann, Peter Coleman, Ornette Coleman, Ornette Coltrane, John Coltrane, John Coltrane, John Davis, Miles Davis, Miles Davis, Miles Ellington, Duke Hancock, Herbie Holiday, Billie Mingus, Charles Parker, Charlie Pastorius, Jaco Roach, Max Tristano, Lennie Album Hot Fives, Vol. 1 Live at Mandel Hall Moanin' Machine Gun New York is Now! The Shape of Jazz to Come Ascension Giant Steps (Alternate Take) Live at the Village Vanguard Bitches Brew Miles Smiles Kind of Blue Duke and His World Famous Orchestra Headhunters Complete Decca Recordings Mingus Ah Um Birdsong Jaco Pastorius We Insist!, Freedom Now Suite Capitol Jazz Classics, Vol. 14: Crosscurrents Year 1925 1972 1958 1968 1968 1959 1965 1959 1961 1969 1966 1959 1946 1973 1950 1960 1945 1976 1960 1949 Track Heebie Geebies Duffvipels Moanin' Machine Gun Broadway Blues Lonely Woman Ascension Giant Steps Impressions Bitches Brew Freedom Jazz Dance So What Take the 'A' Train Watermelon Man God Bless the Child Fables of Faubus Now's the Time Donna Lee Freedom Day Wow Time 0:26-0:52 3:00-3:27 0:00-0:30 3:18-3:48 0:20-0:50 2:04-2:34 0:00-0:33 01:45-2:15 1:47-2:20 0:00-0:34 1:55-2:32 2:45-3:13 0:00-0:32 2:04-2:36 0:43-1:12 7:07-7:45 0:30-1:02 0:40-1:12 3:50-4:24 1:52-2:23

An effort was made to choose well-known innovators in a variety of styles, including classic jazz, swing, bebop, hard bop, avant-garde, fusion, and European free jazz. Since there is no known set of standardized stimuli for jazz excerpts, the recordings represented albums that had been given five. The descriptions and ratings in the All Music Guide provided information for renowned tracks from the recordings, which were included in the experiment. An excerpt of 3040 seconds was extracted from each of these tracks, and each excerpt included a section of the piece that featured the musician. On the tracks with solo sections, portions from the middle to the end of the improvisation were extracted, in order to include heightened moments of musical development. In addition, each excerpt included a period of transition in the piece, so a distinct structure could be deduced. All the excerpts were equalized for amplitude, and sound files were edited to fade in and fade out.

136 The 20 excerpts were labeled by the letters A through T and presented in random order to the participants. The participants listened to each excerpt and were prompted with the following directive: List five musicians who immediately come to mind when you listen to this excerpt. These musicians do not have to be people you know, they can be anyone you think about when the music is playing. Then, in the same response box, describe why you think you associated the excerpt with each of the musicians. The instructions also told participants not to include the name of the musician soloing in the excerpt during the free association task – an additional response box was provided for their guesses of the excerpt’s performer at the end of the task. After typing these names, the correct name for the excerpt was revealed, and participants were asked to rate how well the excerpt represented the musician on a scale from “not very well” (1) to “very well” (5). Additionally, participants rated the extent to which each performer influences them on a scale from “not at all” (1) to “very much” (5). This task was completed in approximately 60-90 minutes. The final task required participants to think of three musical features that contributed to their understanding of each performer. The name of each performer was presented on a blank screen for 10 seconds, and after the prompt, participants were instructed to use succinct words or phrases to “describe (type) your understanding of the performer’s music.” This task required approximately 30 minutes. Immediately following the experiment, I conducted an informal interview to ask participants to reflect upon the difficulty of the tasks, the appropriateness of the excerpts, and the length of the study. The participants were provided with information on the purpose and goals of the study and were given contact information for any additional questions.

137 Eminent Performer Study: Participants A database of 400 musician names was created, given personal interaction, online listings, and websites. Email addresses for 275 of the musicians were collected from personal friends and websites. Over a two-week period, two email messages were sent to the 275 professional improvising musicians in the Chicago area, and 51 musicians (45 males; aged 22 to 61, M = 32.8) volunteered for participation in the study. Years of playing experience varied from 8 to 45 (M = 19.6) on the primary instrument, and instruments included saxophone (n = 12), drums (n = 8), bass (n = 7), guitar (n = 7), piano (n =5), trumpet (n = 4), voice (n = 2), trombone (n = 2), bass clarinet (n = 2), cello (n =1), and vibraphone (n = 1). Participants fell under three levels of education, including High School (n = 8), Undergraduate (n = 29), Graduate (n = 14). All the participants had at least one year of performing professionally in the Chicago area and played from 1 to 5 performances (M = 2.8) per week in the local area. Self-descriptions of performed musical styles typically fell under four categories: jazz (J) (n = 18), jazz and other (JO) (n = 22), improvised music (IM) (n = 2), and jazz and improvised music (JIM) (n = 9).41 Participants were compensated $20 for their time and participation.

Eminent Performer Study: Materials and Procedure Over the three-month data collection period, the participants were asked to specify a date, time, and location that suited their schedules to complete the study. The four locations included the experimenter’s residence (n = 28), the participant’s residence (n = 13), the lab at Northwestern University (n = 6), and local cafés (n = 4). An effort was made to choose a quiet


IM and JIM were later collapsed into one category (see chapter 4).

138 location in the cafés, so that participants would be able to concentrate on the tasks without being disturbed. The design of the study included the same three topics as the pilot study, with a few modifications to shorten the length of an experimental session to between 80 and 110 minutes. The participants in the pilot study had no difficulties with the social network portion of the experiment, so no modifications were made to this task. However, the number of excerpts was reduced to 15, due to the comments of the pilot study participants. The 5 musicians who were eliminated from the excerpt list were either those who had been included more than once, such as John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Ornette Coleman, or those who were judged to be less representative of the jazz canon, such as Peter Brotzmann and Lennie Tristano. The same qualifications and editing procedures used in the pilot study were used for the 15 excerpts in the eminent performer study. The musicians, recordings, tracks, and time information used are listed in table 3.8.

Table 3.8: Eminent Performer Study Excerpts
Excerpt A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O Performer Armstrong, Louis Coleman, Ornette Coltrane, John Davis, Miles Ellington, Duke Hancock, Herbie Hawkins, Coleman Holiday, Billie Mingus, Charles Monk, Thelonious Montgomery, Wes Parker, Charlie Pastorius, Jaco Roach, Max Rollins, Sonny Album Hot Fives, Vol. 1 The Shape of Jazz to Come Giant Steps (Alternate Take) Kind of Blue Duke and His World Famous Orchestra Maiden Voyage Body and Soul Complete Decca Recordings Mingus Ah Um Monk Alone The Incredible Jazz Guitar Birdsong Jaco Pastorius We Insist!, Freedom Now Suite The Bridge Year 1925 1959 1959 1959 1946 1965 1939 1950 1960 1968 1969 1945 1976 1960 1962 Track Heebie Geebies Lonely Woman Giant Steps So What Take the 'A' Train Dolphin Dance Body and Soul God Bless the Child Fables of Faubus Round Midnight Four on Six Now's the Time Continuum Freedom Day Without a Song Time 0:26-0:52 2:04-2:34 1:45-2:15 2:45-3:13 0:00-0:32 6:50-7:21 1:53-2:22 0:43-1:12 7:07-7:45 1:13-1:49 1:52-2:32 0:30-1:02 2:24-2:58 3:50-4:24 2:20-2:53

139 These excerpts were lettered from A to O and were presented in a random order to the participants. These instructions were modified by asking participants to list three instead of five musicians who immediately came to mind. This significantly shortened the length of the task to approximately 50 minutes. The rest of the rating scales and directions were the same as in the pilot study. For the final task, the responses from the pilot study were collated and recoded into 24 representative musical descriptors (Table 3.9). These 24 terms encompassed all of the free responses provided in the focus group study and the pilot study. In the final study, the participants typed three musical features (given the list of 24 musical features) that contributed to their understanding of each eminent performer. This portion of the experiment was shortened to approximately 10 minutes. Immediately following the experiment, an informal interview was conducted in which the participants could reflect upon the difficulty level of the tasks as well as provide any comments they might have about the study in general. The participants were then provided with information on the purpose of the study and were given contact information in case they had any additional questions.

Hypotheses Jazz history texts and liner notes from recordings were valuable resources for developing and interpreting the tasks, and in the subsequent analyses of the data. A priori hypotheses are generally considered irrelevant for social network studies, due to sampling procedures and reliability on unique relationships (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Despite this caution, a modest level of overlap in collaboration names is expected. Differences in named collaborations might

140 be expected to account for a wide range of geodesic distance and centrality measures between participants, thus providing a reliable measure of strength of community affiliation. Additionally, a social network graph should reveal a number of subgroups or cliques, in which members of subgroups have collaborative connections. An analysis of the network’s community affiliation and graph patterns should provide category membership for each participant. Since free association word tasks typically provide greater than 81% agreement for primary associates (Nelson et al., 2000), a moderate to high level of association agreement42 for the excerpts, between participants, is to be expected. Of course, this will depend on the excerpt and musicians performing on the excerpt. On the other hand, since the association task involves the use of musicians’ names, memory lapses by participants may produce some variation in response. Since ratings of representativeness in this study are a measure of typicality, higher ratings should be positively correlated with higher association agreement. This pattern of results is common in free association word tasks and categorization paradigms (Nelson et al., 2000; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). In addition, higher ratings of a musician’s influence may correlate with either a very high or low frequency of response, since increased opportunities for building knowledge in a domain (e.g. listening to more music in a musician’s catalogue) can result in either more or less solidified concepts in memory (Smits et al., 2002; Medin et al., 2006). Associations for this listening task may be driven by a combination of feature- and knowledgedriven factors. If participants correctly guess a performer, they may engage a set of knowledge structures specific to that performer. The free association task should reveal significant differences between performers, since each of the 15 musician-represented excerpts is assumed to have a unique identity, based on the musicians’ performance history and musical

Association agreement is defined as the number of times a particular association (name) was present in the total number of responses.

141 collaborations. Therefore, a variety of criteria for making the associations should be observed, including information about the performers’ collaborations, influences, and personal relationships. For example, Miles Davis is often considered to be a collaboration-driven leader whose career saw many personnel, band, and style changes, so his Kind of Blue excerpt might be associated with a large number of names (Davis & Troupe, 1989; Szwed, 2002). On the other hand, Charlie Parker performed for only about 19 years, cutting short his possibilities for collaborations; yet, he was extremely influential as a saxophonist (Russell, 1996). Thus, Parker’s excerpt might be associated with fewer names, and these associations might be specified by criteria about influence rather than collaboration. The results from the descriptor-matching task are expected to exemplify the differences between the 15 performer prompts, based on knowledge and feature-driven information. Descriptor-matching differences between participants are predicted, in light of the differences in the participants’ jazz experience and community affiliations. I expect the results to show higher agreement patterns for participants with more jazz experience and community affiliation, and the opposite for participants with less jazz experience and community affiliation. This is based on previous research on folk biological terms for objects in nature, which revealed higher agreement patterns for respondents who were more experienced with the stimuli, or who used the objects (e.g. fish) for the same underlying purpose (e.g. for sport or for food) (Medin et al., 2006). Eleanor Rosch (1978) asserted that cognitive mechanisms of categorization are used to “provide maximum information with the least cognitive effort,” and that “the perceived world comes as structured information rather than as arbitrary or unpredictable attributes,” especially for highly familiar stimuli (p. 28). Therefore, since the present study presents well-known excerpts, the task might be expected to elicit prototypical responses. Previous musical

142 categorization experiments have shown that participants refer to musical features such as genre or style, tempo, and performing medium when they respond to music (LeBlanc, 1981; Welker, 1982; Brittin, 1991; Koniari et al., 2001; Deliège, 2006). The variation among responses in these and other studies might be explained by multiple and embedded levels of categorical reasoning (Barsalou, 1993; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). Applying these principles of categorization to Bruckner’s Sixth Symphony, Zbikowski (1995) noted the difference between type 1, or exemplar-based, categories and type 2, or communication-driven, categories. He states that “listener[s]…arrive at this [typical, type 1] category without recourse to…informal formalizations—musical categorization instead goes on quickly and without seeming effort” (p. 25). Zbikowski briefly mentioned that these processes are dependent upon not only auditory information, but also upon culture- and knowledge-based information, which can affect the way an excerpt or piece is heard. Thus, knowledge- and community-based variations in the two tasks are to be expected. Specifically, one might anticipate that participants with more jazz performance experience and community affiliations might refer to complex categorical information such as musicians’ collaborations and influence, while those with less jazz experience and affiliation might use more basic-level category information based on genre, timbre, tempo, and instrumentation.

Chapter Summary The methodology presented in this chapter included a preliminary focus group session, in which several themes on musician narratives (based on phases of development) and listening foci were revealed. The results from these sessions were used to design the subsequent eminent performer study, which incorporated both measures of community affiliation and a set of

143 experimental tasks for describing 15 eminent jazz performers. The analysis of the results from this experiment are expected to show agreement patterns between participants for featureand knowledge-based conceptualization strategies, which may in turn illustrate differences between participants possessing varying degrees of knowledge and community affiliation.


Introduction: Review of Goals and Chapter Overview This chapter presents the analysis procedures and the results for the eminent performer study. The aims of the study are reframed below to highlight the topic of the chapter: Collaborator Task: 1. What types of network structures (e.g. clusters) are to be found from the connections provided by the collaborator task? 2. How many subgroups of participants can be determined, and to which subgroup does each participant “belong”? 3. How do the network measures relate to each other and to participant attributes? Association Task: 1. Do the responses to the association task (names, instruments, criteria43) differ between excerpts? 2. What is the level of agreement for the name, instrument, and criteria associations for each excerpt? 3. Do the typicality and influence ratings affect the participants’ accuracy in identifying the soloists in the excerpts? 4. Do the agreement scores, typicality and influence ratings, and accuracy depend on the participants’ characteristics44 (e.g. network, education, experience)? Matching Task: 1. Do the participants match different descriptors (given the list of 24) to each performer prompt? 2. What is the level of agreement for each descriptor? 3. Do the agreement scores depend on participant attributes? 4. Do the agreement scores depend on rated influence and identification accuracy? These questions were addressed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative techniques were primarily used to code and interpret data, while quantitative techniques were used to collate and compare responses between participants. This chapter is organized into three
43 44

These categories will be defined later in this chapter. Characteristics and attributes will be used interchangeably throughout this and the following chapter.

145 sections, each including a brief overview of purpose, a report of data analysis procedures including descriptive and inductive statistics, and a summary of the main findings pertinent to each question. The closing section of the chapter provides a comprehensive summary of the effect of participant attributes on the association and descriptor tasks.

Collaborator Task Overview The collaborator task was designed to provide systematic measures of network structures and the influence of participant attributes on those relationships. Each of the participants (n = 51) provided the names for 20 of their local collaborators and rated each collaborator on how often they discuss music together (discussion) and how well they know them (familiarity). In addition, the participants rated the extent of their social inclusion (community affiliation judgment) as well as the degree of their peers’ influence on their musical opinions (social influence). The following analyses of my results will show how these measures uncovered patterns of connection among smaller communities of musicians and also outline characteristic markers for community boundaries, such as age and preferred performance style.

Analysis Procedures Although the collaborator names were collected as 51 separate ego networks, each with 20 nodes, the data were treated as they would be in conventional social network studies (see chapter 3, page 126). This strategy was used because of the high inter-connectivity between ego networks, an overlap of approximately 9 alters45. Conventional social network data appear as a

Alters are the social network term for people.

146 square matrix (Figure 4.1), with relations treated as a binary (1 = connection, 0 = no connection) variable; thus, collaborator data were recoded into matrix form to illustrate relations based on a total of 461 names.

Figure 4.1: Example of a Matrix in Social Network Analysis (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005, p. 2)

This matrix shows that Carol reported that she likes Bob, but Bob did not report that he likes Carol. In the present study, since there were only 51 participants, connection data for the other 410 was not considered. In other words, if a participant reported a connection to another musician, the tie between them was considered a symmetric, as opposed to the asymmetry illustrated in the example above. In addition, certain properties could not be computed since the study only provided data for 51 actors in the one-mode network.46 In addition, participants were not asked to specify ties between each of their collaborators, as is often the case in ego network studies (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). This methodological choice significantly reduced the length and cognitive effort of the task; however, it resulted in hundreds of “non-ties” or no relations

A one-mode network studies “a single set of actors,” and data are collected on each actor in the network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The present study assumed a single set of actors (n = 461), but only collected data on 51 of those actors, instead of collecting data on all 461 of the actors in the network.

147 between actors that might, in reality, be connected. To get around these complications, each relation was entered as nondirectional, assuming a set of symmetric, mutual ties between actors, regardless of their participation in the study. Although these methodological choices resulted in less accurate information, it was the best option to make the task short and easy for participants to understand. The 461-by-461 matrix was imported into the software programs UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2002) and Netdraw (Borgatti, 2002) to calculate and draw the network properties. General network characteristics, such as geodesic counts and correlations, were computed in UCINET to determine the likelihood of information exchange between musicians. The geodesic count function estimates the path length47 between two actors; thus, a smaller geodesic count suggests frequency of information exchange. These values were added together and averaged to produce a geodesic count for the network as a whole. Standard deviations of the geodesic counts were also considered as indicators of relative agreement between actors in the network.48 Another measure of network characteristics, the correlation function, calculates a Pearson product moment correlation49 for patterns of relations between pairs of actors. With respect to the network, a positive correlation suggests a strong agreement in patterns of relations between actors (or a large amount of overlap in ties), whereas a negative correlation implies a weak agreement in patterns of relations between actors (or little to no overlap in ties) (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

Wasserman and Faust (1999) define a path as that “which all nodes and all lines are distinct,” and a path length as the summation of relations that make up the path (p. 107). 48 Hanneman and Riddle (2005) state that the standard deviation in geodesic distances shows “how far each actor is from each other as a source of information for the other; and how far each actor is from each other actor who may be trying to influence them” (p. 110). 49 Developed by Karl Pearson (1896), this method of analysis was explained as a mathematical indication of similarity between two variables. The “r value” represents a product of summed deviations from the average. A positive correlation (r = 0 to 1.00) specifies a direct association in systematic changes in both variables, whereas a negative correlation (r = -1.00 to 0) indicates an opposing association. In the case of no correlation (r = 0), changes in the two variables are not significantly related.

148 Links between musicians were analyzed to ascertain two network-dependent characteristics for each participant. The first characteristic, cluster, was determined by using two methods of subgroup analysis: the Hierarchical Clustering (HC) function in UCINET and the Girvan-Newman (GN) clustering algorithm in Netdraw. The similarity index provided by a clustering analysis is determined by looking at shared paths, or summed distances, between nodes; thus, the algorithm focuses on the connections within a given cluster (Girvan & Newman, 2002). HC analysis illustrates “agglomerative hierarchical clustering of nodes on the basis of similarity of their profiles of ties to other cases” (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005, p. 205). The clustering profile starts by including each node in a separate cluster, next compiles the nodes with the highest index of similarity into the next cluster, and continues until all nodes are contained within one cluster. On the other hand, the GN algorithm takes into account shared paths, as well as betweenness measures, or the relations between clusters. Girvan and Newman (2002) tested the algorithm on both artificial and real-world communities and found it to be more accurate than the hierarchical clustering model. In the present study, the clustering algorithm produced diagrams from the network graph, which were visually rendered by the graphic representation program, Netdraw (Borgatti, 2000). The HC and GN algorithms will be compared to better understand the categorical aspects of community affiliation for each participant in the study. Density, the second network characteristic, was determined by using the ego-network density function in UCINET. Wasserman and Faust (1994) define density as “the average proportion of lines incident with nodes in the graph” (p. 102). Typically, measures of density consider the observed ties in relation to expected ties in a given cluster, so this ratio reliably indicates the extent to which each actor is a part of a cohesive cluster. In the present study,

149 participants provided a limited amount of information on the relationships between themselves and 20 other musicians. Due to this constraint, additional potential relations between actors in the present network cannot be considered; thus, the density measure is limited due to this study’s sampling method. Further interpretation of the density results requires this to be taken into consideration. The second part of the analysis procedures dealt with the discussion and friendship ratings. Traditional methods using Likert scales treat such data as either nominal or ordinal variables (Likert, 1932). However, several researchers have suggested that such scales are a good indication of response strength, supporting use of these scales as a continuous, interval measure (Lubke & Muthen, 2004; Kline, 2005). Since both Likert scales used here were anchored by two bipolar descriptors, the ratings were treated as continuous, and thus used to calculate relationships between the discussion and friendship ratings. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences50 (SPSS), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the interdependency of discussion and friendship ratings. Similar correlation analyses were carried out for the association and matching tasks. Self-ratings of affiliation and social influence were approached in a manner similar to the collaborator ratings. Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients for these Likert scale ratings were calculated. Two tests, the t-test51 and analysis of variance52 (ANOVA) were

50 51

All statistical procedures were analyzed with SPSS software. William Gosset (pen name “Student”) formulated the Student’s t-test to calculate differences in two means for an observed variable (Moore & McCabe, 1999). Fisher (1925) was the first to formally recommend the Student’s t-test for comparison of means that were drawn from the same population. Independent t-tests were used to test the statistical differences in means between two groups. 52 Two variations of the ANOVA, the one-way and two-way, calculate main and interaction effects, respectively, of variables. Each variation provides several values, the F-statistic, sum of squares, mean square error, and the p-value. A higher F value indicates a bigger difference in variation between groups, and a lower p-value strengthens both the probability of the test’s correctness and rejection of the null

used to assess the difference in means between cluster groups. Independent t-tests were used to test the statistical differences in means between two groups, whereas ANOVAs were used to test differences between three or more groups. Finally, participant attributes were compared to network properties in order to better define the features that distinguish one group from another. Table 4.1 shows the ranges and categories for the nine attributes54 included in the analyses for the collaborator, association, and matching tasks.



Table 4.1: Participant Attributes
Age (Yrs) 22 to 61 Instrument bass clarinet bass cello drums guitar piano saxophone trombone trumpet vibraphone voice Exp (Yrs) 8 to 45 Education Performance Style HC Group GN Cluster 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 Density 0 to 38.1 Comm Aff 2 to 5

high school (HS) jazz (J) undergraduate (U) jazz and other (JO) graduate (G) jazz and improvised music (JIM) improvised music (IM)

hypothesis. If the p -value is less than .01, a post-hoc test, or multiple comparisons analysis can be used to view detailed differences between means. The least-significant differences (LSD) provided a post hoc test of significance for each pair of means in the sample. Moore and McCabe (1999) warn against the LSD test in the case of larger samples, since it results in a higher error rate; however, the test suits the needs and characteristics of the present analysis. 53 This version of the t-test compares means and standard deviations for two independent groups, or “samples,” and estimates the robustness of the differences (Moore & McCabe, 1999). It tests the “null hypothesis,” or the extent to which the two groups have similar means. A positive t-value indicates that the first mean of the pairs is larger than the second, and vice versa for a negative t-value. To assess the robustness of the test, Moore and McCabe (1999) recommend the p -value, a “probability…that the test statistic would take a value as extreme or more extreme than that actually observed” (p. 458). Typically, smaller values (0.01 to 0.05) indicate a higher statistical validity of the test of significance; thus, with a p value equal to or less than 0.05, the null hypothesis has a more valid and reliable chance of being rejected. 54 The nine attributes included: age, instrument, years of experience, education, preferred performance style, HC group, GN cluster, network density, and community affiliation judgment. Although results from the collaborator task were only compared to the first 5 attributes, the other tasks considered all nine of the attributes.

151 Non-categorical attributes were recoded into 2 groups so that the variables would be more easily used in group comparisons. For the same reason, attributes with more than 4 groups were condensed into 2-4 groups (table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Attribute Recoding55

Age (Yrs) !30 (26) <30 (25)

Inst melodic (23) rhythm (28)

Exp (Yrs) !18 (25) <18 (26)

Ed HS (8) U (29) G (14)

Perf. Style J (21) JO (18) JIM (12)

HC GN Density Group Cluster 1 (22) 1 (24) !10 (26) 2 (15) 2 (16) <10 (25) 3 (10) 3 (10) 4 (3)

Comm Aff >3 (31) "3 (20)

An effort was made to distribute participants equally across groups; however, for education, hierarchical clustering (HC) group, Girvan-Newman (GN) cluster, and community affiliation, groups were relatively unequal. Although some statisticians warn that mean comparison tests with unequal groups is less reliable, the tests can still provide a relatively reliable indication, although less robust, of variance statistics (Moore & McCabe, 1999). To assess interrelations between network properties and participant attributes, the data were subjected to cross-tabulation comparisons.56 Since the data are treated as nominal and categorical, the nonparametric Chi-


Instruments were grouped into two categories: melodic and rhythm section. These groupings refer to the role each instrument plays in a typical instrumental performance. Bass-clarinet, cello, saxophone, trombone, trumpet, and voice were coded as melodic instruments, while bass, drums, guitar, piano, and vibraphone were coded as rhythm section instruments. 56 The cross-tabulations function analyzes categorical data by providing a summary of categorical distribution for all outcomes in a contingency matrix. Typically, the cross-tabulation procedure assesses the causal relation between an independent (row) and a dependent (column) variable (Hellevik, 1988). Values in the table show the percentage of cases common to both variables.

square test for independence was used. In addition, both t-tests and ANOVAs were used to measure agreement score differences between groups for each attribute variable.



Results The network included 1896 ties between 461 actors (figure 4.2), but only the connections for the 51 participants are shown in the results (tables 4.3-4.8). The results indicated an average geodesic distance of 4.03 for the 461 actors in the overall network and of 2.30 for the 51 participants in the study. Larger geodesic distances indicate longer shortest-distance paths, while geodesic counts indicate the number of geodesic distances between two participants. For example, a geodesic count of 64 connected JK and RS; thus, they were 64 paths to connect them, given the data collected. Table 4.3 depicts the range (1 to 64) of geodesic counts58 for the 51 participants in the form of a matrix, while table 4.4 shows the range (0 to 6) of geodesic distance. The average degree between participants was 60.71 (SD = 17.43), much larger than that for the overall network, an average distance of 11.38 (SD = 19.11). The overall degree-degree correlation coefficient59 between participants was r = 0.04, with a range of -0.05 to .70 (table 4.5). These values confirmed that none of the participants had identical collaborator lists. Nonetheless, the range of correlations was still useful for viewing what similarities do exist between patterns of ties. For example, the actor KJ had similar ties to actors JK (r = .70), JB (r =


The Chi-square test, also developed by Karl Pearson (1900), was designed to discern the difference in distribution of categories for two variables (Moore & McCabe, 1999). Thus, the test requires category overlap between variables. A larger difference in distributions between the two variables results in a larger value of the Chi-square statistic (X2). Similar to the t-test and ANOVA, reliability of the Chi-square test is estimated with a p-value. 58 The geodesic count procedure provides “the number of shortest paths connecting all pairs of vertices (Borgatti et al., 2002). 59 Social network analysts define degree as a measure of the number of ties to other actors in the network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

153 .71), JS2 (r = .76), MR (r = .62), FLM (r = .60), TD (r = .47) and AH (r = .47). The actor MG had similar ties to actors JG1 (r = .57), QK (r = .54), and JD1 (r = .51). The HC algorithm produced 216 iterations of clustering agglomerations, of which only five are shown in table 4.6. The numbers in each column of the table are therefore arbitrary, as they simply represent a new grouping. In other words, there is no relationship between cluster 1 in stage 1 and cluster 1 in stage 150. The 5 iterations shown in the table represent significant breakpoint stages, where a select number of participants are converged into persistent clusters. At stage 1, none of the participants were grouped into the same cluster, resulting in 51 different clusters. However, at stage 150, there were only a total of 30 clusters, since several participants belonged to clusters 4, 16, and 17. In this stage, it was also apparent that actors JS1 and RK were the only participants in cluster 18, and actors GB and JH were alone in cluster 17. These cluster patterns illustrate the stability in node relations between these pairs of respondents. Stage 200 revealed an even smaller number of clusters (n = 12), three apparent pendants60 (AU, CB, CG), and two larger clusters (1 and 5). Stage 211 specified only 5 clusters (1 (n = 22), 2 (n = 15), 3(n = 10), 4(n = 3), and 5(n = 1)), the last of which is a pendant participant (CG). The final clustering stage grouped all participants into one component. GN cluster results were somewhat different from the hierarchical clustering results, as depicted in table 4.7. The GN algorithm provided 9 stages of partitioning, but only partitions 10, 8, 5, 3, and 261 are shown in the table. Only one participant was labeled as a pendent (CB), thus, he was left out of each cluster. Finally, the following differences between the two clustering algorithms were observed: AK (HC 3 to GN1), BT and JG2 (HC 1 to GN 2), CB (HC 4 to GN 0), CG (HC 5 to GN 1), DC and AB (HC 4 to GN 2), and JS3, SM, and TF (HC 2 to GN 1). These disparities illustrate that these two methods do
60 61

Pendants are nodes who are only connected to the network by 1 link (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Partition 1 is typically excluded from the Girvan-Newman clustering algorithm.

154 indeed produce different results that should be noted in the analysis stage. Figure 4.3 illustrates the three main GN clusters. The overall density of the 461-node network was 0.03 (SD = 0.29), indicating that only 3% of possible links were present in the data from the 51 participants. This is not surprising, given the lack of data collected for the remainder of nodes in the network. To provide a better indication of relationships among the actors in the sample, the matrix was therefore revised to include only the 51 participants. After this revision, the density for the matrix was 0.37 (SD = 1.03). Table 4.8 shows the density values for each participant in the sample, the average being 12.91 (SD = 10.73). As expected, the standard deviation and range of density values were large, due to the relatively few participants in the sample. Nevertheless, the density values summarized the number of connections. The mean discussion ratings (M = 2.77, SD = 1.27) were lower than the mean friendship ratings (M = 3.49, SD = 1.13), t(1019) = -21.53, p < .001. The correlation between the discussion and friendship ratings was moderately strong, r = 0.61(1018), p = .01, suggesting that these musicians tended to discuss music with collaborators with whom they were friends. The participants’ self-ratings of their musical community affiliations were moderately higher (M = 3.80, SD = 1.06) than their ratings for social influence (M = 2.90, SD = .85), t(50) = 5.67, p < .001. One-way ANOVAs for community affiliation judgments yielded main effects for both HC and GN clusters, F(3, 46) = 2.88, p = .04 and F(2, 47) = 3.32, p = .04, respectively.

155 Table 4.9: Community Affiliation Groups by HC Groups ANOVA
ANOVA Sum of Squares 8.85 47.15 56.00 df 3 46 49 Mean Square 2.95 1.03 F 2.88 Sig. 0.04

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Table 4.10: Community Affiliation Groups by GN Clusters ANOVA
ANOVA Sum of Squares 6.76 47.82 54.58 df 2 47 49 Mean Square 3.38 1.02 F 3.32 Sig. 0.04

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Post hoc tests indicated higher affiliation ratings for HC group 3 (M = 5.00, SD = 0) and GN cluster 3 (M = 4.56, SD = .73), compared to HC groups 1 (M = 3.55, SD = 1.06), 2 (M = 3.60, SD = .99) and 4 (M = 4.30, SD = 1.06), as well as GN groups 1 (M = 3.56, SD = 1.00) and 2 (M = 3.69, SD = 1.14). In addition, there was a positive correlation between community affiliation judgments and density values, r = .33(49), p = .02. Neither HC nor GN clusters affected social influence ratings (p > .80), and a correlation analysis found no relationship between social influence ratings and density values (p > .40). Finally, the cross-tabulations revealed several significant relationships between network properties and the 5 participant attributes. First, a larger number of younger participants were in HC group 1, while a larger number of older participants were in HC group 2, X2 (3, N = 50) = 8.55, p = .04.

156 Table 4.11: Age Groups by Network Properties Cross-tabulations
HC Group Age ! 30 < 30 GN Cluster Density Grp

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 H L 24.0% 44.0% 24.0% 8.0% 26.9% 50.0% 23.1% 38.5% 61.5% 64.0% 16.0% 16.0% 4.0% 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 64.0% 36.0%

Likewise, there were more participants under age 30 in GN cluster 1 and over age 30 in GN cluster 2, X2 (2, N = 50) = 12.03, p = .002. The relationship between age group and density group approached significance, X2 (1, N = 51) = 3.33, p = .06, with younger participants in the highdensity group and older participants in the low-density group. An equal number of participants in the two experience groups were found for the HC groups; however, distribution of experience groups across the GN clusters was not equal, X2 (2, N = 50) = 6.07, p = .05.

Table 4.12: Experience Groups by GN Cluster Cross-tabulation
GN Cluster Exp H L 1 36.0% 64.0% 2 48.0% 16.0% 3 16.0% 20.0%

Those participants with more experience were in GN cluster 2, and those with less experience were in cluster 1; the spread for GN cluster 3 was about equal. A chi-square analysis showed no relationship between density group and experience (p = .12). Cross-tabulations indicated equal distributions of education and instrument groups for all network properties (p > .40). The distribution of preferred performance styles was unequal for HC groups and GN clusters, X2 (6, N = 50) = 23.35, p = .001 and X2 (4, N = 50) = 25.67, p < .001, respectively.

157 Table 4.13: Network Properties by Preferred Performance Style Groups Cross-tabulations
HC Group GN Cluster Density Group

Perf Style 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 H L 45.0% 40.0% 10.0% 5.0% 57.1% 38.1% 4.8% 47.6% 52.4% J 55.6% 33.3% .0% 11.1% 58.8% 41.2% .0% 27.8% 72.2% JO 25.0% 8.3% 66.7% .0% 25.0% 8.3% 66.7% 91.7% 8.3% JIM

There were more participants who primarily performed jazz (J) and jazz and other (JO) in HC groups 1 and 2, as well as in GN groups 1 and 2, whereas those who performed jazz and improvised music (JIM) tended to be in both HC group 3 and GN cluster 3. Finally, participants with higher density values were associated with performance styles J and JIM, while those with lower density values were associated with J and JO, X2 (2, N = 51) = 11.92, p = .003.

Summary of Results Despite the study’s sampling constraints, an analysis of collaborator lists revealed 3 to 4 distinct clusters of musicians which were highly related. Participants in HC groups 1-3 and GN clusters 1-3 matched, with the exception of the 10 differences mentioned above. Upon closer examination, a relationship is also apparent between these clusters and the geodesic count and correlation values, such that participants in the same clusters were closely connected and highly interrelated. Furthermore, participants in HC group 3 and GN cluster 3 appear to be the most closely connected, and thus had higher density values. Participants’ self-ratings of affiliation and influence related significantly to these measures as well. The clusters were thus reliably characterized by age, preferred performance style, and density of connections.

158 Association Task Overview The association task provided both qualitative (categorical) and quantitative (continuous) data for the cognitive processing of 15 typical excerpts. Participants heard each excerpt, listed three musicians’ names which the excerpt brought to mind, and provided their criteria for citing each name. After identifying the soloist, the respondents next rated the excerpt on how well it represented the performer (typicality) and the extent to which the performer has influenced their own music (influence). The following results will reveal differences in the participants’ responses to the task, which were markedly affected by both the excerpts and participant attributes.

Analysis Procedures The association task resulted in three categorical data variables. Name association referred to the musician associated with the excerpt, instrument association referred to that which the named musician plays most frequently, and association criteria corresponded to participants’ self-reflections on the strategies used during the task. Where needed, the name associations were corrected for spelling errors, and the results from all participants were summed. The instrument variable (table 4.14) was coded by referring to biography profiles in jazz history texts (Gioia, 1997; Martin & Waters, 2002) and online jazz resources (All Music Guide, Access Date March 2009; All About Jazz, Access Date March 2009).

159 Table 4.14: Instrument Codes
Instrument Big Band Banjo Bass Clarinet Cello Composer Drums Group Guitar Non given Nonmusician Piano Saxophone Trombone Trumpet Vibraphone Voice bb bj bs cl clo cmp dms grp gtr ng nm pno sax tb tpt vb vc Code

Respondents’ self-reported association criteria were labeled by two independent coders to ensure accuracy and reliability. Specially-developed coding guidelines (see table 4.15 for a summary) were used for consistency in the coding phase for the two coders. Table 4.15 illustrates the categories that were used across the two coding phases, including the two categories that were excluded in phase two.62


Geography was excluded from phase two because it was only used as an explanation for the Louis Armstrong excerpt, and role was eliminated because it was only used to choose names for the Miles Davis excerpt.

160 Table 4.15: Criteria Coding Strategies
Criteria Approach Collaboration Geography Influence Given Influence Received Instrument Musical None Other Personal Memory Role Style Time Period Code apr clb geo infg infr inst mus ng oth prs ro sty tm Defining Features Abstract qualities of music Musical, personal, contemporary Geographical area Person influenced excerpt musician Person influenced by excerpt musician Legacy of instrument Concrete qualities of music None provided Admirer, personal lifestyle Autobiographical experiences Role in ensemble Conventionalized style label Decade, year mentioned Phase 1&2 1&2 1 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1&2 1 1&2 1&2

In the second phase of coding, geography was incorporated into the style category, and role was incorporated into other.63 Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa (Dewey, 1983; Lombard et al., 2002). The Cohen’s kappa measure of agreement revealed a value of .75 (p < .01), indicating a reliable level of coding agreement (Lombard et al., 2002). Many free association studies recode associations into frequency scores and probability percentages to prepare the data for statistical analysis (Palermo & Jenkins, 1964; Jenkins & Palermo, 1965; Nelson & McEvoy, 2000). Here, frequency scores were calculated for each association variable (name, instrument, criteria) by counting the number of category appearances, and percentages were determined by dividing the frequency of occurrence by the number of responses (n = 153). The frequency score data were analyzed with one-way ANOVAs to assess between-excerpt differences. To look at the distribution of instrument categories within the three variables, the data were also analyzed with cross-tabulations. Chi-square values were calculated to determine the reliability of these procedures.

Participants generally referred to “New Orleans” (geography) when describing the style of the Armstrong excerpt. Since role was only used to describe the Davis excerpt, it was recoded as other.

161 The second phase of analysis reformatted name associations, instruments, and criteria into ratio-type, continuous data. Some studies have shown quantification of categorical variables to be useful for additional statistical analyses (Nelson et al., 2000). In particular, agreement scores were calculated by adding together the three frequency scores for each variable. If a participant listed names, instruments, or criteria common to the rest of the sample, he received a larger agreement score. One-way ANOVAs were used to assess the differences in participants’ agreement scores between excerpts. These procedures aimed to answer the following questions: (a) how typical are the name associations, instruments, and criteria for each excerpt; and (b) do these differ between excerpts? By viewing the data in this way I hope to discern patterns of agreement among participants. The purpose of the third phase of analysis was to ascertain the relationship between association task responses and participant attributes. Nine attributes were considered in relation to the association task data (Table 4.2).64 To evaluate the effect of participant attributes on categorical data for instruments and criteria, the data were analyzed with the Chi-square comparison in cross-tabulations. Differences in continuous data, including frequency and agreement scores, were analyzed with between-group t-tests and ANOVAs. The final phase of analysis considered the typicality and influence ratings, as well as the accuracy of soloist identification for each excerpt. Since the typicality and influence ratings were collected using endpoint-defined Likert scales, the variables were treated as continuous data. Identification accuracy was coded as a binary variable; participants correctly or incorrectly guessed the identity of the excerpt’s soloist. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the entire sample, and one-way ANOVAs were used to provide an indicator of differences

These were the same attributes that were presented in the collaborator task.

162 between the 15 excerpts. In addition, two-way ANOVAs assessed the interaction of typicality and influence ratings on their effect on accuracy. Finally, Pearson correlations estimated the relationship between the typicality and influence ratings as well as agreement scores. The influence of accuracy and excerpt on agreement scores was determined with a two-way ANOVA.

Results: Categories, Frequency and Agreement Scores The association task was completed by all (n = 51) of the participants in the study. A total of 592 (M = 67.2; range 56 to 79) musicians were named during the task, yielding a duplicate rate of 74.20 percent. Only 2.40%, or 55 out of the 2,295 associations, were left blank. Appendix A includes the frequency counts and percentages for all listed musician names. Table 4.16 following, presents the names which were listed by at least 5 participants.65 In addition, figures 4.4-4.18 depict the association networks for each musician’s excerpt.


Ng means that there was no name provided for that particular excerpt.

163 Table 4.16: Name Associations with Frequency Scores ! 5.
Louis Armstrong Wynton Marsalis (13) King Oliver (13) Roy Eldridge (7) Sidney Bechet (6) NG (6) Bix Beiderbecke (6) Baby Dodds (5) Louis Armstrong (5) Duke Ellington Count Basie (16) Billy Strayhorn (14) Johnny Hodges (10) Cootie Williams (7) Thelonious Monk (6) Duke Ellington (5) Ornette Coleman Don Cherry (16) Charlie Haden (16) Charlie Parker (9) Dewey Redman (7) Ornette Coleman (5) John Coltrane Tommy Flanagan (12) Sonny Rollins (11) Elvin Jones (10) Michael Brecker (7) McCoy Tyner (7) Wayne Shorter (6) Miles Davis Bill Evans (19) John Coltrane (15) Paul Chambers (11) Jimmy Cobb (9) Cannonball Adderley (8) Wallace Roney (6) Freddie Hubbard (6) Wayne Shorter (5) Art Farmer (5) Billie Holiday Ella Fitzgerald (24) Lester Young (20) Sarah Vaughn (14) Carmen McRae (5) Louis Armstrong (5) Madeline Peyroux (5)

Herbie Hancock Tony Williams (13) Ron Carter (11) Ron Perrillo (11) Chick Corea (10) Miles Davis (7) Bill Evans (6) Wynton Kelly (6) Brad Mehldau (5) Bud Powell (5) Keith Jarrett (5) NG (5) Wayne Shorter (5) Thelonious Monk Art Tatum (9) John Coltrane (9) Charlie Rouse (8) Duke Ellington (6) Ron Perrillo (6) Chick Corea (5) Miles Davis (5)

Coleman Hawkins Lester Young (23) Ben Webster (12) Sonny Rollins (10) Charlie Parker (7) Dexter Gordon (7) Johnny Hodges (6) NG (6) Count Basie (5) Stan Getz (5)

Charles Mingus Paul Chambers (11) Ray Brown (11) Oscar Pettiford (7) Ron Carter (7) Dannie Richmond (6) Sam Jones (6) Charles Mingus (5) Eric Dolphy (5) Jimmy Blanton (5) Jaco Pastorius Joe Zawinul (14) Wayne Shorter (14) Herbie Hancock (8) Pat Metheny (8) Chick Corea (5) John Patitucci (5) Miles Davis (5)

Wes Montgomery Grant Green (18) Bobby Broom (11) Jim Hall (9) Charlie Christian (8) Jeff Parker (7) George Benson (6) Wes Montgomery (6) Kenny Burrell (5) Pat Martino (5) Sonny Rollins Jim Hall (11) John Coltrane (11) Bobby Broom (8) Coleman Hawkins (7) Hank Mobley (5)

Charlie Parker Dizzy Gillespie (17) Sonny Stitt (15) Charlie Parker (8) Max Roach (8) Bud Powell (6) Miles Davis (6) Ornette Coleman (5)

Max Roach Art Blakey (13) Max Roach (13) Elvin Jones (11) Philly Joe Jones (11) Tony Williams (10) Buddy Rich (6) George Fludas (5)

164 Since the categories (names) varied significantly between excerpts, frequency score crosstabulations were deemed inappropriate for statistical comparison. The average agreement score for name associations was 17.02 (SD = 10.43), as shown in table 4.17.

Table 4.17: Name Association Agreement Scores
Excerpt Billie Holiday Miles Davis Coleman Hawkins Max Roach Wes Montgomery Charlie Parker Herbie Hancock Ornette Coleman Duke Ellington Jaco Pastorius Louis Armstrong John Coltrane Charles Mingus Sonny Rollins Thelonious Monk Mean M Agreement Score 27.71 21.90 21.90 18.14 17.90 17.78 17.27 16.84 16.53 15.63 13.94 13.71 13.14 12.10 10.84 17.02 SD 14.26 13.54 11.44 10.27 9.02 10.43 8.35 11.24 9.44 9.70 6.71 6.47 6.74 6.71 4.77 10.43

ANOVA results showed a main effect of excerpt on the name agreement score (table 4.18).

Table 4.18: Excerpts by Name Association Agreement Score ANOVA
ANOVA Sum of Squares 13497.60 69605.02 83102.62 df 14 750 764 Mean Square 964.11 92.81 F 10.39 Sig. 0.00

Between Groups Within Groups Total

165 In general, agreement scores for the Monk excerpt were lower than for most of the other excerpts, while those for the Holiday, Davis, and Hawkins excerpts were significantly higher than others. Musicians associated with the excerpts played a total of 18 different instruments (table 4.19).

Table 4.19: Instrument Association Frequency Scores66
Inst Saxophone Piano Bass Trumpet Drums Guitar Voice None Given Big Band Composer Trombone Clarinet Vibraphone Group Cello Nonmusician Banjo Violin LA 12 15 2 91 6 1 5 6 0 1 4 7 1 0 0 1 1 0 OC 79 4 22 25 11 4 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JC 97 24 8 5 13 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MD 32 26 11 56 16 3 1 3 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 DE 25 33 8 14 5 2 8 3 31 14 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 HH 10 85 18 11 18 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 CH 113 7 6 2 2 1 4 6 9 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 BH 28 9 1 13 1 2 93 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CM 10 3 118 4 11 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TM 32 94 6 5 3 5 1 1 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 WM 8 6 0 3 7 121 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 CP 81 17 10 28 10 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 JP 19 33 68 6 5 14 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MR 5 1 1 7 133 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SR 96 1 11 6 9 24 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 647 358 290 276 250 184 120 55 44 26 17 12 7 3 2 2 1 1

An average of 9.87 (SD = 1.55) instruments characterized the name associations. By far, the largest number musicians named by participants played the saxophone (647), while the fewest played the banjo (1) and violin (1). A between-groups (instruments) ANOVA yielded a main effect of instrument on frequency score (table 4.20), showing an unequal distribution of instrument responses for the task.

LA (Louis Armstrong), OC (Ornette Coleman), JC (John Coltrane), MD (Miles Davis), DE (Duke Ellington), HH (Herbie Hancock), CH (Coleman Hawkins), BH (Billie Holiday), Charles Mingus (CM), Thelonious Monk (TM), Wes Montgomery (WM), Charlie Parker (CP), Jaco Pastorius (JP), Max Roach (MR), Sonny Rollins (SR).

166 Table 4.20: Instrument Associations by Frequency Scores ANOVA
ANOVA df Mean Square 17 2083.65 252 365.36 269

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 35422.03 92071.47 127493.50

F 5.70

Sig. 0.00

Post hoc tests showed significantly larger frequency scores for saxophone, piano, bass, and trumpet (p < .05) and likewise, lower scores for banjo, cello, violin, nonmusician, and group (p < .05). The Chi-square test for independence showed that the distribution of instruments differed significantly between excerpt, X2 (238, N = 2295) = 5744.52, p < .01. Specifically, the instrument of the soloist in the excerpt matched the instrument with the highest frequency score for each excerpt. For example, most of the musicians named for the Armstrong and Davis excerpts played the trumpet, the instrument played by both of these performers on their respective excerpts. This effect was most evident for the Roach excerpt, with an overwhelming count of 133 drummers listed. The average agreement score for instrument association was 192.80 (SD = 78.27), as shown in table 4.21.

167 Table 4.21: Instrument Association Agreement Scores
Excerpt Max Roach Wes Montgomery Charles Mingus Coleman Hawkins Sonny Rollins John Coltrane Thelonious Monk Billie Holiday Louis Armstrong Herbie Hancock Charlie Parker Ornette Coleman Jaco Pastorius Miles Davis Duke Ellington Mean M Agreement Score 348.69 290.57 278.06 254.92 204.10 201.20 195.63 190.33 172.96 159.47 153.86 147.63 127.12 102.92 64.53 192.80 SD 99.56 100.44 117.98 93.86 90.11 91.32 81.15 69.49 78.16 85.96 72.26 71.31 58.83 41.81 21.78 78.27

One-way ANOVA results revealed a main effect of excerpt on agreement scores (table 4.22).

Table 4.22: Instrument Association Agreement Scores by Excerpts ANOVA
ANOVA df Mean Square 14 288173.21 750 6672.95 764

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Sum of Squares 4034424.92 5004712.08 9039136.99

F 43.19

Sig. 0.00

The instrument agreement scores for the Roach, Montgomery, Mingus, and Hawkins excerpts were higher than the other agreement scores (p < .01). Conversely, patterns of agreement were lower for the Ellington and Davis excerpts (p < .01). All 11 of the criteria categories were used for 13 out of the 15 excerpts (M = 10.87, SD = .35); approximately 6.88% (n = 158) of criteria responses were left blank. This finding, supported by post-study interview comments, suggested either that participants did not follow

168 the instructions, or perhaps thought that their reasoning strategies were self-explanatory. Table 4.23 shows these scores.

Table 4.23: Criteria Frequency Scores
Criteria Musical Approach Collaboration Influence Received Style Instrument None Given Time Period Personal Memory Influence Given Other LA 26 21 18 15 39 4 12 10 1 5 2 OC 27 38 38 12 15 9 9 1 2 1 1 JC 33 18 34 37 8 5 9 2 2 3 2 MD DE 20 29 56 15 7 6 12 1 2 2 3 18 17 37 17 13 21 11 8 7 1 3 HH 34 31 36 11 11 6 14 4 1 5 0 CH 38 21 16 26 20 6 11 10 1 1 3 BH CM TM WM CP 33 31 22 17 6 17 7 6 8 2 4 51 32 15 8 7 16 8 2 6 5 3 29 35 24 31 12 5 4 1 6 4 2 40 32 11 15 17 17 11 1 2 5 2 30 23 31 20 22 9 9 5 1 2 1 JP 18 39 29 11 21 14 11 4 2 2 2 MR 31 37 12 12 14 20 17 4 3 3 0 SR 42 30 28 14 5 9 13 3 4 2 3 Total 470 434 407 261 217 164 158 62 48 43 31

The majority of the responses were based on musical (470), approach (434), and collaboration (407) criteria. A one-way between-groups ANOVA indicated a main effect of criterion on frequency score (F(10, 154) = 40.71, p < .001), as shown in table 4.24.

Table 4.24: Association Criteria Frequency Score by Excerpts ANOVA
ANOVA Sum of Squares 18140.84 6862.80 25003.64 df 10 154 164 Mean Square 1814.08 44.56 F 40.71 Sig. 0.00

Between Groups Within Groups Total

Post hoc tests showed significantly higher frequencies for musical, approach, and collaboration criteria when compared to other criteria, but not when compared to each other (p < .001). The least frequently used criteria were personal memory, influence given, and other (p < .01). Chi-

square comparisons revealed strong differences in category distribution between excerpts, X (140, N = 2295) = 403.00, p < .001, suggesting a highly significant effect of excerpt on reasoning strategies.



The average criteria agreement score was 74.41 (SD = 27.37), as shown in table 4.25.

Table 4.25: Criteria Agreement Scores
Excerpt Miles Davis Charles Mingus Ornette Coleman John Coltrane Sonny Rollins Herbie Hancock Thelonious Monk Wes Montgomery Jaco Pastorius Max Roach Coleman Hawkins Louis Armstrong Charlie Parker Billie Holiday Duke Ellington Mean M Agreement Score 95.08 85.43 81.47 80.96 77.59 77.04 75.39 72.61 70.45 69.35 68.33 68.18 67.98 65.04 61.27 74.41 SD 56.55 47.37 24.60 26.71 29.55 29.60 16.14 22.71 21.80 25.89 22.74 27.51 13.70 23.61 22.13 27.37

The ANOVAs on these criteria yielded a highly significant main effect of excerpt on agreement scores for criteria (table 4.26).

Table 4.26: Association Criteria Agreement Scores by Excerpts ANOVA
ANOVA Sum of Squares 55149.80 627813.49 682963.29 df 14 750 764 Mean Square 3939.27 837.09 F 4.71 Sig. 0.00

Between Groups Within Groups Total

170 The criteria responses for the Davis, Mingus, Coleman, and Coltrane excerpts were more similar; thus, responses to these excerpts resulted in higher agreement scores than responses to other excerpts (p < .05). The patterns of criteria agreement were lowest for Ellington, Holiday, Parker, and Hawkins excerpts, but with fewer differences between the means (p < .05).

Participant Attribute Effects Many of the participant attributes influenced category distribution and agreement scores for the three association variables. Age group differences were observed for both instrument association (X2 (3, N = 2295) = 22.35, p < .001) and criteria category distribution (X2 (10, N = 2295) = 79.85, p < .001). Table 4.27 shows the differences in category distribution for instrument associations, while table 4.28 shows age group as related to association criteria.

Table 4.27: Age Groups by Instrument Associations Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association Age ! 30 years < 30 years Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section 44.6% 3.3% 3.6% 48.5% 46.5% 1.2% 6.6% 45.7%

Table 4.28: Age Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Age ! 30 years < 30 years apr clb infg infr 18.7% 18.8% 2.7% 12.1% 19.1% 16.6% 1.0% 10.6% inst mus 6.6% 15.0% 7.7% 26.2% ng oth prs 9.8% 1.5% 2.1% 3.8% 1.2% 2.1% sty tm 9.8% 2.9% 9.1% 2.5%

When the tests were run for each excerpt, the age group differences for instruments associated with the Ellington excerpt were especially pronounced. With respect to the criteria variable, age

171 groups differed more for the Mingus, Pastorius, and Rollins excerpts. However, age did not affect agreement scores (p > .30). Contrasts were observed between instrument groups on the association task. Crosstabulations showed a difference in both instrument and criteria category distribution between participant instrument groups, X2 (3, N = 2295) = 26.47, p < .001 and X2 (10, 2295) = 57.46, p < .001 (tables 4.29 and 4.30).

Table 4.29: Instrument Groups by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association Participant Instrument Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section Melodic 51.0% 1.4% 4.3% 43.2% Rhythm Section 41.0% 3.0% 5.6% 50.3%

Table 4.30: Instrument Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Participant Instrument Melodic Rhythm Section apr clb infg infr 19.5% 20.1% 2.0% 12.4% 18.4% 15.8% 1.7% 10.6% inst mus 9.5% 17.5% 5.2% 22.9% ng oth prs 4.0% 1.4% 2.4% 9.3% 1.3% 1.8% sty tm 9.2% 2.1% 9.7% 3.2%

Category distribution comparisons for each excerpt showed particular differences for the Coleman, Davis, Hancock, Monk, and Rollins excerpts. For most of these excerpts, respondents who play bass, drums, guitar, or keyboards seemed to list more rhythm section players than did melodic instrument respondents. For the criteria variable, instrument-group differences in criteria were heightened for the Mingus, Montgomery, and Pastorius excerpts. Although mean comparisons found no agreement score differences between instrument groups, post hoc tests showed higher name agreement between rhythm section instrumentalists for the Hancock excerpt

172 (t(49) = -1.99, p = .04), melody instrumentalists for the Holiday excerpt (t(49) = 2.77, p = .01), and melody instrumentalists for the Parker excerpt (t(49) = 2.00, p = .04). Lower instrument agreement scores were observed between melodic-instrument respondents only for the Monk excerpt, t(49) = -2.38, p = .02. No instrument-group differences were found for criteria agreement scores. Several between-group differences were found for the experience attribute. Category distribution varied significantly between groups for instrument association and criteria variables, X2 (3, N = 2295) = 33.46, p < .001 and X2 (10, 2295) = 150.16, p < .001. Tables 4.31 and 4.32 show the distribution of response between experience groups for the instrument associations and association criteria.

Table 4.31: Experience Groups by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association Experience ! 18 years < 18 years Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section 46.0% 3.9% 3.6% 46.5% 45.1% .8% 6.4% 47.7%

Table 4.32: Experience Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Experience ! 18 years < 18 years apr clb infg infr 15.6% 18.3% 2.0% 12.7% 22.1% 17.2% 1.7% 10.1% inst mus ng oth prs sty tm 8.4% 14.8% 12.0% 1.2% 2.8% 8.9% 3.3% 5.9% 26.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 10.0% 2.1%

Instrument differences were especially pronounced for the Coltrane and Hawkins excerpts (p < .05). Criteria category distributions varied significantly between experience groups for the following excerpts: Coleman, Coltrane, Davis, Ellington, Hancock, Pastorius, Roach, and

173 Rollins. Specifically, criteria tended to be musical for the lower experience group, but influence received and collaboration for the higher experience group. Participants with more experience also tended to leave criteria responses blank. No between-experience-group differences were discovered for name or instrument agreement scores; however, contrasts existed for the criteria variable, t(763) = -4.11, p < .001. Specifically, participants with more experience agreed less (M = 69.93, SD = 31.62) than did those with less experience (M = 78.72, SD = 27.50), specifically for the Coleman, Hancock, Holiday, and Rollins excerpts (p < .05). Few differences between groups were observed in terms of educational background. Chisquare tests indicated disparities in category distributions for instrument association and criteria variables, X2 (6, N = 2295) = 27.20, p < .001 and X2 (20, 2295) = 96.62, p < .001. Crosstabulations for each excerpt revealed larger education-group differences for the Davis excerpt. Tables 4.33 and 4.34 illustrate the distribution of response between education groups.

Table 4.33: Education Groups by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association Education High School Undergraduate Graduate Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section 45.0% 2.8% 3.1% 49.2% 44.4% 3.2% 4.8% 47.7% 48.3% .2% 6.8% 44.8%

Table 4.34: Education Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Education High School Undergraduate Graduate apr clb infg infr 29.7% 11.1% 1.9% 11.1% 16.6% 18.1% 2.1% 10.6% 17.5% 20.8% 1.4% 13.2% inst mus ng oth prs sty tm 7.2% 18.9% 10.0% .8% 1.9% 4.7% 2.5% 7.2% 20.8% 8.7% 1.2% 2.1% 9.7% 3.0% 7.0% 20.8% 1.4% 1.9% 2.1% 11.7% 2.2%

174 Participants with a high school education listed more musicians who played melodic instruments, while those with higher educations listed more musicians who played rhythm section instruments. Mean comparisons illustrated no differences between education groups for name, instrument, and criteria agreement scores (p > .15). However, differences in instrument agreement scores approached significance, F(2, 762) = 2.44, p = .06. Specifically, Least Squares Difference (LSD) comparison showed higher agreement scores for respondents with a high school versus undergraduate and graduate educations. Participants’ preferred performance style influenced instrument association (X2 (6, N = 2295) = 73.32, p < .001), especially for the Ellington, Hawkins, and Rollins excerpts (tables 4.35 and 4.36).

Table 4.35: Performance Style Groups by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section Jazz 46.7% .1% 4.8% 48.5% Jazz and Other 48.3% 5.2% 3.5% 43.1% Jazz and Improvised Music 39.4% 1.9% 8.0% 50.7% Performance Style

Table 4.36: Performance Style Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Performance Style Jazz Jazz and Other Jazz and Improvised Music apr clb infg infr inst mus ng oth prs sty tm 20.3% 21.2% 2.3% 11.5% 6.0% 18.8% 1.2% 1.8% 2.6% 10.6% 3.6% 18.3% 16.8% .5% 12.0% 4.0% 22.1% 13.6% 1.1% 1.6% 7.8% 2.3% 17.4% 13.1% 3.1% 10.2% 13.9% 20.9% 6.9% .9% 1.9% 10.0% 1.7%

J (jazz) and JO (jazz and other) groups associated more melodic instrumentalists, whereas the JIM group associated composers, big bands, and nonmusicians (other). The criteria were also distributed differently between performance style groups (X2 (6, N = 2295) = 191.47, p < .001).

175 Overall, performance style affected agreement scores for name associations (F(2, 762) = 7.16, p = .001) and criteria (F(2, 762) = 4.42, p = .01), but not for instruments. Post hoc tests showed that the J group had higher name agreement scores than JO and JIM (jazz and improvised music) groups, notably for the Davis and Hancock excerpts. Similarly, the J group’s criteria agreement scores were noticeably higher than those for the JIM group for the Coltrane, Davis, and Pastorius excerpts. Finally, network properties and community affiliation judgments played a significant role in association task responses. Instrument distribution varied across HC groups (X2 (9, N = 2250) = 77.03, p < .001), particularly for the Hawkins excerpt. With respect to the criteria variable, HC group membership affected category distribution, with less effect on the Coltrane, Coleman and Parker excerpts (X2 (30, N = 2250) = 205.61, p < .001). Specifically, a larger percentage of HC group 3 and 4 participants associated musicians who played melodic instruments than did groups 1 and 2. ANOVAs indicated a main effect of HC group on name association (F(3, 746) = 3.27, p = .02) and criteria agreement scores, F(3, 746) = 5.10, p = .002). Tables 4.37 and 4.38 show these distributions.

Table 4.37: HC Groups by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association HC Group 1 2 3 4 Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section 48.0% .7% 5.3% 46.1% 42.5% 6.4% 3.7% 47.4% 43.3% .7% 7.3% 48.7% 47.4% .0% 4.4% 48.1%

176 Table 4.38: HC Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria HC Group 1 2 3 4 apr 19.5% 22.4% 12.9% 8.1% clb 18.3% 13.5% 22.4% 24.4% infg infr inst 1.2% 7.9% 8.2% 1.2% 12.6% 3.7% 3.8% 13.1% 11.6% 4.4% 28.9% 2.2% mus 22.5% 24.7% 14.4% .7% ng 7.3% 7.7% 6.4% 3.7% oth 1.1% 1.6% 1.1% 3.0% prs sty 1.3% 9.6% 2.1% 7.7% 3.1% 8.9% 5.2% 17.8% tm 3.1% 2.8% 2.2% 1.5%

GN cluster contrasts were observed for instrument association (X2 (6, N = 2250) = 72.67, p < .001), especially for the Armstrong, Davis, Hawkins and Roach excerpts. Likewise, criteria categories were distributed differently between GN clusters (X2 (20, N = 2250) = 79.83, p < .001). Name and criteria agreement score differences were found between GN clusters, F(2, 747) = 6.32, p = .002; F(2, 747) = 4.41, p = .01. Specifically, participants belonging to GN clusters 1 and 2 had higher agreement scores than those in GN cluster 3. Tables 4.39 and 4.40 specify the differences in response distribution between GN Clusters.

Table 4.39: GN Clusters by Instrument Association Cross-tabulation
Instrument Association GN Cluster 1 2 3 Melodic None Given Other Rhythm Section 47.4% .6% 5.7% 46.3% 44.2% 6.0% 2.9% 46.9% 42.2% .7% 7.2% 49.9%

Table 4.40: GN Clusters by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria GN Cluster 1 2 3 apr clb infg infr inst mus 19.6% 18.8% 1.3% 8.1% 7.5% 23.5% 20.8% 15.0% 1.4% 13.1% 4.3% 20.3% 13.8% 21.2% 4.2% 12.3% 12.1% 14.8% ng oth prs sty tm 6.2% 1.2% 1.9% 9.0% 2.8% 8.2% 1.7% 2.1% 10.4% 2.8% 7.2% 1.2% 3.0% 7.7% 2.5%

177 Chi-square tests showed that instruments and criteria were equally distributed across density groups (p > .05). Correspondingly, density did not affect agreement scores for any of the tasks (p > .05). Community affiliation had no effect on instrument category distribution for any excerpt; however, criteria and community affiliation were related (X2 (10, N = 2295) = 67.91, p < .001), notably for the Coleman, Davis, Mingus, and Monk excerpts. Table 4.41ß depicts the distribution of response for the two community affiliation groups.

Table 4.41: Community Affiliation Groups by Association Criteria Cross-tabulation
Association Criteria Community Affiliation >3 !3 apr clb infg infr 17.8% 18.0% 2.4% 12.0% 20.6% 17.3% 1.1% 10.3% inst mus 5.7% 24.5% 9.4% 14.2% ng oth prs sty tm 5.6% 1.6% 1.9% 8.2% 2.2% 8.9% .9% 2.4% 11.3% 3.4%

Mean comparisons showed affiliation group differences for name agreement scores, t(763) = 2.61, p = .01, but not for instrument or criteria. Post hoc evaluations showed that participants who rated themselves higher on community affiliation also had higher name agreement scores.

Ratings and Accuracy Mean typicality and influence ratings for the 15 excerpts were 4.54 (SD = 0.74) and 3.79 (SD = 1.03), respectively (table 4.42).

178 Table 4.42: Typicality and Influence Ratings
Excerpt Billie Holiday Miles Davis John Coltrane Jaco Pastorius Duke Ellington Wes Montgomery Louis Armstrong Thelonious Monk Ornette Coleman Coleman Hawkins Charlie Parker Sonny Rollins Herbie Hancock Coleman Hawkins Max Roach Total M Typicality 4.94 4.86 4.76 4.75 4.71 4.65 4.61 4.61 4.53 4.53 4.47 4.47 4.22 4.04 3.96 4.54 SD 0.24 0.40 0.51 0.63 0.70 0.59 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.81 0.95 0.86 0.99 1.00 0.89 0.74 Excerpt Miles Davis John Coltrane Thelonious Monk Charlie Parker Sonny Rollins Herbie Hancock Duke Ellington Ornette Coleman Coleman Hawkins Billie Holiday Louis Armstrong Coleman Hawkins Max Roach Wes Montgomery Jaco Pastorius Total M Influence 4.76 4.51 4.37 4.16 4.14 4.10 3.98 3.78 3.69 3.61 3.35 3.24 3.24 3.04 2.94 3.79 SD 0.47 0.73 0.80 1.03 1.02 1.04 0.97 1.27 1.14 1.08 1.13 1.23 1.14 1.25 1.14 1.03

As expected, influence ratings varied more than typicality ratings. The correlation analysis indicated a significant relationship between the two variables, r(763) = .34, p < .001. One-way ANOVAs yielded main effects of excerpt on typicality, F(14, 750) = 6.76, p < .001, and influence, F(14, 750) = 14.31, p < .001. Post hoc tests showed lower typicality ratings for the Roach and Mingus excerpts (p < .05). On the whole, participants were influenced the most by Davis, Coltrane, and Monk (p < .001). A two-way ANOVA indicated an interaction effect for excerpt and influence on typicality ratings, F(49, 697) = 1.80, p = .001. Overall, participants were quite accurate in their identification of musicians across all the excerpts (table 4.43).

179 Table 4.43: Performer Identification Accuracy
Excerpt Miles Davis John Coltrane Jaco Pastorius Duke Ellington Billie Holiday Louis Armstrong Thelonious Monk Ornette Coleman Wes Montgomery Charlie Parker Sonny Rollins Coleman Hawkins Charles Mingus Herbie Hancock Max Roach Total M Accuracy 100.00% 98.04% 98.04% 96.08% 96.08% 94.12% 92.16% 86.27% 86.27% 86.27% 80.39% 72.55% 70.59% 64.71% 39.22% 84.05% SD 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.30

The accuracy results showed main effects of excerpt (F(14, 750) = 12.60, p < .001), typicality (F(4, 760) = 106.27, p < .001), and influence (F(4, 760) = 25.06, p < .001) on accuracy. Twoway ANOVAs resulted in interaction effects of excerpt and typicality (F(38, 708) = 2.72, p < .001), excerpt and influence, (F(49, 697) = 1.93, p < .001), and typicality and influence (F(12, 744) = 3.96, p < .001). On average, the accuracy of performer identification was lowest for the Roach, Hancock, and Hawkins excerpts, and highest for the Davis, Coltrane, and Pastorius excerpts (p < .01). Excerpts rated higher on typicality (Holiday, Davis, Coltrane, Ellington) and influence (Davis, Coltrane, Monk) scales were identified more accurately than those rated lower on the scales. With regard to the interactions, participants performed worse on the excerpts that were rated lower on the typicality scale. It was more difficult to discern the direction of interaction between accuracy and influence ratings, since participants were extremely accurate (JP = 98.04%; MD = 100%) at identifying excerpts with both low (JP = 2.94) and high (MD = 4.76) influence ratings. This appears to be a ceiling effect. To explain the trends in accuracy, the

180 excerpts were categorized into two groups based on the performer’s role, either as the main melodic voice or a part of the rhythm section (table 4.44).

Table 4.44: Performer Instrument Categories
Excerpt Louis Armstrong Ornette Coleman John Coltrane Miles Davis Duke Ellington Herbie Hancock Coleman Hawkins Billie Holiday Charles Mingus Thelonious Monk Wes Montgomery Charlie Parker Jaco Pastorius Max Roach Sonny Rollins Instrument Category Melodic Melodic Melodic Melodic Rhythm Rhythm Melodic Melodic Rhythm Rhythm Rhythm Melodic Rhythm Rhythm Melodic

A matched-pairs t-test found a significant difference between accuracy means for melodic (M = .90, SD = .29) and rhythm section (M = .78, SD = .41) instruments, t(356) = 4.90, p < .001, suggesting that accuracy was best explained by performer instrument. These results revealed a number of correspondences between ratings, accuracy, and association task agreement scores. First of all, the correlation analysis showed little to no relationship between both ratings and the three association task agreement scores. However, oneway ANOVAs demonstrated a main effect of typicality ratings on agreement scores for name association, F(4, 760) = 6.86, p < .001, and instrument, F(4, 760) = 8.97, p < .001, but not for criteria, F(4, 760) = 1.88, p = .11. Post hoc comparisons showed higher name and instrument agreement scores for higher typicality ratings (p < .05). Likewise, there were main effects of

181 influence rating on agreement scores for instruments, F(4, 760) = 8.09, p < .001, and criteria, F(4, 760) = 4.65, p = .001, but not for names, F(4, 760) = 1.43, p = .22. Two-way ANOVAs showed no interaction effects of ratings on agreement scores (p > .32). Finally, independent ttests revealed disparities for name agreement scores between accurate (M = 17.79, SD = 10.60) and inaccurate (M = 12.96, SD = 8.44) respondents, t(763) = -4.76, p < .001, but showed the opposite for instrument agreement scores, t(763) = 7.31, p < .001 (Accurate M = 180.68, SD = 103.39; Inaccurate M = 256.68; SD = 114.43). There were no differences in criteria agreement scores between participants who were accurate (M = 75.03, SD = 29.99) and inaccurate (M = 71.15, SD = 29.34), t(763) = -1.316, p = .19. Typicality ratings depended on network characteristics more than on demographic attributes. Overall, no differences in age, experience, instrument, and education groups were observed; however, excerpt comparisons showed higher typicality ratings for the Monk excerpt in the older age group (p = .04), and for the Ellington excerpt in the higher education groups (p = .03). These results illustrated performance style group differences (F(2, 762) = 6.23, p = .002), such that respondents who submitted jazz and jazz and other as their primary style found excerpts to be more typical than did respondents who perform jazz and improvised music. HC group and GN cluster membership had main effects on typicality ratings, F(3, 746) = 4.65, p = .003 and F(2, 747) = 4.88, p = .008, respectively. Post hoc tests found that this effect was especially pronounced for the Monk, Montgomery, and Parker excerpts (p < .02). Community affiliation judgments had no effect on typicality ratings, t(763) = 1.82, p = .07. As with the typicality ratings, participant attributes mildly affected influence ratings. Age and experience had no effect on influence ratings (p > .40). Education group had a main effect on the ratings, F(2, 762) = 4.68, p = .01, such that lower education groups had higher ratings (p <

182 .01). Overall, there was no effect of instrument group on influence ratings, but excerpt comparisons showed that melodic instrumentalists rated Hawkins as more influential (t(49) = 2.29, p = .02); the same effect was found with rhythm section players for Montgomery, (t(49) = 2.07, p = .04). Preferred performance style strongly affected influence ratings, F(2, 762) = 11.42, p < .001, especially for Armstrong, Hancock, Montgomery, Parker, and Pastorius. Particularly, the jazz and jazz only groups considered these performers as more influential to them than did the jazz and improvised music group. Both network clusters affected influence ratings, F(3, 746) = 9.60, p < .001 and F(2, 747) = 3.71, p = .03. Post hoc tests indicated lower influence ratings in HC groups 3 and 4, and GN cluster 3. This effect was particularly strong for Pastorius and Hancock. There were no density or community affiliation group differences in influence ratings (p > .20). Accuracy scores differed between age, experience, and performance style groups, but not between instrument, and education groups, or any network property groups. Participants over 30 were more accurate than those under 30, t(763) = 3.02, p = .003, especially for the Monk and Parker excerpts (p < .04). Those with more experience performed better on the identification task than those with less, t(763) = 2.14, p = .03. Even though there were no overall instrument group contrasts, excerpt comparisons showed that melodic instrumentalists were better than rhythm section players at identifying the Hawkins excerpt, t(49) = 2.14, p = .04. Performance style groups jazz and jazz only were generally more accurate than the jazz and improvised music group, F (2, 762) = 2.55, p = .04, especially for Ellington and Parker, but not for Monk and Mingus (p < .05).

183 Summary of Results Results from the association task indicate that participants’ responses depended on a combination of stimulus characteristics and participant attributes. First of all, names, instruments, and criteria differed significantly between excerpts. Name associations tended to include musicians directly67 or indirectly68 related to the stimulus. Examples of direct associations were Bill Evans (Davis), Jim Hall (Rollins), and Tommy Flanagan (Coltrane), as contributions by each musician were heard on the excerpt recordings. Indirect associations included Ella Fitzgerald (Holiday), Lester Young (Hawkins), Count Basie (Ellington), and Art Blakey (Roach). Each of these artists can be considered contemporaries of the performers, and moreover, their contributions were not present on the excerpts. Likewise, instrument associations tended to relate directly to those performers heard on the excerpts. Examples of this phenomenon were the overrepresentation of drummers for Roach, bassists for Mingus, vocalists for Holiday, and big band artists for Ellington. Six of the excerpts69 included solos from saxophone players, thus this was the instrument that was revealed most in the results. Association criteria depended on the performers in the excerpt. For instance, the majority of responses for the Armstrong excerpt were based on style, while the majority of responses for the Hawkins, Montgomery, and Rollins excerpts were based on concrete musical features. These disparities suggest that participants conceptualized performers quite differently. Second, the patterns of agreement for each association variable differed between excerpts. Overall, agreement scores for names were the lowest, while those for instruments were the highest. More participants named the same musicians for the Holiday, Davis, and Hawkins
67 68

Such that the respondent listed a musician on the recording. Such that the respondent listed a musician related to the performer or recording. 69 Coleman, Coltrane, Ellington, Hawkins, Parker, and Rollins.

184 excerpts, while less did such for the Monk excerpt. The highest instrument agreement scores were observed for the Roach excerpt and lowest for the Ellington excerpt. Interestingly, these two excerpts represented extreme opposites in instrument density; participants only heard drums in the Roach excerpt, while they heard an entire big band for the Ellington excerpt. Likewise, criteria agreement scores were lowest for the Ellington excerpt. Criteria agreement scores were highest for the Davis excerpt. As with the categorical data, larger criteria agreement scores suggest that participants had similar ways of thinking about the excerpts. Third, the nine participant characteristics appeared to affect responses to certain excerpts in the association task. Age affected criteria more than instrument categories, but had no effect on agreement scores. Overall, older participants wrote more about collaboration in their association explanations, while younger participants focused more on musical characteristics. Participant instrument group affected the instrument more than the criteria variable. Specifically, the participant instrument group matched the instrument association group. Name agreement scores were only affected for particular excerpts, but they were larger when participant and performer instrument groups matched. Experience affected criteria more than instrument responses. In particular, participants with less musical experience tended to explain associations with musical reasons, while experienced participants wrote more about instrument groups and also left many responses blank. Overall, participants with less experience responded with more typical criteria than those with more experience. Education had less of an effect on the association task; however, participants with more formal education tended to include style as a criteria more than those with less. In addition, respondents with high school educations referred to musical approach more than those with higher education. Preferred performance style affected name, instrument, and criteria responses. Jazz and jazz only groups tended to list more melodic

185 instrumentalists, while the jazz and improvised music group listed more rhythm section instrumentalists. Criteria were based on collaboration information for the jazz and jazz other groups, and on instrument for the jazz and improvised music group. Furthermore, performance style had a profound influence on name and criteria agreement scores, such that the jazz and jazz other groups responded more conventionally than did the jazz and improvised music group. In general, the network attributes had a significant impact on responses to the association task. HC group and GN cluster membership influenced the categorical distribution for instruments, but more so for criteria. HC Group 2 focused more on musical approach, while groups 3 and 4 on collaboration and style, and group 1 on time period. Likewise, GN cluster 1 explained their responses in musical terms more than the other two groups, while GN cluster 3 with information about the performers’ collaborations. GN cluster 2 provided more style criteria than the other two groups. Name and criteria agreement scores were influenced by network groupings, such that HC groups 1 and 2 and GN clusters 1 and 2 provided more typical responses than did HC groups 3 and 4 and GN cluster 3. Density and community affiliation had little to no effect on task responses; however, slight differences in instrument distribution were found between density groups and in criteria distribution between affiliation groups. Higher community affiliation judgments produced higher name agreement scores, but no other effect was observed. Accuracy, typicality, and influence ratings significantly interacted and affected the task. Ratings and accuracy varied between excerpts; Holiday and Roach had the highest and lowest typicality ratings, Davis and Pastorius had the highest and lowest influence ratings, and Davis and Roach had the highest and lowest accuracy scores. Influence and typicality were slightly related, and both ratings had a combined effect on accuracy, such that more influential performers and typical excerpts were more accuracy identified. In addition, melody-instrument

186 performers were identified more accurately than rhythm section performers. Name and instrument agreement scores were higher for more typical excerpts, while instrument and criteria scores were higher for more influential performers. Accurate participants listed more similar names and fewer similar instruments than inaccurate participants. Lastly, certain attributes slightly affected task ratings and accuracy. Performance style preference, HC group, and GN cluster affected typicality ratings, while education, preferred performance style, HC group, and GN cluster had an effect on influence ratings. Overall, task accuracy was slightly influenced by age, experience, and performance style groups.

Descriptor-Matching Task Overview The final task required participants to match 3 musical descriptors, from a list of 24, to each performer prompt. As was the case with the association task, the following discussion will consider both categorical and continuous data for performer prompts. Moreover, it will show disparities between education and performance style preferences, as well as interactions with ratings and accuracy from the association task.

Analysis Procedures As previously mentioned, the list of musical descriptors was developed by collating and coding free response descriptions from the pilot study.70 Below (table 4.45) is the list of the 24 descriptors participants were instructed to match to the 15 performer name prompts, as well as the codes used in data analysis.

Conventionalized terminology from jazz history and theory texts was also used to develop the descriptor categories (Jaffe, 1983; Levine, 1995; Gioia, 1998).

187 Table 4.45: Musical Descriptors and Codes
Descriptor Articulation Blues Influence Communication and Interaction Composition and Orchestration Consonance Contour Dissonance Emotion and Expression Extramusical Association Groove Harmony and Tonality Improvisational Creativity Lyricism Melodicism Phrasing Repetitiveness Rhythm Risk-taking Structure Time Timbre Texture Voice-leading Virtuosity Code artc blu cmint cmpor cons cont diss emoex extrm gro hmtn impcr lyr mel phras rep rhy risk struc time tmb txt vcld virt

The data for the 153 responses (3 descriptors for each prompt) were analyzed in ways similar to those used for the association task: nominal categories, frequency scores, and agreement scores. To examine the relationship between descriptor categories and performer prompts, a Chi-square test was calculated in the cross-tabulation function. Frequency scores were computed to show distributions of chosen descriptors within and between performer prompts. In addition, the frequency scores for each descriptor were summed to provide each participant with a cumulative agreement score. The differences in agreement scores between prompts were assessed with oneway ANOVAs and LSD post hoc tests.

188 Determining what, if any, associations existed between participant attributes and matched descriptors required the use of several statistical procedures. As with the association task, continuous attributes were divided into groups in order to carry out t-test and ANOVA comparisons (table 4.2). First, a Chi-square analysis was performed to look at between-attribute category distributions for descriptors within performer prompts. Through this test I aimed to find out any relationships between attributes and the descriptors chosen by participants. Multiple between groups t-tests and ANOVAs were employed to assess the relationship between attributes and agreement scores, using attributes as the groups. Finally, the data were analyzed to see whether descriptor categories and agreement scores depended on performer-rated influence and association task accuracy. Cross-tabulations procedures applied the Chi-square statistic to the categorical data, while independent t-tests calculated between-group (accurate versus not accurate) differences for matching agreement scores.

Results The responses to the descriptor-matching task demonstrated clear differences between performer prompts (table 4.46).

Table 4.46: Descriptor-Prompt Matches
Term phras emoex tmb blu impcr virt gro hmtn artc cmpor mel rhy lyr risk time diss struc cont cmint txt extrm vcld cons rep LA 18 16 13 21 8 8 0 1 15 1 13 6 11 5 4 1 1 0 3 0 2 2 4 0 OC 5 16 8 18 19 1 1 1 4 6 10 1 7 21 0 13 4 3 6 3 4 1 0 1 JC 5 14 12 9 16 27 0 31 2 2 3 1 4 6 2 1 4 3 4 1 4 1 0 1 MD 23 21 22 3 10 1 5 2 3 4 12 0 15 12 3 0 1 5 6 2 3 0 0 0 DE 5 10 4 5 3 0 8 13 3 49 8 7 8 1 1 2 8 1 2 7 4 3 0 1 HH 14 3 1 1 10 9 18 26 3 7 6 7 4 3 2 3 4 7 9 7 2 7 0 0



CH 21 8 24 9 4 4 2 8 7 0 19 2 11 4 2 0 6 8 1 2 0 5 6 0

BH 30 39 25 19 4 2 0 0 4 0 3 4 15 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0

CM 8 13 2 17 8 8 11 4 6 30 2 4 2 15 6 6 3 0 1 4 3 0 0 0

TM 11 7 3 5 14 2 0 8 15 11 4 15 1 12 2 30 5 0 0 1 1 3 0 3

WM 17 2 10 22 3 6 28 6 9 1 8 8 2 0 5 1 4 4 2 4 1 6 2 2

CP 10 6 4 24 17 26 0 9 10 0 9 7 8 3 8 0 3 4 0 0 0 3 1 1

JP 7 9 17 0 10 35 17 4 9 1 2 4 7 3 7 0 1 5 0 6 9 0 0 0

MR 14 3 7 1 7 11 16 0 12 2 2 28 1 2 26 1 8 1 6 3 0 0 0 2

SR 21 5 11 5 15 5 10 3 13 1 12 16 4 10 4 0 3 4 3 1 0 2 2 3

Sum 209 172 163 159 148 145 116 116 115 115 113 110 100 98 74 58 56 46 43 43 34 33 15 14

SD 7.62 9.43 8.00 8.61 5.30 10.84 8.75 9.26 4.56 13.77 5.05 7.36 4.70 6.12 6.25 8.01 2.31 2.55 2.80 2.33 2.40 2.31 1.81 1.10

An ANOVA yielded a main effect of descriptors on frequency score, F(23, 336) = 4.28, p < .001. LSD post hoc tests showed that participants used phrasing, emotion and expression, timbre, blues influence, improvisational creativity, and virtuosity the most, and repetitiveness, consonance, voice-leading, extramusical association, texture, communication and interaction, contour, structure, dissonance, and time the least (p < .05). Cross-tabulation and Chi-square procedures revealed significant differences in cell counts between performer prompts, X2 (322, N


As a reminder, the descriptor terms (in order of this chart) were: phrasing, emotion and expression, timbre, blues influence, improvisational creativity, virtuosity, groove, harmony and tonality, articulation, composition and orchestration, melodicism, rhythm, lyricism, risk taking, time, dissonance, structure, contour, communication and interaction, texture, extramusical association, voice-leading, consonance, and repetitiveness.

190 = 2295) = 2103.82, p < .001, indicating uniquely matched descriptors for each prompt. For instance, more participants matched blues influence and phrasing to the Armstrong prompt, while more participants matched emotion and expression and phrasing to the Holiday prompt. Rhythm and time were most likely to be paired with the Roach prompt than any other prompt. Agreement scores for each performer prompt are included in table 4.47.

Table 4.47: Descriptor-Matching Agreement Scores
Prompt Billie Holiday Duke Ellington John Coltrane Max Roach Jaco Pastorious Miles Davis Charlie Parker Thelonious Monk Charles Mingus Wes Montgomery Coleman Hawkins Louis Armstrong Ornette Coleman Herbie Hancock Sonny Rollins Mean M Agreement Score 72.65 61.67 49.55 47.31 47.08 43.43 42.69 42.14 40.84 40.76 38.88 38.18 37.90 35.63 33.82 44.84 SD 16.20 9.01 15.29 15.64 14.56 12.72 13.06 12.47 13.22 16.26 12.16 9.56 10.56 12.37 9.78 12.86

A one-way ANOVA yielded an F(14, 750) value of 31.38, indicating a main effect for prompt on overall agreement score (p < .001). Post hoc tests indicated higher agreement for the Holiday, Ellington, Coltrane, Roach, and Pastorius prompts (p < .01), and lower, but still significant, agreement for the Rollins prompt (p < .05).

191 Participant Attribute, Accuracy, and Influence Rating Effects On the whole, only a few of the participant attributes influenced the categorical matching data for specific prompts. The Chi-square tests for all of the matching data revealed no distribution differences between groups of age, instrument, experience, education, preferred style, HC group, GN cluster, density, or community affiliation (p > .20). Agreement score comparisons demonstrated statistically significant effects for only 2 of the participant attributes. T-tests indicated no significant effect of the following attribute groups: age, instrument, experience, density, and community affiliation (p > .90). Likewise, an ANOVA analysis yielded no overall main effects of HC group GN cluster on agreement scores (p > .90). However, significant agreement score differences were found between education (F(2, 762) = 3.60, p = .03) and performance style (F(2, 762) = 2.80, p = .05) groups. Post hoc tests showed reliably higher agreement scores for participants with regard to educational background; note the levels for graduate (M = 45.42, SD = 16.53) and undergraduate (M = 45.56, SD = 16.28) education versus high school (M = 41.18, SD = 15.63) (p < .05). In addition, post hoc comparisons resulted in higher scores for participants who listed jazz and jazz and other (M = 46.24, SD = 16.25), as opposed to jazz and improvised music (M = 42.66, SD = 15.92), as their primary style of performances (p < .05). A two-way ANOVA analysis showed an interaction of prompt and education group on agreement scores, F(28, 720) = 1.42, p = .05, but not of prompt and performance style (p > .90). This implies that the extent to which participants agreed on their responses depended on an interdependent relationship between the performer prompt and the participants’ level of education, but not their preferred performance style. There were several relationships between the association task ratings (typicality and influence), accuracy, and the descriptor task responses. Chi-square analysis results showed a

relationship between descriptor category and task accuracy (X (23, N = 2295) = 54.71, p = .02) as well as influence ratings (X2(92, 2295) = 123.74, p = .02. The difference in agreement scores for participants in the association task accurate group (M = 45.23, SD = 16.64) versus those in the inaccurate group (M = 42.75, SD = 14.26), approached significance t(763) = 1.54, p = .06. Significant between-influence group differences were found for agreement scores, such that higher, versus moderate and low, influence ratings were associated with higher agreement scores, F(2, 762) = 4.23, p = .02. A two-way ANOVA revealed no interaction between accuracy and influence ratings on agreement scores (p = .13).



Summary of Results As was the case with the association task, the responses to the matching task depended on both performer prompts and participant characteristics. First, descriptor differences were related to the conventional identities of each performer, which will be discussed in detail in the final chapter. An example of this was the observation that rhythm and time were matched to the drummer Max Roach, who, as a performer, fulfilled the conventional role of keeping time in an ensemble as well as providing rhythmic variation. Second, agreement scores varied between prompts, which suggests that certain performers, such as Holiday, Ellington, Coltrane, and Roach, may be easier to define given the 24 descriptors. It might be suggested that these patterns are due to these musicians’ well-defined presence in the standard jazz canon – authors of texts agree on their contributions to the history of jazz (Gioia, 1997; Martin & Waters, 2002). Participant attributes had a significant effect only on certain prompts with regard to the categorical data. This pattern of results suggests that the effect was slight but not strong enough to generalize across excerpts. Agreement scores differed between education and preferred

193 performance style groups, indicating that formalized knowledge of the performers may play a role in cognitive processing. Finally, there was a significant relationship between agreement scores and influence ratings, and a smaller relationship between agreement scores and accuracy. Performers who were rated higher on the influence scale received higher agreement scores for the task. In addition, performers who were identified correctly had slightly higher agreement scores.

Comparison of Participant Attribute Influences Since participant attributes had a varied effect on task responses, a comprehensive look illustrates commonalities between tasks. Table 4.48 depicts the impact of participant attributes and stimulus-related information on categorical responses, while table 4.49 shows the same for collated agreement scores.

Table 4.48: Comparison of Influential Factors on Categorical Data72

Factor Excerpt/Prompt Age Experience Instrument Education Perf. Style HC Group GN Cluster Density Comm. Aff.

Clustering Profiles n/a + + + n/a n/a + -

Instrument Association + + + + + + + + -

Association Criteria + + + + + + + + +

Descriptor + -


The plus sign (+) indicates a significant relationship between the two variables, while the minus sign (-) symbolizes the opposite. No directionality is implied in these tables.

194 Table 4.49: Comparison of Influential Factors on Continuous Data (Agreement Scores)

Factor Excerpt/Prompt Typicality Influence Accuracy Age Experience Instrument Education Perf. Style HC Group GN Cluster Density Comm. Aff.

Name A.S. + + + + + + +

Inst A.S. + + + + -

Criteria A.S. + + + + + + -

Descriptor A.S. + + + + + -

A closer scrutiny of the tables reveals the impact of excerpt or prompt on all forms of data (collaborator, association, and descriptor matching tasks) and the apparent differences between the association and descriptor tasks. This finding will be explored further in the next chapter.

Chapter Summary The results of the collaborator, association, and descriptor-matching tasks provide a broad view of professional musicians’ cognitive representations of eminent performers, as seen with both audio excerpts and simple prompts by performer name. The results of the collaborator task uncovered distinct relations between cluster groups and participant attributes. The participants’ associative responses illustrated patterns directly or indirectly related to the excerpt, the instrument of the soloist, and at least 13 criterion categories. Moreover, participants’ associations with the excerpts and prompts depended on many factors, including age, experience, instrument, education, performance style, and community affiliation – it is notable that the effects of the latter were the strongest. An analysis of the descriptor data revealed significant

195 effects of prompt, education, and performance style on the pairing of musical qualities with performer prompts. The association and descriptor tasks were also affected by complex interactions between typicality, influence, and identification accuracy. More detailed interpretations of these results will be provided in the next chapter.


Introduction: Review of Objectives and Chapter Overview Thus far, I have presented evidence for the associative representations of music, which professional musicians use, and have addressed the influence of attributes and community variables on these systems. In so doing, my methodologies and results have incorporated views from a variety of disciplinary viewpoints, including those of cognitive psychology, ethnomusicology, and music cognition. The literature in each of these fields illustrates the complexity of interactions between cognitive mechanisms of interpretation and memory – but, the processes and representative capacity of associative representations in music has been practically ignored. The goals of this final chapter are to tie together the previously described research, methodological features, and overall results, and to give some summary of aspects of the cognitive processing of jazz, as well as to evaluate the impact of community affiliations on these cognitive processes. To frame the discussion, the previous chapters’ objectives are reiterated below: How are responses to the collaboration, association, and descriptormatching tasks explained in light of previous studies in social network analysis, cognitive and cultural psychology, and music cognition? How do the results from this dissertation contribute to the study of cognitive and cultural psychology, as well as music cognition, and what future directions are indicated? What practical benefits does this research offer to educators?

197 These questions will be addressed in turn. The results of the present study will first be examined in the light of prior research. Next, a comprehensive overview of this study’s three tasks will be sketched, along with suggestions as to how these results might advance research into musicians’ cognitive associations for music and the community-based influences on their cognitive structures and behaviors in music. The last section discusses the application of these findings to jazz education and, more broadly, to the understanding of the general impact of communities on musicians’ lives.

Interpretation of Results Collaborator Task: Network Properties of Jazz Communities The collaborator task used methods of social network analysis (SNA) to provide unique, systematic measures of community structure and affiliation. Some psychological studies tend to classify participants based on their responses to ratings on attitudinal and self-identity statements (Heider, 1944), but this study attempted to expand on this by using more concrete questions about particular individuals in musicians’ collaborative circles. The participants were queried on their collaborative ties to professional musicians by listing 20 names and specifying how often they discussed music with and how well they knew each musician. Although the sampling procedures used here limited the analysis of this data as a typical social network, the results still uncovered significant structural properties and patterns of connections between musicians. Structural network properties, including geodesic distances, degrees, and correlations between actor ties can be related to small world and jazz musician studies in the SNA literature. Milgram (1967) identified clusters in a unique field study involving chain mail, in which he observed the average length of time and number of people required to reach a particular

destination. His results showed a “small world effect,” in which clusters were connected by an average path length of 5.5, and that a small number of “hub persons” supplied the integral links to the destination. This advanced the notion of small communities and the connections between them in the study of social networks. In the present study, the average geodesic distance74 was 4.03 for the whole sample; thus, the shortest distance between any two musicians in the network was approximately 4 ties. This is perhaps due to this study’s sampling technique; the total set of connections between all 461 musicians were not known. The average geodesic distance for the 51 participants was 2.30. As expected, professional musicians working in the same metropolitan area are more closely connected than the acquaintances in Milgrim’s original small network study. Related to this, in a study of jazz recordings between 1912 and 1940,75 Gleiser and Danon (2003) observed an average distance of 2.79 between approximately 1275 musicians. If they had collected artifacts from live performances (e.g. programs, recordings) to supplement the data, the average distances might have been even smaller, as found in the present study. The smaller distance found here may also be explained by the high music discussion and friendship ratings; in other words, collaborations in this study were characterized by closer relationships built up from conversation and bonding activities beyond those of previously studied groups. This study’s additional network statistics confirmed a moderate average density for the 51 participants (0.37), markedly higher than in the 461-node network (0.03). Other sampling and data collection techniques would most likely increase the proportion of observed to actual ties, revealing higher density values (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).




296 letters were sent out to participants, and only 64 reached their destination at Milgram’s residence in Massachusetts. 74 This can also be referred to as average path length. 75 Data were drawn from personnel information on Red Hot Jazz Archive digital database recordings.

199 Measures of centrality illustrate the extent of social power evident in a network. In this study, the average degree (k) between musician collaborators was 60.71, similar to the value of 60.30 specified by Gleiser and Danon (2003). Their observations also indicated that certain musicians, including Eddie Lang (k = 415), Frankie Trumbauer (k = 307), and Louis Armstrong (k = 262), had more ties than other musicians. In the present study, we see parallels for DM (k = 112), QK (k = 103), DT (k = 91), and PM (k = 86),76 who were all male rhythm section players and who specified that they prefer to play a variety of musical styles77 (e.g. jazz and other and jazz and improvised music). In a recent SNA project at the University of Michigan, Giaquinto et al. (2009) studied collaborations between jazz musicians in 1959. Their results show that musicians with the highest degree centrality were also all rhythm section players, including Paul Chambers (k = 169), Wynton Kelly (k = 99), Jimmy Cobb (k = 97), and Philly Joe Jones (k = 70). They stated that “being part of a well-connected community and being able to cross musical style boundaries seem to be a good way of being central in jazz” (p. 3).78 This finding supports the notion that musicians who are musically flexible and concerned with group dynamics79 are sought out more than those who are not (MacDonald & Wilson, 2005). MacDonald and Wilson (2005) also theorized that this general trend relates to constructed identities and conventionalized roles in jazz.


It is also noticeable that DM and PM had the highest values of closeness to other musicians, although this was not included in the network analysis. 77 This result can also be explained by the sampling procedures, which caused an overrepresentation of a certain type of musician, namely male, white, and living on the North-Side of Chicago. 78 The authors of this study might consider the difference between being musically and stylistically flexible; musicians who were deemed musically flexible, such as the example of Paul Chambers, seemed to be more central than musicians who crossed style boundaries. 79 This is not to say that “frontline” players (e.g. horns) are not concerned with blending of group dynamics; the urgency of this connection is simply heightened for rhythm section players. This finding is also in line with the colloquial observation that rhythm section players “get more work.”

200 This study’s results were also comparable to previous research on creative artists. Smith (2006) compared the network properties of several populations, including rappers, movie actors, board directors, and Brazilian pop musicians. Degree-degree correlations between artists were relatively moderate for board directors (0.28) and movie actors (0.21), but lower for jazz musicians and rappers (0.06 and 0.05, respectively). The correlations found for the present study (0.04) are almost exactly equal to these lower values. Uzzi (2008) explained this trend as reflecting the extent to which the most connected artists collaborate, such that higher values indicate more collaboration between these individuals. In cases where the value is lower, Uzzi commented, “…assortative mixing levels may be limited when the unique creative styles of superstars may be incompatible” (2008, p. 4).80 Established musicians with more connections may not have the creative energy to work with each other, resulting in a more dispersed pattern of interaction with musicians. This study indicates that this may be the case for musicians in various Chicago jazz and improvised music communities.

Jazz Communities as Attribute-Related Clusters Previous studies have commented on the structure of communities, or tight-knit clusters, revealed in social networks (Gleiser & Danon, 2003; Girvan & Newman, 2002; Arenas et al., 2004). Here, hierarchical clustering (HC), Girvan-Newman clustering (GN), and density measures indicated that three unequal, different communities form a part of the Chicago jazz and improvised-music network. The HC algorithm grouped musicians into 5 clusters,81 whereas the GN method provided three (figure 4.3). This study’s number of final clusters was based on the

According to Uzzi (2008), assortative mixing is directly measured by the degree-degree correlation, and higher assortativity values indicate more connections between well-connected actors. 81 HC iteration 211 placed musicians who were less likely to be named in cluster 4, and one pendant, which was excluded from additional analyses, in cluster 5.

observation that the clusters joined together after the removal of broker nodes, including both participants (e.g. BP) and non-participants. Even though SNA studies typically analyze the clusters as separate components (Giaqinto et al., 2009), the present study differed because of the large number of liaisons and representatives.83 Even though some of the participants assumed these roles in the network, most of their ties seemed to come from the community to which they belonged, structurally speaking. In other words, only one or two of their ties came were directed to or from outside communities (e.g. DM, PM, QK). In their article, Arenas and colleagues (2004) assert that “there is no characteristic community size,” and that separation of these communities depends on various hierarchical levels, each organized in a similar way. Here, the 4 HC groups and 3 GN clusters were likewise unequal in size, and furthermore, there were many hierarchic levels, especially provided by the HC algorithm, included in the results. This confirms the notion that jazz communities, like others, are composed of subgroups, which are themselves composed of smaller subgroups, were further composed of pairs of collaborators, and finally composed of individuals. This study further showed that community groups related to self-ratings of community affiliation and density values, as well as to participant attributes of age and preferred performance style. The correlation between self-ratings and density values indicates high agreement between systematic surveys, observations, and cognition of the self, which some studies have disputed (Krackhardt & Porter, 1985; Krackhardt 1987a). Regarding participant attributes, Gleiser and Danon (2003) found that communities of jazz musicians and bands from



Those with higher betweenness-centrality, who held special contact positions “between” clusters, or who were connected to more than one cluster. 83 Hanneman and Riddle (2005) discuss several types of brokerages, including liaisons, relations between groups of which they are not a part of, and representatives, who are the “contact people” of the group from the perspective of the outsider. These roles were not discussed further, since the ultimate purpose of using SNA was to group musicians into clusters rather than analyze structural and organizing factors.

202 the 1920s correlated significantly with geographical location of recording (e.g. Chicago, NY) and race; however, Giaquinto and colleagues (2009) showed that modern jazz similarity networks84 were influenced by other attributes, namely: • • • • • • • Vocal jazz Jazz influenced by other genres like Rock, Funk, and Pop Contemporary Jazz Smooth Jazz Latin Jazz Post Bop Avant-Garde Jazz (p. 5)

With the exception of “Vocal jazz,” which reflects a particular instrumentation, these components are separated by differences in genre. Another study (Killworth et al., 1990) indicated that age played a significant role in the formation and size of personal networks. Even though the present study did not collect information on personal circles as the Killworth study did, the amount of correspondence is similar, considering the high friendship ratings. On a personal note, as a participant-observer of performance and social events, I have frequently overheard musicians elaborate on how close they are to those with whom they share musical experiences. The influence of age in the present study, then, may reflect participants’ personal preferences of performing with musicians in one’s social circle rather than pursuing purely professional relationships. Or, the effect may pull in the opposite direction, whereby accumulated musical experiences create opportunities for personal friendships. In a study of classical-musician networks, Stebbins (1989) hypothesized that multiple identities, such as “orchestral identities” (e.g. section member, concertmaster), “instrumental identities” (e.g. brass, string, reed), and “performance identities” (e.g. orchestra, chamber group, solo), result in “shared concerns” (p. 230). For example, violinists tend to be closer to one another in network

Drawn from recommendations provided by the All Music Guide.

203 relationships because of proximity and rehearsal time; and concertmasters are “more likely to establish ties with players outside their occupational stations” because of “social-class dimensions” (p. 239). Although Stebbins’ results were variable among identities, social roles have been seen as a driving force in social relationships (Morgan & Spanish, 1985; Morgan & Schwalbe, 1990). Further research on the dynamic qualities of such relationships will be required in the future to understand how the formation of musical identities shapes collaborative practice.

Association Task: Semantic Memory for Eminent Jazz Performers The responses to this study’s association task were interpreted above as indicators of semantic memory content and structure for eminent recordings. In addition, the impact of participant attributes and affiliations were evaluated using statistical measures. The participants were asked to associate 3 musician names with each excerpt (15) and to provide self-reflections of their approach during the task. They also guessed the main performer in the excerpt, and after the correct answer was revealed, they rated the excerpt’s typicality and the influence of the performer on their music. The ensuing coding procedures resulted in two forms of data, qualitative categories and quantitative agreement scores, both related to excerpts as well as attribute, accuracy, and rating variables. The analysis of these data through descriptive and inductive statistical procedures showed multiple complex interaction patterns between all these variables, thereby indicating that the process of assigning referential meaning depends not only on absolute features of the stimulus, but also on affiliation-specific representations. Overall, the participants in this study associated a broad range of names with the experiment’s excerpts, demonstrating a diversity of associative listening styles. Although the variability in names, instruments, and criteria are in opposition to the clear-cut definitions and

204 category boundaries found in word studies, one can discern some aspects of internal structures for performer categories (Rosch, 1975). Each excerpt primed associations that were relevant to a performer’s identity; thus, responses reflected on an integration of excerpt features (directly related) and biographical information (indirectly related). Associations that directly depended on excerpt information included musicians on the album from which the excerpt was extracted, notably, Miles Davis’ Kind of Blue and Ornette Coleman’s The Shape of Jazz to Come. Both of these recordings have been accredited the status of iconic albums that shaped the development of the jazz genre. Just after its release, reviewers praised Kind of Blue as “a remarkable album,” one that “will never be duplicated” (Down Beat, 1959; Garrigues, 1959). Despite its apparent melodic and harmonic simplicity, the album impacted musicians and the commercial market (Carr, 1999; Kahn, 2000; Nisenson, 2001). In an interview conducted by Kahn (2000), Herbie Hancock reflected on the album’s influence on his generation of musicians: “It presented a doorway for the musicians of my generation, the first doorway that we were exposed to in our lifetimes…When Kind of Blue came out, I had never even conceived…another approach to playing jazz” (p. 179). According to Kahn, the album sold over 87,000 copies by 1962 – an unheard of feat for the jazz industry – and since then, it has sold millions, making it a multi-platinum recording. The Shape of Jazz to Come has received similar praise from musicians, but has had less impact on the commercial market. Ake (2002) linked the music of this group to the first installments of “free jazz,” and interpreted the composition Lonely Woman as challenging “accepted notions of masculinity in jazz” (p. 25). These assessments by critics and historians, when considering this study’s evidence of musicians’ associations of excerpts with performers on the albums, shows that musicians’ representations for eminent performers include album-related information. Professional jazz musicians have developed categories for each of

205 these albums, primed by the excerpts, each with a unique set of items, related directly to the album (Medin & Shaffer, 1978). This categorized organization relies on a literal representation of an item (e.g. Ornette Coleman’s solo on Lonely Woman), which allows for further retrieval of category content (e.g. Don Cherry, Charlie Haden, Billy Higgins). Indirect associations, as found in this study, included musicians who did not perform on the albums, but were related by instrument or collaborator matches. The effect was particularly clear for the Roach, Montgomery, Monk, Holiday, Mingus, and Hawkins excerpts. Two possibilities could explain these tendencies. First, the presence of the performer, relative to other instrumentalists in the excerpt, may have influenced the responses; the Roach and Mingus excerpts only included drums and bass solos, and musicians associated with the excerpt were musicians who played drums and bass, respectively. Second, the participants may have been unsure about the performer’s identity, so information regarding biographical, or collaborator information was less primed for retrieval. The low accuracy scores for the Roach and Mingus excerpts lend support to this theory; but, it does not hold up for the other excerpts. The responses here may be related to Quillian’s (1969) token and type nodes for a network structure, which includes semantic similarity, dictionary-type content, and active control over retrieval (Collins & Loftus, 1975). Two responses that exemplify this structure are: Wallace Roney isa type of Miles Davis, and King Oliver isa type of Louis Armstrong. The feature comparison model emphasizes the necessary features similar to both musicians, such as “plays the same instrument,” “has a distinctive tone,” or “learned from the same teachers” (Smith et al., 1974). Other examples, such as the Duke Ellington—Billy Strayhorn or Coleman Hawkins—Lester Young association, rely on more specific links, such as “worked with” or “was a contemporary of.” In previous studies, additional types of links are not situated at this level in the network hierarchy (Collins & Loftus,

206 1975); however, short distances between items and strong local clustering are two characteristics unique to the kind of “small-world” structure evidenced in the present study (Steyvers & Tenenbaum, 2005). This kind of detail is commonplace in models of semantic memory for musicians, since they tend to engage higher-level thought processes in their interactions with recorded music (Bangert et al., 2003). Moreover, the responses of this study’s participants relied not only the extraction of features in the stimulus, but also on information about the album personnel, which supports an integrative model of music processing (Biederman, 1987). The instrument and criteria responses detailed here further specify professional musicians’ content of semantic memory systems for eminent performers. Since saxophonists and pianists were over-represented in the excerpts, participants listed more musicians who played both of these instruments. This is explained by a typicality effect, as the saxophone is often viewed as an iconic symbol for jazz (Gelly & Bacon, 2000). Iconic representations and historic accounts of jazz tend to contain reference to instruments that had the highest frequency scores in this study: saxophone, piano, guitar, bass, drums, trumpet (Martin & Waters, 2002). In addition, same-instrument associations were observed, which suggests that instrument is a defining feature of a performer’s identity. The unaccompanied drums solo in the Roach excerpt primed listeners’ representation of Max Roach the drummer instead of Max Roach the political activist or the Sonny Rollins collaborator. The participants’ criteria for their associations seemed to involve similar, identity-related characteristics. First of all, the present results demonstrated a broad range of criteria employed in the task, supporting the view of different cognitive listening styles for different listeners (Myers,

207 1922; Kreutz et al., 2008). Myers (1922) found that participants described music using four aspects of music, i) ii) iii) iv) The intra-subjective: for the sensory, emotional or conative experience which it aroused. The associative: for the associations which it suggested. The objective: for its use or value considered as an object. The character: for its character personified as a subject (p. 54).

showing breadth of qualitative descriptions provided by his participants and relating them to personality differences. The present study painted a picture similar to the disparity of references implied by Myer’s second aspect, but these individual differences depended on excerpts and performers. In general, this study’s participants’ criteria focused more on musical and approach elements, relating to both concrete (e.g. melodic patterns, time signature, tone) and abstract (e.g. emotion, vibe, expression) facets of music. Historians have explicitly characterized these eminent performers by their musical contributions, such as the use of octaves in Wes Montgomery’s improvisations or the “brilliant use of pacing, structure, and rhythmic belief” in Coleman Hawkins’ version of Body and Soul (De Stefano, 1995; Williams, 1993, p. 76). Other musical identities were defined by participants’ knowledge of musician affiliations, such as Miles Davis’ impeccable ability to form ensembles and Ornette Coleman’s unique roster of collaborations. In addition, Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker were seen to be related more to the style criteria, supporting traditional biographical accounts of their contributions to New Orleans jazz and bebop (Williams, 1993). The performer who was distinguished mostly by the aspect of influence given was Thelonious Monk. This observation echoes comments by Williams (1993), who described Monk as “one of the most original, self-made talents…Monk was not only a productive musician after more than fifteen years of musical activity, but seemed still to be a growing artist exploring his talent and extending his range” (p. 150). Despite early critiques of

208 his unabashed approach and angular improvisations, Monk came to be viewed as a creative genius, who influenced the future of jazz performance and composition. Overall, the association responses illustrate the multifaceted quality of musician categories and include musical characteristics such as instrumentation, style, collaborations, and various levels (e.g. surface or deeper) of musical features. Eminent musician categories have different levels of defining features that depend on these and other attributes, and are essential to these categories’ many meanings (Smith et al., 1974). Sets of defining features are communicated to a listener via sound and biographical accounts, and they tend to vary between performers, as was reflected in the agreement scores.

Association Task: Organization of Semantic Memory The organization of associative content seems to be affected by the way in which the stimulus primes a part of semantic memory. Deliège and colleagues (1996) have argued for the advantage of cue abstraction in this process: “It appears that processes of cue-abstraction can account for relations in cognition between components of the piece that exist not only at the same hierarchical level but across hierarchical levels” (p. 155), although her work deals primarily with explicit musical features. In the present study, agreement scores indicated the availability of certain items in memory to describe a performer, given the cues abstracted from the stimulus. In many semantic memory studies, faster word judgments specified the more exemplary items in memory structures (Collins & Quillian, 1969; Rosch, 1975b). However, reaction times were not a dependent variable in the present study; instead, agreement scores were used to represent an item’s degree of influence in associative memory. Although some of the name agreement scores were rather low, the differences between excerpts illustrate clearly

209 divergent associative representations, which were dependent on performers. The participants agreed the most on association names for the Billie Holiday excerpt, which was distinctly defined by its inclusion of voice. This is reminiscent of a study on audio identification which suggested that performer identification is easier for vocal, as opposed to instrumental, segments in pop and rock music (Berenzweig et al., 2002). The processing system proposed by the authors apparently found qualities of the vocal segments to be more stable across performances than in the instrumental portions, thus contributing to identification success. This may be the same in the present study, as accuracy scores for the Holiday excerpt were relatively high. Likewise, a positive correlation between agreement score and accuracy was evident for most of the excerpts, suggesting more stable representations for certain performers. The consistency in this study’s findings for name associations could also be explained by rated typicality. Despite the inclusion of well-known excerpts for all the performers, the participants’ responses were more homogenous for the most commercially popular tracks, such as God Bless the Child, So What, and Body and Soul. This seems to relate to Rosch’s study (1975b), which showed that people agreed more on typical representations of categories; blocks were rated higher than sandbox for the toy category. An additional explanation would rely on the retrieval of musical schemata. In their musical recognition study, Krumhansl and Castellano (1983) found that inclusion of diatonic, as opposed to nondiatonic, tones resulted in memory advantages for chord sequences. The authors noted, “…this supports the view that the sequence engages a subset of the internal representation of chord relations that is organized according to key distance” (p. 331). In the present study, some participants’ advantages in accuracy seem to demonstrate that the retrieval of more typical names facilitates processes of recognition. The processing implications here and in previous studies may involve the same set of factors.

210 Instrument-related information seemed to play a more influential role in our participants’ semantic memory systems, placing it at a higher level within the hierarchical structure. In general, the higher instrument agreement scores suggest that the first subordinate level for each performer concept included his or her instrument. The best examples of this were evident in the following superordinate-subordinate relations: Max Roach isa drummer, Wes Montgomery isa guitarist, Charles Mingus isa bassist, and Coleman Hawkins isa saxophonist. As a cue available to listeners, density of instrumentation influenced consistency of response, since excerpts with fewer instruments (Roach, Mingus, Hawkins, and Montgomery) had the highest agreement scores, and excerpts including larger ensembles (Ellington, Pastorius, Armstrong) had relatively lower scores. This trend could also be influenced by the breadth of known collaborators, as reflected in lower scores for Davis and Ellington, known for their ensemble formations.85 On the contrary, the tendency to rely on a performer’s instrument may relate to an issue of recognition. Previous studies have argued that activation of tonal scale and contour-related schemata aids in the process of remembering pitches and melodies (Dowling & Fujitani, 1971; Dewar et al., 1977; Deliège et al., 1996); however, Dowling’s experiment (1978b) showed that listeners confused same-contour melodies in the memory task, producing more false alarms. By way of comparison, in the present experiment, lower agreement scores were observed for inaccurate performer identifications. There were also several cases in which participants named the performer during the association task, but then guessed as incorrect performers. This evidence is consistent with the detrimental effect of similarity in representations of music.

This and other statements like this are not meant to deter away from additional contributions of these artists (e.g. Ellington’s orchestrations and Davis’ trumpet sound). Instead, the goal is to highlight some of the defining features of these performers.

211 Overall, the association criteria agreement scores convey a different, more varied picture of participants’ mental organization of performer concepts. These disparities imply that the structure of cognitive representations for eminent performers morphs over time, between and within excerpts. Along these lines, Myers (1922) proposed a dynamic set of interactions between aspects of cognitive listening styles, in which one would become activated before the other “inhibited and replaced” aspect (p. 57). He used terms such as “higher” and “lower” to describe this, implying a hierarchical mapping of the items in vertical space. In the present study, higher criteria scores did not necessarily imply a stable, multifaceted performer identity, especially since scores were distributed across eleven categories. On the contrary, higher agreement scores generally indicated heightened response for one of the criteria. For example, the collaborationDavis pairing showed that information regarding his musical relationships (e.g. “he was in Miles’ band) was more available to listeners than other characteristics of his music and approach. Mingus’s associations tended to be discussed in terms of distinct musical features, such as his bass sound and vision of ensemble texture. Musical techniques, such as “development of lines, motives, and antiphonal effects,” as well as deep involvement in musical composition, have been of paramount importance in musicological descriptions of Mingus’ music (Williams, 1993, p. 223; Mingus & King; 1971). However, Mingus was also known for the musical collaborations he formed with musicians like Eric Dolphy, and for his personality, which was not evident in the data presented here. Two theories could account for this trend. First of all, information relevant to these features may not have been primed by the stimulus; for example, the Mingus excerpt was characterized by a bass solo, involving very sparse inclusion of horns at its close. Thus, most listeners would comment on the bass rather than the ensemble playing. Second, listeners perhaps did not recognize the performer, and thus, only used the acoustic cues from the stimulus to

212 approach the task rather than other associations. This explanation does not hold up well, though, since accuracy did not statistically interact with agreement scores. Another potential explanation has to do with the association between high agreement scores and influence ratings. Although prior studies (Berlyne, 1970; Hargreaves, 1984; North & Hargreaves, 1995) have explained familiarity as a significant factor in musical taste, generally, influence has not been considered as an influential variable. Overall, this study showed that listeners agreed more on the identities of the performers that they were most influenced by, which suggests that particular portions of these semantic representations are more accessible and thus, stable over time.

Attribute-Based Contexts of Associative Representation As detailed in chapter 2, experience and sociocultural affiliations influence the way in which individuals hear and remember musical objects. Demographic characteristics, like age, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status, play a role in musical taste; but, strength of influence varies between individuals, and researchers disagree on its extent. The majority of demographic studies in music have been designed to uncover personality differences and consumer behavior (Fung, 1994; Furnham & Walker, 2001). The current study examined the extent to which experience, demographics, and sociocultural affiliations affected professional musicians’ representations of musical associations. Even though this study’s results showed a significant influence of many of these variables on categorical task responses, the Chi-Square analyses lacks in the ability to highlight specific differences. I will now briefly consider demographic variables, seeking specific details of the content of items in semantic memory. Sociocultural affiliation variables and performance style characteristics affected participants’

213 categorical responses and agreement scores, illustrating the strength of these variables in determining content and accessibility of items in semantic memory. Examination of participants’ categorical differences showed effects of age and experience. As seen in the literature review, individuals identify with groups on the basis of their values, experiences, attitudes, and interests, which are often determined by age group. Associative responses to music in this study were no different; specialized knowledge based on age and professional experience had a significant effect on associative representations and processing of music. Overall category distributions were similar between participant-attribute groupings, but there were slight contrasts that warrant some speculative comment. Listening to music recruits a complex set of interactions between attention and memory (Deliège, 1996). Here, age differences showed heightened melodic instrument and musical criteria responses for younger, but heightened rhythm section instrument and blank criteria responses for older participants. Interestingly, Salthouse (1996) proposed a theory that processing speed and relevancy decrease with age, due to time and resource limitations. This finding may be related to the present study, in that older participants responded less typically to prominent instruments and music-related strategies than did those who were younger. Although perceptual effects of experience have also demonstrated slower, less accurate responses to memory and perceptual tasks for less-experienced musicians (Meinz, 2000) the same trends were not observed in this study. Overall, the impact of age and experience on response typicality must be carefully interpreted, especially considering their lack of influence on agreement scores. Domain-specific knowledge, as determined by education and performance style preferences, interacted significantly with categorical responses and agreement scores. According to Bjorkland and colleagues (1990), “domain-specific strategies can directly facilitate task

214 performance, as can context-independent strategies, both of which can in turn affect subsequent metacognitive processes” (p. 97). This study focused on children, but it appears here than this also applies to adult populations. Here we see correspondences between response and participant instruments, which exemplify and support the hypothesis that listeners attend more to sounds with which they are more familiar (Janata et al., 2002). In addition, participants with collegiate-level music degrees tended to list more atypical instruments (e.g. composers, string players), and their decision criteria focused more on collaborations than those without higher education, who tended to focus more on rhythm section players and musical approach criteria. These findings imply that formal education in music provides information beyond basic musical characteristics, such as that related to history, biography, and canonical recordings. Indeed, universities have demonstrated their efficacy in transmitting these tidbits of knowledge in jazz history and listening courses – but the informal culture of non-academic learning offers its own specialties (Prouty, 2002; Whyton, 2006).86 Although many music cognition studies attempt to make distinctions between musicians and nonmusicians, none seem to ask respondents to specify their performance style preferences. Such performance preferences imply that musicians educate themselves on one style over others, producing a musical specialty. This study demonstrated the largest categorical differences between musicians who play jazz versus those who also included other styles, such that the latter were more concerned with interaction in the rhythm section than with melodic patterns. Furthermore, higher agreement scores for the jazz group suggested that they might have more solidified cognitive representations for jazz. Considering that the stimuli included many central examples from the canon of recorded jazz, these findings also support the


The differences between these models will be explored further in the section on implications.

215 notion that domain-specific experience affects content and accessibility for performer knowledge among professional musicians. Finally, the significant interactions seen here between community affiliations and task responses shed light on the relationship between sociocultural variables and associative processing. Clustering data were significantly related to distributions of instrument and criteria categories as well as typicality of responses; however, density of connection was not. Name and criteria agreement scores, as well as accuracy and influence ratings, also interacted with cluster groups and community affiliation ratings, although they did not interact with the network density measure. Instrument agreement scores were unaffected by the sociocultural variables, most likely since this feature was most affected by instrument-specific experience, which transcended community affiliations. Even though cluster groups87 were associated with many of the participants’ attributes, performance style was the only variable that produced significant interactions with agreement scores, influence ratings, and accuracy. For example, all the participants in HC/GN group 3 played jazz and improvised music, and their agreement scores, influence ratings, and accuracy were lower than those of HC/GN groups 1 and 2, whose members characterized themselves not only as jazz musicians, but also as competent in other musical styles. Thus, a combination of domain-expertise and collaborative relationships interact with content and accessibility of associative representations in memory. Instead of relying on observational accounts or predetermined categories, the social network clusters found in this study highlighted participant-defined connections, which provide indications of collaborator affiliation and resultant musical identity. In so doing, this study demonstrates the significance of socio-musically constructed knowledge systems in cognitive

Except HC group 4, which was the cluster that contained participants with fewest connections, rather than distinction commonalities in attributes.

216 processing of music and information about music. These systems seem to be built up by informally shared processes of discussion, learning, and listening within communities, which may parallel in some regards the process of musical taste development in adolescent communities (Frith, 1981). Interacting with music provides opportunities for musicians to shape and secure their sense of identity, and is thereby reliant on processes of repeated listening and interest in particular recordings: “…what is sought is relational, not concrete, and with both the musical work and the self, the object sought is a relational connection uniting a set of objects found through relational connections” (Gracyk, 2004, p. 17). Gracyk’s argument can be further elaborated to incorporate the personal connection between the search for meaning in the work and in the self. This study showed that affiliations guide listeners’ attention to cues in the stimulus, such as Thelonious Monk’s penchant for stride playing, present in the “Round Midnight” excerpt, that listeners either pursued or ignored in the retrieval of associative memory. For this particular excerpt, no information, aside from the characteristic “Monkisms,” suggested that the performer collaborated with other musicians; however, many chose to hear Monk the collaborator, which shows that listeners were drawing upon stable representations of this performer and his music. Thus, music presents opportunities for associative processing within itself, the listener, and the abstract relations between them as defined by the listener. To summarize, the association task illustrated that listeners show their knowledge of a musical style to be a set of interrelated representations in their minds. The content of this knowledge depends on associations with similar musical styles, based on a number of dimensions including musical features, domain-specificity, and sociocultural affiliations. These knowledge schemes are routinely used to interpret and experience works of music.

217 Descriptor-Matching Task: Cognitive Instantiations of Performers The descriptor-matching task investigated the way in which musicians describe performers without the context of actual acoustic musical stimuli. The results were seen as revealing similarities in representations for eminent performers. The task instructions asked participants to choose 3 out of 24 musical elements to describe each performer prompt. Statistical analyses assessed differences between performers, as well as interactions with participant attributes, ratings, and accuracy on the association task. The patterns of descriptor distribution showed that the participants were aware of performers’ common distinctions and musical identities. Beyond these, only the attributes related to domain-specific knowledge influenced responses to the task. The results highlighted the most important characteristics of a performer’s musical identity as encompassing phrasing, emotion and expression, timbre, blues influence, improvisational creativity, and virtuosity. Blues influence and improvisational creativity are inherently connected to jazz, as these qualities owe much to humble beginnings and subsequent developments of New Orleans jazz (Gioia, 1997). Participants’ attention to the quality of virtuosity pays homage to the influential masters of jazz, who worked to hone their craft and the shape future developments in the genre – the very definition of virtuosity (Gebhardt, 2001). Although the way in which jazz musicians swing has been a topic of much scrutiny, other research has indicated that phrasing and expressive timing also contribute to a performer’s identity. In his study relating the performance of jazz melodies to structural properties of music, Ashley (2002) examined similarities and differences in expressive timing and phrasing between jazz performers, including Miles Davis and John Coltrane, on two works. His results showed that performers treated the melodies of these works deliberately, such that “…expressive alteration of

218 “nominal” rhythmic patterns in a manner related to structure is typical of jazz musicians’ strategies” (p. 331). However, Ashley warned against over-generalizing methods of phrasing and timing, as each performer paints a unique picture of the structure with his or her own devices. Timbre, the musical dimension of sound and tone quality, has been discussed as a complex set of interactions between spectral energy distribution, spectral fluctuation, and attack point (Grey, 1977). With respect to jazz musicians, specifically saxophonists, Gridley (1983) suggested timbre to be the most important quality available to listeners. He compared adjective descriptions of saxophone timbre to those from jazz texts and record reviews and found disparity in qualitative judgments, but similarities with bipolar-rating scale (e.g. rough vs. smooth) judgments. In another experiment (Benadon, 2003), experienced jazz musicians identified saxophonists from recordings within 2 to 3 seconds. This suggested that experienced jazz listeners were inclined to attend to timbre, non-quantized rhythm, and expressive gestures as opposed to pitch, rhythm, and contour. In the present study, such tendencies were evident in the relatively lower usages of qualities that were less influential to a performer’s identity, such as repetitiveness, consonance, voice-leading, extramusical associations, texture, communication and interaction, and contour. The prompt-descriptor task’s results related to common interpretations of each performer. In biographical sources, liner notes, and jazz history texts, scholars have specified and stereotyped aspects of musicians’ performance style. For instance, one compelling aspect of Charlie Parker’s playing, commented upon in Tesser (1998) was the “unprecedented imagination on unexpected chord progressions at unimagined tempos” (p. 63). Appropriately, respondents tended to choose virtuosity as a primary descriptor for Parker. Blues influence was also paired with Parker, supporting jazz historian Martin Williams’ (1993) statement that “Charlie Parker

219 was a bluesman, a great natural bluesman without calculated funkiness or rustic posturing” (p. 142) – not to mention all of the melodies that Bird constructed for the 12-bar blues form. Another prime example of an appropriate match was that between Duke Ellington and composition and orchestration, since this characteristic of his identity was repeatedly evidenced in the form of recordings and has since become the subject of analytical scrutiny (Ellington, 1976; Gioia, 1997). The current study’s participants seem to indicate a network hierarchy of such associations; thus, one could argue that each performer exhibits all 24 qualities, but that only a select few act as defining features at superordinate levels in the hierarchy. For instance, even though Billie Holiday was not typically described as a composer or an orchestrator, she was involved with the composition process of God Bless the Child (Clarke, 2002). On the other hand, Clarke (2002) quoted one of her collaborators as saying “she has never written a line of words or music” (p. 191). These would imply that her impact as a composer or orchestrator lies lower in a musicians’ hierarchical representation of her musicianship. Overall, the pattern of responses seen here suggest that there are typical ways of describing musicians and that these depend primarily on features that commonly define them. My results further suggest an integration of set-theoretic and hierarchical network models for performer semantic systems (Collins & Quillian, 1969, 1970; Smith et al., 1974). This study’s agreement score trends show the degree to which participants employ shared representations for each performer. Semantic memory contains a range of information, and certain features are weighted more than others, as described in interactive-cue processing models (Medin & Schaeffer, 1978). The Brunswick face experiments illustrated a processing facilitation for items related to an exemplar. The present data revealed similar cognitive tendencies, as were evident in higher frequency scores for one or two primary descriptors. These defining

220 characteristics might contribute to a performer-related exemplar, which was retrieved during the task. Examples of this might include Billie Holiday with primary elements of emotion and expression, phrasing, and timbre; Duke Ellington with composition and orchestration; John Coltrane with harmony and tonality and virtuosity; Max Roach with rhythm and time; and Jaco Pastorius with virtuosity. Lower scores seem to indicate that participants agreed less on defining characteristics for particular performers, including Sonny Rollins, Herbie Hancock and Ornette Coleman. It could be that the participants’ representations of these performers contain a more distributed network of features, as opposed to those that concentrated on one or two defining features. These patterns may also be a function of excess knowledge accumulation, resulting in retrieval of redundant information. Described as the “expertise reversal effect,” this phenomenon occurs when “cross-referencing and integration of related redundant components” that “require additional working memory resources and might cause a cognitive overload “ (Kalyuga et al., 2003, p. 24). However, this explanation may not be appropriate for the descriptor task results, since association task accuracy and higher influence ratings were linked to heightened agreement scores. This study’s patterns of results confirm the notion that listeners develop schematic representations for eminent jazz performers and further elaborate upon the content and structure of these representations.

Descriptor-Matching Task Attribute-Based Influences on Performer Representations Unlike the association task, the results from the descriptor task revealed a low impact of attribute variables on performer semantic representations. Overall, the lack of categorydistribution differences between groups illustrates the ubiquity of shared understandings for each jazz musician’s musical identity. In addition, my results demonstrated the influence of domain-

221 specific knowledge, in the form of education and performance style. Participants with more formal education and a preference for performing jazz were more likely to choose terms that were commonly used to describe each performer, as demonstrated by disparities in agreement scores. This trend may be a consequence of the paradigms of institutional learning and their concentration on accepted jazz canons. On the functionality of these canons, specifically that of iconic jazz-musician images, Whyton (2006) noted, From establishing archives to designing curricular with supporting materials, the canon’s promotion of objective standards and a singlestrand chronological narrative allows for benchmarking and uniformity both with an across institutional boundaries (p. 75). The effect of these programs on the way in which musicians form their representations could be elucidated by explicating specific interpretations of familiar music, as demonstrated in the results of the association task. Moreover, the pairing of musical features transcends age, experience, instrument, and community-related boundaries. In an experiment with some connections to this study, Darrow and colleagues (1987) found that American and Japanese listeners chose similar terms to describe a broad range of styles in Western music. Their analyses accentuated cultural differences in chosen descriptors for Eastern music. The authors suggested that technological advances provide Japanese listeners with more access to Western music than Americans have to Eastern music. In contrast, the present study showed that all participants had vested interests in jazz, and all the performers represented iconic examples of jazz musicians in the canon. Perhaps if the list of performers had included musicians who embodied styles ancillary to jazz, such as improvised music, community-based differences would be accentuated. Fundamentally, this study’s results demonstrate the importance of domain-specific exposure on performer

222 representations, especially those in which musical descriptors are used to define performer identity.

Suggestions for Future Research This study has provided a detailed look at the content, structure, and function of semantic memory systems in a number of different communities of professional musicians. The collaborator task discovered patterns of interaction within musician communities, highlighting the importance of local relationships in global network components. The main contribution of the association and descriptor-matching task was the elucidation of content and structure in semantic knowledge, as related to performer and participant identity. These two tasks highlighted differences in the content and structure of memory for eminent jazz performers, who were still dependent on prototypically relevant musician identities. Whereas participants’ reactions to recordings produced community-affiliation effects, their responses to the names of musicians drew attention to the impact of domain-specific knowledge. Similarly, differences were found between free responses versus forced-choice interpretations of stimuli. The present study thus sheds light on processes of associative meaning in music; however, many questions warrant further inquiry. First, systematic views investigating jazz and improvised music communities have the potential to advance studies in ethnomusicology and in social network analysis. Instead of relying on more traditional techniques of participant observation and multiple interview sessions, which are often tedious and difficult to interpret,88 this study relied on methods of SNA to

This is not to say that ethnologies are unreliable; rather, this technique is time-consuming and relies on cultural immersion, which may be too invasive for the social scientist. In the present study, the focus group survey showed that musicians had different names and definitions for communities, such as

223 calculate broad network patterns as well as community affiliations. Future sociocultural studies might consider measuring group affiliation with SNA methods, rather than relying on rating scales with predetermined categories for ethnicity or social-group. However, this study is pioneering in its effects, and has neither the depth nor complexity of statistics characterizing the majority of research in the SNA literature (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The bulk of these studies focus on the effect of local social processes on structural and organizing network properties. As it is difficult, if not impossible, to survey entire music communities, due to the sheer number of participants, future studies might consider smaller groups and their ties to the community at large. For instance, since this study’s HC/GN cluster 1 has a number of diverse patterns of ties to HC clusters 2-4 and GN clusters 2-3, this community could be examined as a closed entity that includes several brokerage links to “outsiders.” Such an approach would also allow for further examination of crossover nodes, or musicians who are highly involved with more than one community, including questions such as: do these practices lead to heightened personal success? Longitudinal studies, examining dynamic changes of communities and individuals, could be useful for predicting future successes and failures of genres, given the process of interaction for various music scenes (Wasserman, 1979). The networks produced from these studies could be presented to participants for purposes of verification and elucidation of community boundaries via social practice. This approach may have the potential to detail our knowledge of inter- and intra-group relations beyond the labeling of jazz musicians as social and musical outsiders (Merriam & Mack, 1959; Becker, 1963). Future research on associative musical meaning should expand upon the previously held notion that concrete musical structures dominate semantic memory of music. One of the defining
“North-side/South-side”, “Avant-garde/Straight-ahead”, “Free”, and “Jobbing”, that were difficult to collapse into unified groups.

224 characteristics of music is its ability to evoke images of events, situations, and objects, and the extent of agreement for these associations could reinforce the idea of multiple, connected meanings, as delineated by Meyer (1956, 1973, 1989). Given the present study’s findings, associative properties of music clearly extend to jazz and can be represented not only by sound, but also by visually-presented names of musicians. The organization and structure of associations in memory could be examined further with reaction time and judgment studies. For example, would a sample of Charles Mingus result in faster and more accurate recognition of his collaborator Eric Dolphy, or his influential forebear, the bassist Jimmy Blanton? A more indepth examination of familiarity, preference, and identification of stimuli may also be valuable, as the way these variables influence the experience of music is still relatively unclear (Hargreaves, 1984; Teo et al., 2008). Such studies may help to provide a view of experience and expertise that is focused on the stimulus, rather than on predetermined classes of genre and education. Other possibilities present themselves. For example, instead of presenting listeners with 15 different performers, concentrating on a sole performer’s repertoire and legacy might uncover more details related to life history and musical “phases.” Miles Davis is a prime example of an artist with a prolific and stylistically variant recording career (Szwed, 2002). Musicians’ responses to excerpts across his career might uncover exemplar-based partitions of their memory, thereby supporting the notion of hierarchically structured systems with multiple levels of defining and characteristic features. An alternative to this would be to extend the range of jazz styles included, such as American and European examples of “free jazz” and “improvised music,” which seem to play a larger role in modern interpretations of jazz (Jost, 1981; Ianuly et

225 al., 2009). Responses to these “on-the-fringe” styles might accentuate affiliation- and domain-specific differences, further defining community boundaries. Finally, qualitative interviewing and observation techniques couple expand our understanding with insider knowledge. As revealed in the focus group sessions, participants’ views are disparate on the surface, but supplementary participant validation, or member checks, could provide a naturalistic form of evaluating these findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Questions to focus on in these sessions might include: How does your musical community influence your listening experience? What musical patterns do musicians comment on when they discuss recordings with you? How are these utilized in your understanding of the record, performer, and subsequent extensions of this music? Although observational interviewing techniques are particularly invasive and tend to overstep boundaries and conventional social practice, they can provide further insight on the cognitive and social impact of collaborative interaction. Future research agendas should address these pressing concerns, especially as they contribute to practical implications of education and professional development.

Practical Implications for Music Educators The present study’s results have the potential to inform the practical concerns of professional music educators, because of their relationship to the learning process. According to Dunscomb and Hill (2002), Jazz education is about teaching students skills in the art of improvisation, helping them acquire knowledge in the jazz idiom (history, theory, arranging, composition, and so on), and leading them to understand the fusion of cultures and music traditions that made and continue to make jazz a reflection of the diversity in America (p. 24).

226 This integrated view of learning about jazz places pressure on the educator and leads to the question: how does one create a healthy balance of teaching all these skills in the classroom? Given the results from the present study, institutionalized jazz education should present wellaccepted frameworks of the jazz genre and identity, based on the development of musical vocabulary and repertoire, as well as personal setbacks and paying dues, suggested by wellcrafted biographical narratives. The stories told by jazz performers on how and what they learned can offer just as much insight into the cognitive representations of jazz music as the focus on musical transcription, improvisation, and repertoire building. By concentrating too much on these latter activities, educators are contributing to a canon defined strictly by musical performance and individual practice. These musical practices might be defined by a set of rigorous assessment procedures that leave little room for the development of a unique musical identity. Although Whyton (2006) suggested that the growth of the jazz canon provides a reliable, objective model to assess learners, he also commented on its putative drawbacks: “…in buying into the ideology of the canon, educators not only run the risk of relegating jazz to a fossilised museum piece, they also lose the power of critical insight that is afforded to education by its unique place in society” (p. 75). One solution, implied by the present study, would encourage the development of multiple viewpoints in defining, and thus learning about musicians and their performance practices. Rather than relying solely on analysis of transcriptions and construction of identity-bound improvisations, performers could be interpreted in terms of their abstract musical approaches, collaborative activities, supposed styles, the way they influence others, and the way others influence them. These approaches would expand the ways in which developing musicians attempt to hone their craft. Several researchers have already commented on the importance of alternative, informal learning situations and experience in

227 shaping learners’ musical development (Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996; Green, 2001). Putting these alternative methods of interpretation into practice, educators could adopt a new system of assessment, aside from the traditional criteria of the Western canon, particularly apparent in the mold of jazz standards and bebop language. The judgment as to an educational method’s success should come from not only learners’ musical representations, but also the way in which alternative activities, such as those associative mechanisms explored in this study, embody the identities of professional musicians.

Conclusion The results reported in this study paint a complex picture of professional musicians’ cognitive representations for eminent jazz performers, as revealed in experiments primed by excerpt features and dependent upon both domain- and affiliation-specific knowledge. The multifaceted nature of associative structures in music is apparent in the complex interweaving of responses we have seen. The interplay between these factors provides a rich, dynamic landscape with which to continue research on the meaning of music. While such associative representations and the structures on which they depend certainly inform aspects of the experience of music, the connection between listening and performing lies at the heart of the dynamic flux of musicians’ cognitive activity. In an article questioning the direction of his music, John Coltrane shared a poignant view of musical meaning from the performer’s perspective:

228 It’s more than beauty that I feel in music—that I think musicians feel in music. What we know we feel we’d like to convey to the listener. We hope that this can be shared by all. I think, basically, that’s about what it is we’re trying to do. We never talk about just what we were trying to do. If you ask me that question, I might say this today and tomorrow say something entirely different, because there are many things to do in music. But, over-all, I think the main thing a musician would like to do is to give a picture to the listener of the many wonderful things he knows of and senses in the universe. That’s what music is to me—it’s just another way of saying this is a big, beautiful universe we live in, that’s been given to us, and here’s an example of just how magnificent and encompassing it is. That’s what I would like to do too. I think that’s one of the greatest things you can do in life, and we all try to do it in someway. The musician’s is through his music (DeMichael, 1962, p.23). Performing and interpreting music, then, are very personalized processes; but, as Coltrane pointed out, they are connected with shared knowledge structures. This study confirms that relationship. It is, perhaps not as vast as the universe, but surely is dependent upon on hierarchically-defined cognitive representations, common to listeners and performers. At this time of transition in the world and academia, we have the opportunity to revise old theories and methodologies, while at the same time exploring new models of musical meaning. The search for meaning pervades the life our lives; thus, it is my hope that our academic disciplines will use their collaborative spirit as a metaphorical loom, weaving together our seemingly disparate views of musical meaning.

229 TABLES Table 3.4: Focus Group Discussion

Topic Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences

Theme Family Influence Family Influence Family Influence

Evidence "I’d always listen to music like my dad always had like classic rock on all the time and stuff I knew about it but (.) didn’t really fe:el like in tune with it as much, until later" "I remember like being (.) I think fi:ve years old? My mom had a home day care?, ((clears throat)) so it was always full of little kids ((clears throat)) and one of the things that we always did was (.) put o:n records (.) and dance (.) it was like (.) a a fun (.) play type thing to do." "Before like cello lessons, you know like there was a cello kickin’ around the house and this guy musician friend of my parents taught me howta play [do do do do – sings Batman theme song]" "I used to only listen to music—like when I was really young—when my parents were in the car and they would just let the radio play. They didn’t really listen to music, they would just put a random station on (.) so a lot of like top 40’s stuff" "Yeah I had that same experience like lo:ng car rides with my parents" "I just remember bein’ in a car with my brother who’s like twelve years older than me, and I musta been in like kindergarten (.) and (.) I just remember one (.) instance like he would always play cla:ssic rock stuff on the radio and I was like SO amazed about how he knew like who everyone was that came on the radio. And so I started kinda getting inta (.) inta that type of rock as opposed to like (.) what was (.) coming out at tha (.) ya know what was (.) current for the time."

Grp 1



Early Experiences Early Experiences

Family Influence Family Influence



Early Experiences

Family Influence


Early Experiences

"I’d never seen improvisation before (..) So, it was very exciting to see him (..) IF I remember right he Vivid [Peter Brotzmann] was bleeding from his no:se (..) and u:hh (.) There was all kinds of crazy stuff going Experiences on and uhh I’D Never seen something like that." "I remember listening to it it was this really really hot day and I was mowing the lawn (.) Isthis (.) Vivid completely surreal I was just sweating listening to this youknow and if you know there tim berne is Experiences panned like hard left and Zorn’s like hard right...And it was (.) painful (..) bizarre."


Early Experiences



Topic Early Experiences



Grp 1

Vivid " was like I had this record like (.) kinda only so that if somebody knew that then they could put it on Experiences and get me kind of upset you know" "...when I was in the fourth grade in elementary school they brought these kids in from (.) the junior high school who played (.) youknow in the band(.) and they were doin’ this kinda like (.) fake Dixieland thing and they had like little hats and jackets and stuff (.)...they brought us students intathe library of the Vivid school nthey came in and played (.) And I remember I was tootally into the tru:mpets, cause they were Experiences playin this stuff and there was just kinda really specific (.) crackling sound the trumpets would make when they did a kinda lip slur or something(.) And I just loved it, I just couldn’t get enough I was sitting there and I was just totally entranced with that this sound that the trumpets would make." "But like (.) one time (.) in the summer I was probably like (.) twelve or thirteen and I had been playing Vivid (..) like :all day in th-this camp (.) with like wearing nothing but shorts and I got sunburned like b:ad Experiences from head to toe." Vivid "I couldn’t imagine how they could make—they could sound like that you know how anybody could Experiences make (.) you know play an instrument—to me it just seemed like magical" Vivid "I had seen Victor Wooten live like when I was in (.) middle school. Ah--was a big one" Experiences "and hearing like really ba:d uh (.) Neil Sedaca and who’s the other Neil (..) Diamond?...YEAH Vivid [Singing]: On the Shiloh (.) I was young ((laughs)) (..) I used to call your name (..) So I can still recall Experiences some lyrics from these like bad pop tunes?" Theme Songs Theme Songs "I remember the first time I separated watching a tv show from the music was UltraMan. I was really into Ultraman and I remember I just the music it was so crazy and I was always like fascinated by it." "Yea the Batman theme song was big for me. And the first thing I think I learned how to play on the cello."

Early Experiences


Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences





1 1


Topic Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences Early Experiences

Theme Theme Songs

Evidence "I remember I liked—there was this terrible show called Medical Center...and I really liked the theme song to that" "I started watching um (...) ahh (.) Soultrane...and hearin like James Brown band and seeing the Jackson Five—that like hit me just at a time when I was (.) I don’t know if I was twelve years old?" "I mean I definitely don’t have that many early memories except for music on Fraggle Rock and Sesame Street" "I can remember like dis-disti:nctly (..) like wanting tahear ss-specific music put it on listen to it and like get down to it (.) really get into it (.) you know"

Grp 1

Theme Songs


Theme Songs


Active Pursuit


"I was-got really really excited about (.) the fact that I was saving up for bass (.) and was gonna play Active Pursuit bass and I started like totally getting into bass and then (.) you know...I’d always listen to like Led Zepplen and you know like Dazed and Confused to learn about the bass." Active Pursuit "I remembered singing some pop music, there was a pop song in Sweden when I was like five called Hej Clown (..) that I used to sing...I used to play that record again and again I wore it out" "And I really liked the theme song to that and I had this little (.) portable (.) Panasonic cassette (.) recorder and I would—when it came on I would like record it off the tv and then listen to it" "I remember like trying to learn like some Tone Loc beats on the drums when I was really young (.) stuff like that just cause I thought it was cool you know." "I think it was like (.) I remember that and I think I just started kind of…pick th-the ones that that I like and just try to record them and listen to them again"



Active Pursuit


Active Pursuit


Active Pursuit

2 2

Active Pursuit "I was just totally fascinated by it and I wanted-start out playing guitar."


Topic Early Experiences Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine



Grp 2

"or what but then I wanted to buy records (.) and I wanted all the Jackson Five all the forty-fives like Active Pursuit “ABC” and all those (.) those hits of that era you know like the early 70’s (indistinguishable)....And I think I got –I got the bug for saxophone from them" Routine Activities Routine Activities Routine Activities Routine Activities Routine Activities Routine Activities Routine Activities "I always tryta put on like if I’m doin some other sortof routine physical activit:y" "I-I try to make space for it sometimes and it often seems to happen late at night like after I’ve gotten everything else out of the way" "sometimes what often happens is if I’ve got like musicians from outta town staying at my place (.) which happens sometimes alotta times we’ll like stay up (.) and listen to music pretty late" "or a long time when I had a car I had like one tape in the car I would listen to the one tape over and over and over" "I listen to music all day at work but sometimes I can pay attention to it really well cause I’m just sitting down at my desk" "I do A LOTta listening while driving (.) probably the most (.) I listen to music is i-in-in the CAr" "I come home and make it a point to listen to like a record all the way through or a couple records"

1 1


1 1 1 1 1

Alone vs. With "It happens more often I think with other people (.) for me" Others "Like just sitting and not doing anything but listening and it’s usually (.) because either I or someone Alone vs. With else I’m with would wanto (.) share something (.) like you have to hear this youhavetohearthat And Others that’s when I end up (.) listening the Most" Alone vs. With "Um (.) and usually NOT with other people (.) I usually just sit there (.) n just do it." Others




Topic Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Routine Listening Focus



Grp 1 1 1 1

Alone vs. With "And I was much more interested anyway in just...being in a communit:y... listening to music with other Others people rather than (.) by myself anyway " Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Repeated Listening Preference "I would listen to the one tape over and over and over" "every-every single night I listen to the same thing as I go to sleep like the last thing I always listen to is always the same thing (.) so I listen to that" "You can really getintasome music in the car it just keeps playin’ over and over" "Um (.) so I dunno sometimes I’m listening to like all these new things that I’ve-that I’ve gotten (.) and then other times I’m stuck on like one John Cale record " "And I was just like Wow this is the greatest thing on earth and you know—I was like anything Beatles – I was just like listening to it over and over" "Pick th-the ones that that I like and just try to record them and listen to them again." "when I first: um (.) I was listening to this a lot when I first started to playing (.) I mean improvising" "One thing I listen for is (.) if I wanna keep listening to it...Like as I start to listen to something new it’s like (.) just making the decision on just like turning it off (.) or like (.) switching to something else based on preference" "It’s just the whole thing of you know probabl:y yeah all music (.) can be (.) is capable of being loved if you (.) listen to it because you like listening to it (.) that’s a sortofah feedback (.) loop of (.) I like this (.) so I-I’m listening to it and then I like it." "that was the one that was like….”I don’t think I like this.”


2 2 2


Listening Focus Listening Focus






Topic Listening Focus

Theme Knowledge Building

Evidence "there’s there’s a way to relate to all this music, I mean, none of it’s so unfamiliar that I have to look a it as being “what’s goin’ on here”, you know, so right there, you know, I suppose how—that accounts for how—part of how I listen to it" "And being cool with it being cool with like saying (.) (different voice) yea I-I actually do like Postal Service there’s somewhere in me that like:s the poppy electronic stuff." "I’m always sort of open to (.) to catch some of that from anything...just sort of constantly (..) you know gathering" "like I tend to listen to a lot musicians to hear the musicians (.) in you know not just to hear the music you know?" "I guess I’m listening to solos and a lot of times rhythm section if it jumps out…like if a drummer pops out or somethin'." "So then I’m just listening for (.) kind of individual players what they’re doing." "I also listen to (.) like (.) the s:ty:le of like the solos." "I’m affected a lot by the textural tonal sound of how the group works together."

Grp 2

Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus

Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions Distinct Dimensions


1 1 2 2 2 2

Listening Focus


"I don’t really wanna know what I like about music...Cause I feel like if I try to like identify it...And say like that I’m looking for this? (.) then I get scared that...I’m gonna like make these (.) judgments on this music and stuff that I normally just naturally...would be drawn to (.) are somehow like (.) tainted with these thoughts of like I'm looking f:or (.) a good sonic experience"


Listening Focus


"I’m totally with you on that try not to decide in advance what it is you’re looking for in music"



Topic Listening Focus


Evidence "I (.) used to t-I used to try to figure out what it was I liked (.) and I remember like (.) in high school (..) I was working you know (.) a lot (.) and (.) I remember like s-blowing (.) my entire paycheck (.) every week on mostly records thinking that like (.) eventually I'd have all the good records...(.) a-and I realized I couldn't (huuuh)" "Like there’s music that like you know when I was a kid my parents took me to go see Willie Nelson you know (.) and I (.) n:ow I listen to some of those type of songs or like Santana or something (.) and I really genuinely like the music (.) but I’m not quite sure why you know" "I guess wh-whatever if I’m ever listening to anything that—(undeterminable) when I end up looking for something that (..) excites me" "that’s what I end up (.) listening to (.) if it...doesn’t do-doesn’t bring me some sort of I guess it’s just like some sort of emotional or some sort of feeling" "Whether I'm in the mood for it" "It’s just like an emotional reaction, you you feel (.) literally, about it."




Listening Focus



Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus Listening Focus

Emotional Response Emotional Response Emotional Response Emotional Response

1 1 2 2


237 Table 3.5: Focus Group Description of Excerpts
Grp 1 P 1 E1 - Monk "I absolutely love this older, smart jazz writing…Got me into playing music" E2 - Brotzmann "Textural music, strings, never listen to this type of thing at home but love it in live stituations"





"Hard for me to put into a context this kind of music "Tmonk playing Trinkle Tinkle? It sounds in fragments. Stuttery bowed strings/drums & horns like T M. I don't know how to describe what come in later - bass clar/trumpet. Sounds like Cecil that sounds like" Taylor band w/o CT" "Free improvised string chaos into sax shrieks and "angular jazzy tunie tune" piano and drums!" "Engaging texture/form. Shifting sound "Monk Criss Cross - one of my fav Monk fields/energy soloing. I might get tired of it after a tunes. Rhythmic energy, melodic angularity" while (crossed out) - Ok after horns enter etc." "Intense. Strings. Cello. Dense with "noise". Extended string techniques. Sound mass! This is "Jazz. I love swinging bass, vibes, drums, and something that I could only listen to for a short amt Monk. Med-tempo bebop" of time - w/ larger section , I like more! Almost like animals dying a violent death." "jazz" "(Criss Cross) Monk piano, very interesting melody, rhythm, swinging" "Improvised jazz music" "Excited, aggitated bowing. Improvised cello duo? "Free jazz" Extended technique, expressionist. Dynamic - multiple instruments show up, large ensemble" "Crazy strings. I'd rather hear classical music from these instruments. Crazy sawing (arco). It doesn't swing. A bit chaotic. Crazy bass clarinet" "A bit humorous. Can't quite be certain of the instrumentation. I think more than one stringed instrument w/ bow and other techniques. Makes me laugh + a good thing. Sax + drums. Piano" "Listen to a set though (?) free, atonal, erratic playing, creative but has a lot of unresolved tension, sounds like should be music in an art movie hinting at something ominous, mysterious about to happen"











"Monk tune. Criss Cross. Nice sax playing the head. Nice Monkish piano playing" "Monk quintet swing. Sax, vibes, piano, bass + drums. Good swing feel. Monk's quirky melodic sense. Good group sound, varied entrances by the instruments" "Angular piano, sounds like (Monk), not bebop but hinting at it, creative not lick oriented good rhythm section groove, funky earthy sax sound, interesting"









"Has some interesting sounds and textures and "Quirky, a bit weird sounding (I.e. dissonant), different ways of bowing stringed instruments. but still in the straight-ahead jazz vain (w/ a Sounds like cello and/or bass. Wind and percussion walking bassline and swing beat). Very instruments then enter and make similar frenzied distinctly Monk." noises" "Sonically dense, no pulse, no time only intensity "Monk small group. Typical Monk melody, levels, better live-looses its impact. Increase strong rhythmic syncopation and articulation" intensity through layering instruments"

Grp 1 P 1 E3 - Mingus "Contemplative piano music always makes me wonder what kind of lives these guys live. These inward, harmonically intense passages" "Solo piano - starts off rubato, very jazz style voicings but in a kind of pastoral application then some kind of left hand ostinato. I don't know if I like this or not, probably depends on my mood" "Lush piano/whole tone tonality dominant" E4 - Golombisky "always a breath of fresh air to listen to thoughtful orchestral music. Doesn't sound played very well, but really nice writing" "Strings. Slow kind of Samuel Barber sound. Then horns come in and the strings go away. Like a wave. The mood stays the same. Horns/strings/in waves." "Warm tonal strings then horns expand color palette"







"Liked it better after groove was established. Intro "String - winds transition interesting. Not a bit pretty for me" much harmonic/melodic interest for me" "Solo piano. Dramatic. Indian tinged w/ extended harmonic chordal moments. Love the mixture even though it feels contrived of moments. Like it. Wonder if it's introduction to some killin' groove. Love bass Mingus playing piano." "jazz piano" "Exciting harmonic spaces. Improvised piano. Quasi-classical quasi-jazz. Sorrowful, dark, expansive." "Mine. Chamber orchestra. Strings. Dramatic. "Pretty" and "sad". Deceptive. Funny feeling to listen to your own work around great musicians!!! Nervous. But welcome it." "Classical" "Patient, emotional. Lyrical. Classical layered. Moving arrangement. Use of various sounds within the symphonic sound scape"



1 1

6 7


Grp 1

P 1

E5 - Biosphere "Peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful" -- into swirly drawing. "Here I am forming opinions again quickly. I know who it is & I know who chose it, so I feel like I have my head around the context. Droney and repetitive." "Thick dense sustained repetitive bass drone"

E6 - Velvet Underground "This older heady rock stuff is great, but you have to be in the right "fuck all" kind of mindframe…which I rarely am" "Velvet Underground. How can you possibly describe this without experiencing it? Loose adjectives.. Thumpy drums, frantic maybe the best guitar solo ever" "It's my pick!"







"I heard Him Call my name! A pinnacle of "I like rumbling texture. Otherwise too static for rock music! The right balance of chaos and me" pulse; rawness of texture" "Dense. Water. Acoustic mixed with possible post-produced manipulations. Slow moving, but very moving. "Beautiful" something for relaxation. Something to collect one's thoughts with. Repetitive but totally enthralling. I need this!" "Minimal" "Yay rock. Voice now. Driving elec. Bass. Neat backing vocals. Messy distorted guitar solo, maybe if he just learned how to play? Haha it's fun though. Floor tom drums. Seemingly random dropping out of bass. Funny." "Rock"



1 1

6 7

"Lou Reed? V. U.? Early punk. Driving "Big low end soundscape. Synth's, warm strings. beat/guitar. With bluesy singing. Soulful. Epic. Repetitive building vamp with added Awesome rock guitar playing, verging on the layers. Dramatic" abstract/noise plane. Great bass!"


Grp 1

P 1

E7 - Latin Play Boys "One of the best records I've ever owned. Is this pop music? Just great songwriting, form, sonics, etc. Reminds me of my family."

E8 - Luc Ferrari "This is field-recording-type-stuff…hard to tell what goes into it but it doesn't matter…magical in some ways. As long as you drop any expectations."



"Yes well I brought it. But how can this be put to words without sucking away the truth of it? "The sound of a a semi truck starting and Maybe focusing on the lyrics would work I driving away. Then other sounds…street guess. I think they're talking about an sounds with a shaker going." apparition and the 10 believers that are there" "Mellow rhythmic jam. Reggae-esque!" "Field recording of truck + ? + people + train?"





"I understand the idea of listening to a field recording for its purely sonic aspect but don’t "Rhythm track/groove ok; don't like the vocals" hear anything interesting in this particular example" "Rhythmic. Sounds like real percussion affected. Big bass sound!!! Crazy mix and quality of sounds, especially for more "normal" vocals. Actually very interesting difference!! Props to taking this leap. I'm more interested in the sounds of the perc. sound "Pop." "Cool sequenced beat. Mixed with peppy tendencies. Everything has a strange reverby vibe excerpt the vocals" "White noise. Tractor starts. Some field recording? Great quality!! Construction site. Making point of "everything is music?" Kids. These recordings are neat but maybe wouldn't buy them or listen unless I was looking for some sort of sample or something" "Musique concrete" "Starts w/ the sound of someone entering a truck/vehicle and starting it up, driving off. Then, crickets? People talking/shouting. Street sounds. Nat. occuring field recording"








Grp 1

P 1

E9 - Lightnin' Hopkins "Hell yes! There are no singers like this around anymore. Is there anything more important than these classic blues recordings?" "Perfect example of something that is INDESCRIBABLE. Categorizing it can be helpful after the fact, but reduces it. Even though there may be music that has similar form, inflection, etc. there is nothing that sounds like this and its impossible to put int "Rural folk -- blues" "Guitar/vocal performance…both feeling of direct expression"









"Blues. No woman. Love complexity hidden in seemingly simplicity. Phrasing and guitar accompaniment is wonderful. Striped down. Doesn't need a full band to totally feel the groove and the intensity" "Blues" "The real blues. Truth, soul, song about the human experience. The original blues guitar"






Grp 2

P 1

E10 - Wes Montgomery "Nice swinging groove. Nice guitar. Good quartet. Unit 7. I like the drummer"

E11 - Cedar Walton Trio "I didn't know what time it was" "Nice piano trio. Great arrangement. Rhythms at the start of the A sections. Great kick into 2nd chorus."



"Piano bass drums guitar. Swing. Not a contemporary recording, I think. Wes Montgomery?" "My favorite. My recording. Swinging, great rhythm section melodic guitar playing. Thematic. Bebop and some more modern intervalic movement. More diatonic though. Very rhythmic playing. Creative repetitive only in thematic way" "Swing beat, walking bass, guitar played with thumb, some interaction between soloist and rhythm section"

"Piano trio. I didn't know what time it was. Swing. Not sure who the pianist is"



"Very good stride playing. Kind of reminds me of Ahmad Jamal trio playing with the hits. Definitely arranged, but in a hip way that builds energy and allows for creativity"



"Piano trio, solo intro features stride piano style. Melody features lots of hits and arranged sections"



"Hard swing. Drums poorly recorded. Guitar "Trio well rehersed. Strong leadership from the solo - good melodic and rhythmic piano player. Reacting well to one and other. development. Piano, bass, guitar, drums" Responsive drum and bass."




E12 - Miles Davis "Rhythm changes. Muted trumpet - Miles & Sonny Rollins. Love the strong bass"

E13 - Bill Frissell "Very interesting how it can sound African, or Balkan, or polka. Interesting guitar. It sounds like folk music, but with a more abstract modern touch, a bit disjointed. I like how the beat keeps changing" "Guitar, country feel + outside sound contrast, bass + drums. Another one that makes me smile. References to different country cliches, mocking?"





"What I like about this (I brought this one in) is the melodic sensibility all of the musicians bring to this work. Plus I love Miles Davis - really beautiful phrasing and sound on the instrument"



"Miles Davis Oleo (sorry I've listened to a lot!!) Prominent strong P.C. bass lines. "Eclectic melodic, + good use of sounds. Not trad. Bridge going for a non trad theme that Jazz feel. Group playing/ensemble playing. Great plays w/ harmony (chromatic decending guitar sound (Bill Frisell) eclectic (klezmer, polka movment) Sparse, Red Garland/Horace feel)" Silver? Comping hip though. Sonny Rollins hip sax rhythm." "Very tight ensemble sound, piano used very sparingly creates an interesting texture. Straight-ahead swing drums and walking bass roles" "I like the sound of trumpet and sax on melody. The recording sounds like each instrument was isolated not organic less interaction from rhythm section" "Great musical humor, very playful. Highly interactive. I love Bill Frisell. He has great phrasing, taste, and a very unique sound and vocabulary. I love Bill Frisell. Fractured drums still create a deep groove. Electric bass in a responsive, fractured st "Guitar - effects. Bass guitar drums. Very broken feel - in time. Tango like. Lots of interaction or lots of written music"








E14 - Thelonious Monk "I love Monk's music. Charlie Rouse. I think plays his stuff the best. He really digs into this tune. He can be so swinging, but yet real off. Some amazing 16th note lines. I love Frankie Dunlop's drumming too" "Monk again. Quartet. Swing. Charlie Rouse long time associate of Monk. Sounds great playing Monk's tunes. He has the right sensibility for the music. Great swing feel in the rhythm section. More smiles. Rhythm sect. does a good job of supporting the sax "Monk awesome. Great rhythm section feel. Great sax sound slightly out of tune. Not just a lick playing solo, but firmly rooted in bop. Thematic. Piano comping hip/sparse/rhythmic" "Simple, repetitive melody but not boring. Great swing feel fromo the drums - very propulsive. Piano comping creates a great texture of shifting accents" "Monk Bemsha Swing. Hard swinging jazz combo"











245 Table 3.9: Pilot and Eminent Performer Study Descriptors

Pilot Study Descriptions Subtle articulation; Note attack Blues inflection; Down home blues Transcendent communicator; Conversational; Accompaniment Carefully balanced orchestration; Dense orchestration; Compositional vision Shape of musical line; Intervallic contour

Coded Descriptor Articulation Blues Influence Communication and Orchestration Composition and Orchestration Contour

Outside the harmonic backdrop; Aural openness outside of a Dissonance perscribed harmony; Dissonant horns Pathos; Humorous; Soulful; Struggle; Despair; Optimistic sorrow; Authoritative; Emotional investment in musical direction Political message; Leadership; Irreverence; Spiritual commonality; Lived relationship to music Grooving; Funky; Swinging; Laid back; Tight without being too slick; Foundation; Lifting quality of quarter note Use of pedal point; tonal; Purposeful harmonic mutilation; Harmonic class and sophistication; Single tonal center Thinking beyond today; Spontaneous; Creative Lyrical; Dark dyrics; Masterful prose and concision Triadic melody; Melodic; Melodically quirky Space as musical statement; Rhythmically varied phrasing Repetitive; The same pattern over and over Emotion and Expression Extramusical Association Groove

Harmony and Tonality Improvisational Creativity Lyricism Melodicism Phrasing Repetition

Rhythmic variety; Rhythmic maturity; Fluid rhythmic support Rhythm and interaction Risk-taking; Stepping out of boundaries; Creative risking Highly structured; Symmetrical harmony and form Texturally interesting; Density of melodic line Dark tone; Sonic pallete; Vocal sound quality; Singing tone; Colors in brass; Unique timbre; Raw; Gritty sound quality; Beautiful vocal sound Tempo change; Relaxed time; Sole time keeper; Ability to stretch time Effortless virtuosity; Virtuosic Subtle counterpoint; Voice-leading apparent Risk-taking Structure Texture Timbre

Time Virtuosity Voice Leading

246 Table 4.3: Geodesic Counts Between Participants
P_ID AK AK 1 AU 3 AB 16 AH 12 3 AS 2 BS 1 BP 2 BT 2 CB 3 CG DB 3 DC 1 DD 1 1 DT DH 1 DM 3 FLM 1 GB 12 GW 22 JD1 3 JS1 2 JS2 1 JG1 3 12 JK 2 JH JG2 1 JD2 2 1 JB 2 JM JS3 1 1 JW KK 1 1 KJ KB 2 2 LB MS1 1 MR 2 MG 1 MK 1 MA 1 MS2 2 NH 3 PM 3 QK 3 19 RK RM 3 2 RS SM 1 1 TF 2 TD 1 TS AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 1 1 1 3 41 4 18 3 2 7 3 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 10 6 1 1 1 3 2 10 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 9 4 13 7 1 2 8 2 1 11 4 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 9 3 1 4 1 4 4 1 5 2 4 10 1 8 3 1 13 2 4 4 3 1 14 1 1 2 1 6 3 3 21 14 1 7 2 3 1 1 41 1 12 2 3 2 4 12

1 6 4 6 1 4 14 6 11 8 2 3 3 1 10 2 1 1 1 1 12 13 1 10 1 3 5 1 4 1 25 14 5 1 2 4 6 11 14 11 3 14 31 1 10 1 1 10

1 1 1 3 2 2 4 1 5 1 5 4 8 1 2 1 3 8 2 6 1 1 3 13 1 10 1 1 7 9 3 1 2 1 11 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 2 1 1 2 16

1 1 1 1 1 18 29 1 4 1 4 3 1 2 1 4 4 2 4 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 8 1 4 11 9 1 2 1 1 3 2 10 3 3 16 13

1 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 1 7 2 3 1 3 7 3 5 3 2 1 12 1 10 4 2 8 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 7 3 2 1 1 1

1 2 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 9 23 26 6 6 2 1 3 12 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 4 3 8 1 1 11 7 23 1 4 1 4 2

1 1 2 1 6 5 5 5 3 6 3 1 4 4 2 4 7 21 3 1 6 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 2 22 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 21 14

1 1 14 2 10 1 2 19 7 1 13 1 21 13 12 2 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 5 9 1 1 4 3

1 2 1 1 1 1 10 3 5 5 5 8 1 8 7 3 1 19 21 1 7 4 11 1 6 2 1 3 2 1 5 2 1 5 4 15 3 5 4 3 2

1 5 1 4 1 20 5 1 10 2 22 11 9 7 8 2 25 5 7 3 3 13 1 9 1 1 3 2 13 9 16 8 3 1 38 2 10 2 5 1

1 5 1 1 13 1 1 2 1 18 4 6 1 2 13 19 1 18 1 1 10 5 3 1 14 3 5 1 3 7 5 2 2 10 1 3 33 4 2

1 9 1 3 3 5 1 1 2 8 3 1 1 1 4 3 2 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 10 2 3 5 12 8 1 6 18 4 6 6 1 4

1 2 1 1 5 8 4 1 1 3 1 4 12 1 2 4 2 5 3 1 1 3 3 11 2 1 1 24 17 10 2 2 3 7 1 14 6

1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 8 10 6 4 4 11 3 4 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 7 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 13 1 3 4 1 6 1 1 17 7 1 2 5 9 14 19 15 2 1 40 1 13 1 1 1

1 1 3 2 1 1 9 4 1 5 1 1 18 3 10 13 1 1 1 18 5 1 1 1 6 5 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 2

1 6 5 4 1 20 1 1 1 3 1 2 12 5 2 2 1 1 40 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 5 4 4 3

1 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 3 1 4 4 4 1 1 8 2 1 1 3 2 1 16 11 1 1 4 5 1 1 4 3


P_ID JS1 AK AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 JS1 1 JS2 1 JG1 7 1 JK 4 JH JG2 3 JD2 8 1 JB 2 JM JS3 2 51 JW KK 1 2 KJ 10 KB 1 LB MS1 2 MR 4 MG 1 MK 2 MA 1 MS2 6 NH 1 PM 1 QK 1 1 RK RM 18 31 RS SM 5 1 TF 4 TD 3 TS


1 2 1 1 3 14 1 3 5 1 6 1 1 18 6 1 2 5 13 16 21 17 3 16 45 1 13 1 1 1

1 2 8 5 1 4 4 3 7 2 3 2 9 2 3 1 2 4 1 14 11 1 7 3 4 1 7 1 1

1 12 1 10 1 3 5 1 4 1 24 11 6 1 1 4 4 9 12 9 3 13 29 64 11 1 1 9

1 14 1 1 4 1 3 1 17 2 10 1 1 2 1 2 9 3 2 5 3 2 1 1 3 5 1

1 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 6 2 2 3 3 1 4 1 1 3 2 13 8 2 2 1 1

1 30 3 2 3 2 1 1 6 1 3 7 2 3 1 2 1 9 5 2 2 1 1 3 2

1 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 10 1 3 10 14 29 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1

1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 10 3 5 4 4 2 3 2 1 2 1 13

1 4 16 5 3 2 9 1 2 1 9 3 6 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 13

1 1 1 1 3 27 26 63 3 4 6 15 8 70 1 21 3 7 3 1 1

1 7 5 1 8 11 1 6 2 2 8 4 2 1 6 1 2 2 4 13

1 1 19 6 1 3 6 7 17 1 1 3 1 50 2 16 2 1 1

1 1 2 3 12 10 2 2 2 1 12 6 4 1 1 1 11 4

1 2 2 1 3 3 8 1 1 11 7 20 2 3 1 3 2

1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 10 1 13 2 1

1 3 13 10 2 1 1 6 2 7 12 2 3 13 1

1 1 3 1 11 9 1 1 1 2 5 8 5 5

1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1

1 3 6 4 2 1 6 1 1 20 2 1




1 1 12 1 1 7 1 1 4 3

1 9 1 5 3 1 1 3 2

1 1 2 1 1 1 7 5

1 18 24 5 9 2 2

1 1 1 17 8 8

1 1 2 26 11

1 5 3 3

1 2 3

1 1


249 Table 4.4: Geodesic Distances Between Participants
P_ID AK AK 0 AU 3 4 AB AH 3 2 AS 2 BS 2 BP 3 BT 4 CB 3 CG 2 DB 3 DC DD 2 1 DT DH 3 DM 2 FLM 2 3 GB GW 3 JD1 2 JS1 2 JS2 2 JG1 2 3 JK 3 JH JG2 2 JD2 2 2 JB 2 JM JS3 2 3 JW KK 3 2 KJ 3 KB 2 LB MS1 2 MR 2 MG 2 MK 2 MA 2 MS2 2 NH 3 PM 2 QK 2 3 RK RM 2 3 RS SM 1 2 TF 2 TD 1 TS AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 0 2 2 3 4 3 3 6 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 0 3 2 3 3 1 5 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 4 1 3 3 3 4

0 3 3 3 2 5 4 3 3 4 2 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 2

0 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 3

0 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 2 2 3 3

0 3 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

0 4 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 3

0 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 6 4 4 5 5

0 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 3

0 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2

0 3 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3

0 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 2 2 4 3 4 1 1 4 1 3 3 4 3 3 1 3 4 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 3

0 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 2

0 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1

0 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 1 1

0 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

0 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2

0 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2

P_ID JS1 AK AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 JS1 0 JS2 2 JG1 2 2 JK 3 JH JG2 2 JD2 2 1 JB 2 JM JS3 2 4 JW KK 3 2 KJ 3 KB 1 LB MS1 2 MR 2 MG 1 MK 2 MA 2 MS2 2 NH 2 PM 1 QK 1 1 RK RM 3 4 RS SM 2 1 TF 2 TD 2 TS JS2 JG1 JK JH JG2 JD2 JB JM JS3 JW KK KJ KB LB MS1 MR MG MK MA

0 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 1

0 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1

0 4 2 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 4 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 5 3 2 1 2

0 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3

0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 2

0 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2

0 3 2 3 4 1 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 2 2 1 1

0 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 3

0 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 3

0 1 3 1 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 3

0 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 3 3 4

0 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 3 2 1 1

0 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 3 3

0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2

0 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 2 2

0 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 1

0 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2

0 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2

0 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2


0 1 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 3

0 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 2

0 1 2 3 1 1 2 2

0 3 4 2 2 2 2

0 3 1 3 3 3

0 2 3 4 4

0 2 2 2

0 2 2

0 1


252 Table 4.5: Degree-Degree Correlations Between Participants


AK 1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.11 0.03 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.08 -0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.04 0.05 -0.01 0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.04 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.01 0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.03 0.05 -0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01 -0.04

AU 1.00 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.00 -0.03 0.17 -0.02 -0.02 0.05 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.09 0.00 -0.04 -0.03 0.16 -0.03 0.09 0.14 -0.02 0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03

AB 1.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.12 -0.01 -0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.13 0.09 0.03 -0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.06 0.01 -0.04 0.18 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04













1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 0.04 0.32 -0.04 0.06 -0.02 -0.01 0.54 -0.01 0.42 -0.03 -0.01 -0.05 0.62 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.45 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.31 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.36 0.36

1.00 -0.01 0.20 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.19 0.00 -0.04 0.06 -0.04 0.06 -0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.02 -0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.06 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.04

1.00 -0.02 0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.12 -0.03 0.16 -0.05 -0.02 0.06 0.06 0.13 -0.04 0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 0.17 -0.04 -0.05 0.00 0.04 -0.02 0.06 0.08 0.01 -0.04 0.09 0.08 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.02 0.08 -0.03 0.01 -0.04 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.02 -0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.03 0.12 -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 0.06 -0.02 -0.03 0.03 -0.04 -0.03 0.03 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01

1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.01 0.00 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 -0.04 -0.04 0.09 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.05 -0.05 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.12 -0.03 0.11 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.16 -0.04 0.15 -0.04 -0.03 0.03 0.15 -0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.18 0.04 -0.01 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.17 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.10 -0.04 -0.04 0.12 0.22 0.05 0.03

1.00 -0.04 -0.01 0.10 0.00 -0.04 0.09 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.23 -0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.13 -0.04 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.34 0.29 -0.04 0.17 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 -0.05 0.17 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.01 0.31 0.10 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.02 0.19 0.03 0.06 0.42 0.05 -0.01 0.15 -0.04 0.14 0.28 0.17 -0.04 -0.05 0.16 0.18 0.07 0.07

1.00 0.00 -0.04 0.27 0.06 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04 0.18 0.04 -0.05 -0.04 0.06 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.08 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
















1.00 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.33 0.22 0.08 0.58 0.05 -0.03 0.24 0.28 0.08 0.08 0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0.07 -0.02 0.26 0.04 0.17 0.36 0.00 0.07 0.26 -0.01 0.15 0.35 0.16 0.02 -0.05 0.21 0.20 0.13 0.10

1.00 -0.01 -0.04 -0.03 0.05 0.64 0.04 0.54 -0.04 0.03 -0.05 0.61 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.60 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 0.50 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.06 0.01 -0.01 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 0.54 0.27

1.00 0.24 0.07 0.00 -0.02 0.18 -0.04 0.11 0.25 0.08 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 0.08 -0.04 -0.04 0.10 0.08 0.02 -0.04 0.13 -0.02 0.08 0.09 -0.04 0.09 0.09 -0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.00 -0.02 0.03 0.02

1.00 0.26 0.09 0.06 0.37 -0.05 -0.04 0.21 0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 0.05 0.04 0.15 0.03 -0.05 0.27 0.02 0.13 0.36 0.00 0.22 0.20 0.10 0.02 -0.05 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.07

1.00 0.23 -0.02 0.59 0.00 -0.04 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.14 0.17 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 0.34 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.17 -0.01 0.28 -0.04 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.07 -0.04 0.35 0.27 0.13 0.08

1.00 -0.01 0.24 -0.02 -0.03 0.05 0.25 -0.03 0.05 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.47 -0.01 -0.03 0.21 0.03 0.23 0.48 0.49 -0.03 -0.04 0.14 0.34 0.05 0.06

1.00 0.01 0.70 -0.04 0.03 -0.05 0.68 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.76 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 0.65 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 0.07 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.57 0.33

1.00 0.01 -0.03 0.21 0.24 0.04 0.16 0.13 -0.04 -0.04 0.03 0.01 0.41 0.10 0.08 0.57 0.09 0.11 0.48 -0.04 0.41 0.52 0.23 0.06 -0.04 0.28 0.29 0.15 0.14

1.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.64 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.60 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 0.66 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 0.38 0.41

1.00 -0.03 -0.02 -0.04 0.23 -0.02 0.08 -0.02 -0.03 0.01 -0.04 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.24 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.06 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.08 0.02 -0.02

1.00 -0.05 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.03 -0.03 0.10 0.18 -0.02 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.26 0.17 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.30 0.04 0.01

1.00 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.71 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.55 0.02 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 0.53 0.41

1.00 0.09 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.02 -0.01 0.04 0.06 0.51 -0.05 0.10 -0.04 0.09 0.08 0.03 0.02 -0.04 0.36 0.08 0.00 -0.04

1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 0.04 0.14 -0.05 0.10 -0.04 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.12 -0.04 0.12 0.02 -0.02 -0.04















1.00 0.12 -0.04 0.17 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.05 0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 0.11 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.04

1.00 -0.04 0.22 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.62 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.01 0.00 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 0.01 0.47 0.39

1.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.06 0.03 -0.04 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.02 0.02 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.05 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.07 0.33 -0.01 0.29 0.41 0.24 -0.04 -0.05 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.08

1.00 -0.02 0.06 0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.05 0.03

1.00 0.06 -0.04 -0.05 0.05 -0.04 -0.02 0.15 0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.07 0.09 0.49 0.31

1.00 0.00 0.02 0.33 -0.04 0.25 0.54 0.35 0.02 -0.04 0.25 0.26 0.19 0.13

1.00 -0.03 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01 -0.03 0.29 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

1.00 0.09 -0.04 0.03 0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.05 0.00 -0.01

1.00 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.15 -0.04 0.33 0.24 0.08 0.04

1.00 0.00 -0.05 0.04 -0.01 -0.04 0.00 0.02 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.22 0.29 0.12 -0.05 0.12 0.26 0.03 0.02

1.00 0.13 -0.01 -0.05 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.09

1.00 -0.03 -0.04 0.14 0.36 0.02 0.12


1.00 -0.04 0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04

1.00 0.23 1.00 0.08 0.05 1.00 0.03 0.09 0.30 1.00

256 Table 4.6: Hierarchical-Clustering Iterations
P_N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 P_ID AK AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 JS1 JS2 JG1 JK JH JG2 JD2 JB JM JS3 JW KK KJ KB LB MS1 MR MG MK MA MS2 NH PM QK RK RM RS SM TF TD TS HC_1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 HC_150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 4 17 16 16 18 4 16 4 17 7 18 4 19 20 13 21 4 22 16 23 4 16 19 24 25 26 27 16 18 28 29 19 30 4 4 HC_200 1 2 3 1 4 5 4 5 6 7 5 3 8 5 9 5 1 9 5 5 5 1 5 1 10 4 5 1 10 11 8 8 1 11 5 5 1 5 10 10 12 5 5 5 5 12 8 10 8 1 1 HC_211 3 2 4 3 1 1 1 1 4 5 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 HC_216 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

257 Table 4.7: Girvan-Newman Partitions
P_N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 P_ID AK AU AB AH AS BS BP BT CB CG DB DC DD DT DH DM FLM GB GW JD1 JS1 JS2 JG1 JK JH JG2 JD2 JB JM JS3 JW KK KJ KB LB MS1 MR MG MK MA MS2 NH PM QK RK RM RS SM TF TD TS Part 10 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 4 0 9 1 4 2 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 4 1 3 4 8 4 2 3 2 1 10 3 1 5 2 1 7 1 1 1 8 6 1 1 3 3 Part 8 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 4 0 8 1 4 2 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 4 1 3 4 7 4 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 6 1 1 1 7 5 1 1 3 3 Part 5 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 0 5 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 3 3 Part 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 Part 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

258 Table 4.8: Density Values for Participants

P_N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51


Ties 6 10 14 122 20 6 20 2 0 0 30 12 30 82 26 166 146 64 86 134 122 168 112 140 24 34 70 168 30 24 18 10 160 28 72 8 130 126 40 24 94 2 124 136 64 18 12 70 62 128 82

Density 1.58 2.63 2.77 29.05 5.26 1.58 5.26 0.53 0.00 0.00 7.89 2.86 7.14 11.68 6.19 16.73 26.45 11.59 12.25 22.33 32.11 30.43 26.67 36.84 6.32 8.95 11.67 30.43 7.14 5.71 4.74 2.63 38.10 7.37 12.00 2.11 28.14 19.38 10.53 4.00 24.74 0.53 14.25 19.37 16.84 4.74 3.16 16.67 14.76 25.30 19.52

Figures Figure 4.2: Professional Jazz Musician Collaborators Network


Figure 4.3: Professional Jazz Musician Collaborator Network in Three Main Clusters


Figure 4.4: Louis Armstrong Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.5: Ornette Coleman Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.6: John Coltrane Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.7: Miles Davis Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.8: Duke Ellington Excerpt Associations Network


4.9: Herbie Hancock Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.10: Coleman Hawkins Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.11: Billie Holiday Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.12: Charles Mingus Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.13: Thelonious Monk Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.14: Wes Montgomery Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.15: Charlie Parker Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.16: Jaco Pastorius Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.17: Max Roach Excerpt Associations Network


Figure 4.18: Sonny Rollins Excerpt Associations Network


276 References Adorno, T. W. (Ed.). (2002). Essays on music Berkeley: University of California Press. Agar, M., & Hobbs, J. R. (1985). How to grow schemata out of interviews. In J. W. D. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Aiello, R. (1994). Music and language: Parallels and contrasts. In R. Aiello (Ed.), Musical Perceptions (pp. 40-63). New York: Oxford University Press. Ake, D. (2002). Jazz cultures. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14. Anderson, R. C. (1923). The hobo: The sociology of the homeless man. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415-431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Arenas, A., Danon, L., Diaz-Guilera, A., Gleiser, P. M., & Guimera, R. (2004). Community analysis in social networks. The European Physical Journal B, 38, 373-380. Aristotle (1968, original work published ca. 350 B. C.). De Anima (D. W. Hamlyn, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Ashley, R. (2002). Do[n't] change a hair for me: The art of jazz rubato. Music Perception, 19(3), 311-332. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (volume 2) (pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baily, J. (1996). Using tests of sound perception in fieldwork. Yearbook for Traditional Music, 28, 147-173.

277 Bakagiannis, S., & Tarrant, M. (2006). Can music bring people together? Effects of shared music preference on intergroup bias in adolescence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 129-136. Balkwill, L.-L., & Thompson, W. F. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation of the perception of emotion in music: Psychophysical and cultural cues. Music Perception, 17(1), 43-64. Bangert, M., Peschel, T., Schlaug, G., Rotte, M., Drescher, D., Hinrichs, H., et al. (2003). Shared networks for auditory and motor processing in professional pianists: Evidence from fMRI conjunction. NeuroImage, 30(3), 917-926. Bar-Yosef, A. (2007). A cross-cultural structural analogy between pitch and time organizations. Music Perception, 24(3), 265-280. Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. C. Collins, S. E. Gathercole & M. A. Conway (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29-101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in sociology of deviance. London: Free Press of Glencoe. Becker, H. S. (1951). The professional dance musician and his audience. The American Journal of Sociology, 57(2), 136-144. Békésy, G. v. (1960). Experiments in hearing. Oxford, England: Mcgraw Hill. Benadon, F. (2003). Spectrographic and calligraphic cues in the identification of jazz saxophonists. Paper presented at the 5th Triennial ESCOM Conference, Hanover University of Music and Drama, Germany. Berenzweig, A., Ellis, D., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Using voice segments to improve artist classification of music. Paper presented at the AES 22nd International Conference. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Berliner, P. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8(5-A), 279-286.

278 Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147. Biederman, I., Beiring, E., Ju, G., & Blickle, T. (1985). A comparison of the perception of partial vs. degraded objects. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo. Bjorkland, D. F., Muir-Broaddus, J. E., & Schneider, W. (1990). The role of knowledge in the development of strategies. In D. F. Bjorkland (Ed.), Children's strategies: Contemporary views of cognitive development (pp. 93-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blacking, J. (1974). How musical is man? Seattle: University of Washington Press. Blackmore, S. J. (1998). Imitation and the definition of a meme. Journal of Memetics – Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 2(2), 1-14. Bloom, H. (1973). The anxiety of influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Borgatti, S. P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies. Bourdieu, P. (2003). Participant objectivation. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 281-294. Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 331-350. Bregman, A. S., & Campbell, J. (1971). Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 244-249. Brewer, M. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brewer, W. F. (1987). Schemas versus mental models in human memory. In P. Morris (Ed.), Modelling cognition (pp. 187-197). Chichester: Wiley. Brittin, R. V. (1991). The effect of overtly categorizing music on preference for popular music styles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(2), 143-151. Broadbent, D. E. (1957). A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychological Review, 64, 205-307. Brooks, L. R. (1978). Nonanalytic concept formation and memory for instances. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 169-211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

279 Brown, C., & Lloyd-Jones, T. J. (2006). Beneficial effects of verbalization and visual distinctiveness on remembering and knowing faces. Memory and Cognition, 34, 277-286. Bruce, R., & Kemp, A. (1993). Sex-stereotyping in children's preferences for musical instruments. British Journal of Music Education, 10, 213-217. Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, G. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley. Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In J. S. Bruner, E. Brunswik, L. Festinger, F. Heider, K. F. Muenzinger, C. E. Osgood & D. Rapaport (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 218-238). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burkholder, P. (2007). A simple model for associative musical meaning. In B. Almen & E. Pearsall (Eds.), Approaches to meaning in music. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 6(293-339). Burt, R. S. (1985). General social survey items. Connections, 8, 119-122. Carr, I. (1999). Miles Davis: The definitive biography. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. Castellano, M. A., Bharucha, J. J., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1984). Tonal hierarchies in the music of north India. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(3), 394-412. Cermak, L., & Craik, F. (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (1997). "Pulling teeth and torture": Musical memory and problem solving. Thinking and Reasoning, 3(4), 315-336. Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, 13(4), 342-349. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973a). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55-81. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973b). The mind's eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, N. (1966). Topics in the theory of generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

280 Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127-149): American Psychological Association. Clarke, E. F. (2005). Ways of listening: An ecological approach to the perception of musical meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. Clarke, E. F., & Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Perceiving musical time. Music Perception, 7(3), 213252. Cohen, A. K., & Short, J. F. (1958). Research in delinquent subcultures. The Journal of Sociological Issues, 14(3), 20-37. Cohen, B. H. (1963). Recall of categorized word sets. Journal of experimental Psychology 66, 227-234. Cohen, S. (1991). Rock culture in Liverpool. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coker, W. (1972). Music and meaning: A theoretical introduction to musical aesthetics. New York: Free Press. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8(2), 240-247. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1970). Facilitating retrieval from semantic memory: The effect of repeating part of an inference. Acta Psychologica, 33, 304-314. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1972). Experiments on semantic memory and language comprehension. In L. W. Gregg (Ed.), Cognition in learning and memory (pp. 117-138). New York: John Wiley. Conrad, C. (1972). Cognitive economy in semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 75-84. Cooke, D. (1959). The language of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. Cross, I. (2001). Music, cognition, culture, and evolution. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 28-42.

281 Cuddy, L., & Badertscher, B. (1987). Recovery of the tonal hierarchy: Some comparisons across age and levels of musical experience. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 609-620. Curtis, M. E., & Bharucha, J. J. (2009). Memory and musical expectation for tones in cultural context. Music Perception, 26(365-75). Darrow, A. A., Haack, P. A., & Kuribayashi, F. (1987). Descriptors and preferences for Eastern and Western musics by Japanese and American nonmusic majors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 237-248. Davidson, J. W., & Edgar, R. (2003). Gender and race bias in the judgment of western art music performance. Music Education Research, 5(2), 169-182. Davidson, J. W., & Good, J. M. (2002). Social and musical co-ordination between members of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30(2), 186-201. Davis, C. A., & Ashley, R. (2005). Jazz as a musical conversation: How do jazz musicians communicate with each other? Paper presented at the Performance Matters! International Conference on Practical, Psychological, Philosophical and Educational Issues in Musical Performance, Porto, Portugal, 14-17 September. Davis, M., & Troupe, Q. (1989). Miles: The autobiography. New York: Touchstone. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess (1st ed.). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton Publishers. De Stefano, R. (1995). Wes Montgomery's improvisational style (1959-63): The riverside years. University of Montreal, Montreal. Deese, J. (1965). The structure of associations in language and thought. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. Deliège, I. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl & Jackendoff's grouping preference rules. Music Perception, 4(4), 325-360. Deliège, I. (1989). A perceptual approach to contemporary musical forms. Contemporary Music Review, 4, 213-230. Deliège, I. (1991). L'organisation psychologique de l'écoute de la musique. Des marques de sédimentation - indice, empreinte - dans la represésentation mentale de l'oeuvre., Thèse doctrale, Université de Liège, Liège.

282 Deliège, I. (1992). Recognition of the Wagnerian leitmotiv. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie, 9, 25-54. Deliège, I. (2006). Analogy: Creative support to elaborate a model of music listening. In I. Deliége & G. Wiggins (Eds.), Musical creativity: Multidisciplinary research in theory and practice (pp. 63-77). London: Psychology Press. Deliége, I., Melen, M., Stammers, D., & Cross, I. (1996). Musical schemata in real-time listening to a piece of music. Music Perception, 14(2), 117-160. DeMichael, D. (1962). John Coltrane and Eric Dolphy answer the jazz critics. Downbeat, April 2, 20-23. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeNora, T. (2003). After Adorno: Rethinking music sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Desain, P. (1992). A (de)composable theory of rhythm perception. Music Perception, 9(4), 439454. DeSoto, C. B. (1961). The predilection for single orderings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 16-24. Deustch, D. (1975). Two-channel listening to musical scales. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 57, 1156-1160. Deustch, D. (1999). The psychology of music. New York: Academic Press. Deustch, D., Henthorn, T., & Dolson, M. (2004). Absolute pitch, speech, and tone language: Some experiments and a proposed framework. Music Perception, 21(3), 339-356. Dewar, K. M., Cuddy, L. L., & Mewhort, D. J. (1977). Recognition memory for single tones with and without context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 60-67. Dewey, M. E. (1983). Coefficients of agreement. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 487-489. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 735-808.

283 Dorr, N. (2008). Jazz? A look at the blur between jazz and everything else with the vanguard of Brooklyn's avant scene. Features. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Dowling, J. (1973). The perception of interleaved melodies. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 322-337. Dowling, J., & Fujitani, D. S. (1971). Contour, interval, and pitch recognition in memory for melodies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 524-531. Dowling, J., & Harwood, D. (1986). Music cognition. San Diego: Academic Press. Dowling, W. J. (1978). Scale and contour: Two components of a theory of memory for melodies. Perception and Psychophysics, 23(4), 341-354. Dunn, D. (1999). Purposeful listening in complex states of time (score). In B. LaBelle & S. Roden (Eds.), Site of sound: Of architecture and the ear. Copenhagen/Los Angeles: Errant Bodies Press. Dunscomb, R., & Hill, W. L. (2002). Jazz pedagogy: The jazz educator's handbook and resource guide. New York: Alfred Publishing. Edmonds, E. M., & Smith, M. E. (1923). The phenomenological description of musical intervals. American Journal of Psychology, 34, 287-291. Einhorn, H., Kleinmuntz, D., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review, 465-85. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207-283). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49-98. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124-129. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K., et al. (1987). Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(4), 712-717. Ellington, D. E. (1976). Music is my mistress. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211-245.

284 Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erlewine, M., Bogdanov, V., Woodstra, C., & Yanow, S. (1998). All music guide to jazz: The experts' guide to the best jazz recordings. San Francisco: Miller Freeman Books. Estes, W. K. (1976). The cognitive side of probability learning. Psychological Review, 83, 37-64. Fernandez, A., Diez, E., Alonso, M. A., & Beato, M. S. (2004). Free-association norms for the Spanish names of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(3), 577-583. Finnäs, L. (1989). A comparison between young people's privately and publicly expressed musical preferences. Psychology of Music, 17, 132-145. Finnegan, R. (2007). The hidden musicians: Music-making in an English town, 2nd edn, Music/Culture series. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Fisher, R. A. (1925). Applications of "student's" distribution. Metron, 5, 90-104. Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Francès, R. (1958). La perception de la musique. Paris: Vrin. Freedman, J. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1971). Retrieval of words from long-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 107-115. Frith, S. (1981). Sound effects: Youth, leisure and the politics of rock 'n' roll. New York: Pantheon. Fung, H. H. (1994). The socialization of shame in young Chinese children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, Chicago. Furnham, A., & Walker, J. (2001). Personality and judgments of abstract, pop art, and representational paintings. European Journal of Personality, 15, 57-72. Gabrielsson, A., & Juslin, P. (1996). Emotional expression in music performance: Between the performer's intention and the listener's experience. Psychology of Music, 24, 68-91. Galton, F. R. S. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149-162. Garrigues, C. H. (1959, October 11). Recapturing the magic of miles. San Francisco Examiner.

285 Gebhardt, N. (2001). Going for jazz: Musical practices and American ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gelly, D., & Bacon, T. (2000). Masters of jazz saxophone: The story of the players and their music. London: Balafon Books. Giaquinto, G., Bledsoe, C., & McGuirk, B. (2009). Influence and similarity between contemporary jazz artists, plus six degrees of kind of blue. University of Michigan. Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton. Gibson, E. J., & Gibson, E. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Review, 62, 32-41. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & Group, t. A. R. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press. Gil-White, F. J. (2001). Sorting is not categorization: A critique of the claim that Brazilians have fuzzy racial categories. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(3), 219-249. Gioia, T. (1997). The history of jazz. New York: Oxford University Press. Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821-7826. Gleiser, P. M., & Danon, L. (2003). Community structure in jazz. Advances in complex systems, 6(4), 565-573. Gourse, L. (1997). Straight, no chaser: The life and genius of Thelonious Monk New York: Schirmer Trade Books. Gracyk, T. (2004). Does everyone have a musical identity? Reflections on Musical Identities. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 3(1). Graham, J. A., & Argyle, M. (1975). A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures. International Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 57-67. Green, L. (2001). How popular musicians learn. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishers. Grey, J. M. (1977). Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbre. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61, 1270-1277.

286 Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3 (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press. Gridley, M. C. (1983). Perception of saxophone tone color. Proceedings of NAJE Research, 3, 47-51. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California Riverside (published in digital form at Hanslick (1891). The beautiful in music: A contribution to the revisal of musical aesthetics (G. Cohen, Trans.). London: Novello, Ewer and Co. Hargreaves, D. J. (1984). The effects of repetition on liking for music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 35-47. Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Response to "Improvised conversations: Music, collaboration, and development," by Keith Sawyer. Psychology of Music, 27(2), 205-207. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1997). The social psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haygood, R. C., & Bourne, L. E. (1965). Attribute- and rule-learning aspects of conceptual behavior. Psychological Review, 72, 175-195. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358374. Hellevik, O. (1988). Introduction to causal analysis: Exploring survey data by cross-tabulation (2nd edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Helmholtz, H. L. F. (1877). On the sensations of tone: As a physiological basis for the theory of music. New York: Dover Publications. Hevner, K. (1935a). The affective character of the major and minor modes in music. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 103-118. Hevner, K. (1935b). Expression in music: A discussion of experimental studies and theories. Psychological Review, 47, 186-204. Hevner, K. (1936). Experimental studies of the elements of expression in music. American Journal of Psychology, 48, 223-248.

287 Hevner, K. (1937). The affective value of pitch and tempo in music. American Journal of Psychology, 49, 621-630. Hintzman, D. L. (1978). The psychology of learning and memory. San Francisco: Freeman Publishers. Hood, M. (1960). The challenge of "bi-musicality". Ethnomusicology, 4(2), 55-59. Hull, C. L. (1920). Quantitative aspects of the evolution of concepts. Psychological Monographs, XXVIII(1.123), 1-86. Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Huron, D., & Ollen, J. (2003). Agogic contrast in French and English themes: Further support for Patel and Daniele (2003). Music Perception, 21(2), 267-271. Iacobucci, D. (1994). Graph theory. In S. Wasserman & K. Faust (Eds.), Social network analysis: Methodology and applications (pp. 92-166). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ianuly, T. N. p., Cornerford, J. W. p., Dahlia, B. a. p., Larson, L. d., Rivoira, M. d., & Vogt, P. J. d. (2009). Icons among us [motion picture]. New York: Paradigm Studio. Inglefield, H. (1968). The relationship of selected personality variables to conformity behavior reflected in the musical preferences of adolescents when exposed to peer group leader influences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Inglefield, H. (1972). Conformity behavior reflected in the musical preference of adolescents. Contributions to Music Education. Iyer, V. (2004). Exploding the narrative in jazz improvisation. In R. G. O'Meally, B. H. Edwards & F. J. Griffin (Eds.), Uptown conversation: The new jazz studies. New York: Columbia University Press. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Jackson, T. A. (1998). Performance and musical meaning: Analyzing "jazz" on the New York scene. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Jaffe, A. (1983). Jazz theory. Dubuque, Iowa: WM. C. Brown Company Publishers. Janata, P., Tillman, B., & Bharucha, J. J. (2002). Listening to polyphonic music recruits domaingeneral attention and working memory circuits. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2(2), 121-140.

288 Jarvis, B. G. (2008). MediaLab (Version 2008.1.21) [Computer Software]. New York: Empirisoft Corporation. Jenkins, J. J., & Palermo, D. S. (1965). Further data on changes in word associations norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 303-309. Jenkins, J. J., & Russell, W. A. (1952). Associative clustering in recall. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 818-821. Jost, E. (1981). Free jazz. New York: DaCapo Press. Juola, J. F., & Atkinson, R. C. (1971). Memory scanning for words versus categories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 522-527. Juslin, P., Jones, S., Olsson, H., & Winman, A. (2003). Cue abstraction and exemplar memory in categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 924-941. Kahn, A. (2000). Kind of blue: The making of the Miles Davis masterpiece. New York: DaCapo. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31. Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of pure reason (P. Guyer & A. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Kernfield, B. (1995). What to Listen For in Jazz. New Haven: Yale University Press. Killworth, P. D., Johnsen, E. C., Bernard, H. R., Shelley, G. A., & McCarty, C. (1990). Estimating the size of personal networks. Social Networks, 12, 289-312. Kippen, J. (1987). An ethnomusicological approach to the analysis of musical cognition. Music Perception, 5(2), 173-196. Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology. New York: The Guilford Press. Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Knapp, R. (2001). Utopian agendas: Variation, allusion, and referential meaning in Brahms's symphonies. Brahms Studies, 3, 129-190.

289 Koelsch, S., Kasper, E., Sammler, D., Schulze, K., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Music, language and meaning: Brain signatures of semantic processing. Nature Neuroscience, 7(3), 302-307. Koniari, D., Predazzer, S., & Melen, M. (2001). Categorization and schematization processes used in music perception by 10- to 11-year-old children. Music Perception, 18(3), 297324. Krackhardt, D. (1987a). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9, 109-134. Krackhardt, D., & Porter, L. W. (1985). When friends leave: A structural analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayer's attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 242-261. Kraus, D. P. a. D., & Davis, J. P. (2007). Musician [Motion picture]. Chicago, IL: Sheriffmovie. Kreutz, G., Schubert, E., & Mitchell, L. A. (2008). Cognitive styles of music listening. Music Perception, 26(1), 57-73. Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Krumhansl, C. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. New York: Oxford University Press. Krumhansl, C. L., & Castellano, M. A. (1983). Dynamic processes in music perception. Memory and Cognition, 11, 325-334. Krumhansl, C. L., & Jusczyk, P. W. (1990). Infants' perception of phrase structure in music. Psychological Science, 1, 70-73. LaBarre, W. (1947). The cultural basis of emotions and gestures. Journal of Personality, 16(1), 49-68. Langer, S. (1954). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. New York: Mentor Books. Laumann, E., Marsden, P., & Prensky, D. (1989). The boundary specific problem in network analysis. In L. C. Freeman, D. R. White & A. Kimball (Eds.), Network analysis. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

290 Leach, E. R. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language. In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed.), New directions in the study of language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. LeBlanc, A. (1981). Generic style music preferences of fifth-grade students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27(4), 255-270. Leman, M., & Schneider, A. (1997). Origin and nature of cognitive and systematic musicology. In M. Leman (Ed.), Music, gestalt, and computing: Studies in cognitive and systematic musicology. Berlin: Springer. Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612. Levine, M. (1995). The jazz theory book. Petaluma, CA: Sher Music. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topical psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates". Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 43-195. Lewis, G. E. (1996). Improvised music after 1950: Afrological and eurological perspectives. In D. Fischlin & A. Heble (Eds.), The other side of nowhere: Jazz, improvisation, and communities in dialogue (pp. 131-162). Middletown: Wesleyan University Press. Lewis, G. E. (2008). A power stronger than itself: The AACM and American experimental music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 155. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage. Locke, J. (1690; 1997). An essay concerning human understanding. In R. Woolhouse (Ed.). New York: Penguin Books. Loftus, E. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 116119. Loftus, E. F. (1973a). Category dominance, instance dominance, and categorization time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 70-74.

291 Loftus, E. F. (1973b). Activation of semantic memory. American Journal of Psychology, 86, 331-337. Lomax, A. (1959). Folk song style American Anthropologist, 61(6), 927-954. Lomax, A. (1968). Folk song style and culture. Washington, D.C.: Colonial Press Inc, American Association for the Advancement of Science. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604. Longfellow, H. W. (1835). Outre-Mer: A pilgrimage beyond the sea. New York: Harper. Lubke, G. H., & Muthen, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 514-534. Macdonald, R. A. R., Hargreaves, D. J., & Miell, D. (Eds.). (2002). Musical identities. New York: Oxford University Press. Macdonald, R. A. R., & Wilson, G. (2005). Musical identities of professional jazz musicians: A focus group investigation. Psychology of Music, 33(4), 395-417. Macdonald, R. A. R., & Wilson, G. B. (2006). Constructions of jazz: How jazz musicians present their collaborative musical practice. Musicae Scientiae, 59-85. Martin, H., & Waters, K. (2002). Jazz: The first 100 years. Boston: Wadsworth-Schirmer. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan. McAdams (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: William C. Morrow and Co. McClary, S. (1991). Feminine endings: Music, gender, and sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McKay, C. (2004). Automatic genre classification as a study of the viability of high-level features for music classification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. Medin, D. L., Ross, B. H., & Markman, A. B. (1992). Cognitive psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

292 Medin, D. L., Ross, N. O., Atran, S., Cox, D., Coley, J., Proffitt, J., et al. (2006). Folkbiology of freshwater fish. Cognition, 99(3), 237-273. Medin, D. L., Ross, N. O., & Cox, D. (2006). Culture and resource conflict: Why meanings matter. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238. Medin, D. L., & Smith, E. E. (1981). Strategies and classification learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 241-253. Meinz, E. J. (2000). Experience-based attenuation of age-related differences in music cognition tasks. Psychology and Aging, 15(2), 297-312. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Chicago Northwestern University Press. Merriam, A. P., & Mack, R. W. (1960). The jazz community. Social Forces, 38, 211-222. Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview: A manual of problems and procedures (2nd Ed.). London: Collier MacMillan. Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541-557. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89-115. Meyer, D. E. (1970). On the representation and retrieval of stored semantic information. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 242-300. Meyer, L. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, L. (1967). Music, the arts, and ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, L. B. (1973). Explaining music: Essays and explorations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Meyer, L. B. (1989). Style and music: Theory, history, and ideology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

293 Meyer, L. M. (1980). Exploiting limits: Creation, archetypes and style-changes. Daedalus, 109(2), 177-205. Meyer, R. K., Palmer, C., & Mazo, M. (1998). Affective and coherent responses to Russian laments. Music Perception, 16(1), 135-150. Milgram, S. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1, 61-67. Miller, G. A., & Heise, G. A. (1950). The trill threshold. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 720-725. Mingus, C., & King, N. (1971). Beneath the underdog: His world as composed by Mingus. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1974). Artificial intelligence. Eugene, Oregon: Condon Lectures, Oregon/State System of Higher Education. Moisala, P. (1991). Cultural cognition in music: Continuity and change in the gurung music of Nepal. Jyvaskyla: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy. Moisala, P. (1995). Cognitive study of music as culture: Basic premises for cognitive ethnomusicology. Journal of New Music Research, 24, 8-20. Monson, I. (1994). Doubleness and jazz improvisation: Irony, parody, and ethnomusicology. Critical Inquiry, 20, 283-313. Monson, I. (1996). Saying something: Jazz improvisation and interaction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Moore, C., Romney, A. K., & Hsia, T. (2002). Cultural, gender, and individual differences in perceptual and semantic structures of basic colors in Chinese and English. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 2(1), 1-28. Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (1999). Introduction to the practice of statistics. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd Edition). London: Sage. Morgan, D. L., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1990). Mind and self in society: Linking social structure and social cognition. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(2), 148-164. Morgan, D. L., & Spanish, M. T. (1985). Social interaction and cognitive organisation of healthrelevant behavior. Sociology of Health and Illness, 7, 401-422.

294 Muir-Broaddus, J. E. (1998). Name seven words: Demonstrating the effects of knowledge on rate of retrieval. Teaching of Psychology, 25(2), 119-120. Murphy, J. P. (1990). Jazz improvisation: The joy of influence. The Black Perspective in Music, 18, 7-19. Myers, C. S. (1922). Individual differences in listening to music. British Journal of Psychology, 13, 52-71. Narmour, E. (1974). The melodic structure of tonal music. University of Chicago, Chicago. Narmour, E. (1977). Beyond schenkerism: The need for alternatives in music analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Neisser, U. (1982). Memory observed: Remembering in natural contexts. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Nelson, D. L., & McEvoy, C. (2000). What is this thing called frequency? Memory and Cognition, 28(4), 509-522. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C., & Dennis, S. (2000). What is free association and what does it measure? Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 887-899. Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(3), 402-407. Nelson, D. L., & Zhang, N. (2000). The ties that bind what is known to the recall of what is new. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 604-617. Nettl, B. (1956). Music in primitive culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Neville, H., & Heppner, M. J. (1999). Reviewing sequel and proposing a culturally inclusive ecological model of sexual assault recovery. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 4162. Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence, 18(1), 87-127. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nisenson, E. (2001). Making of kind of blue: Miles Davis and his masterpiece. New York: St. Martin's Press.

295 Norman, D. A. (1967). Temporal confusions and limited capacity processors. Acta Psychologica, 27, 85-94. Norman, D. A. (1973). Memory, knowledge, and the answering of questions. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology: The loyola symposium. Washington: Winston. Norman, D. A., Rumelhart, D. E., & Group, t. L. R. (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman. North, A. C., Colley, A. M., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2003). Adolescents' perception of the music of male and female composers. Psychology of Music, 31, 139-154. North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1995). Subjective complexity, familiarity, and liking for popular music. Psychomusicology, 14, 77-93. North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education Research, 1, 75-92. Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Exemplar-based approach to relating categorization, identification, and recognition. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Packman, J. (2009). Signifyin(g) Salvador: Professional musicians and the sound of flexibility in Bahia, Brazil's popular music scenes. Black Music Research Journal, 29(1), 83-126. Palermo, D. S., & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Paired-associate learning as a function of the strengths of links in the associative chain. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 171175. Patel, A. D. (2003). Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7), 674-681. Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. Regression, heredity and panmixia. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A, 187, 253-318. Pearson, K. (1900). On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can reasonably be supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Philosophical Magazine, 50, 157-175. Peirce, C. S. (Ed.). (1931-1958). Collected writings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

296 Peretz, I. (2001). Listen to the brain: The biological perspective on musical emotions. In J. A. Sloboda & P. Juslin (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peretz, I., & Gagnon, L. (1999). Dissociation between recognition and emotional judgment for melodies. Neurocase, 5, 21-30. Peretz, I., Gagnon, L., & Bouchard, B. (1998a). Music and emotion: perceptual determinants, immediacy, and isolation after brain damage. Cognition, 68(1998), 111-141. Peretz, I., Gaudreau, D., & Bonnel, A. M. (1998b). Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 884-902. Peretz, I., & Zatorre, R. J. (Eds.). (2003). The cognitive neuroscience of music. New York: NY: Oxford University Press. Peshkin, A. (1994). The presence of self: Subjectivity in the conduct of qualitative research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122, 45-56. Peterson, J. B., & Christenson, P. A. (1987). Political orientation and music preference in the 1980's. Popular Music and Society, 11(4), 1-18. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Pierce, C. S. (1880). On the algebra of logic. American Journal of Mathematics, 3, 15-57. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton. Plato (360 B.C.E.). The laws (B. Jowett, Trans.). Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing Plomp, R., & Levelt, J. M. (1965). Tonal consonance and critical bandwidth. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 38, 548-560. Posner (1973). Cognition: An introduction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 353-363. Posner, M. J., & Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74(392-409). Posner, M. J., & Mitchell, R. F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 74, 392-409.

297 Povel, D. J., & Jansen, E. (2001). Perceptual mechanisms in music perception. Music Perception, 19, 169-199. Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337-358. Prouty, K. E. (2002). From storyville to state university: The intersection of academic and nonacademic learning cultures in post secondary jazz education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Pennsylvania State University. Puffet, D. (1989). Richard Strauss: Salome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Purwins, H., & Hardoon, D. (2009). Trends and perspectives in music cognition research and technology. Connection science, 21(2-3), 85-88. Quillian, M. R. (1966). Semantic memory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carnegie Institute of Technology. Rapport, E. J. (2006). The musical repertoire of Bukharian Jews in Queens, New York. City University of New York, New York. Ratliff, B. (2009). The jazz ear: Conversations over music. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 382-407. Richards, W. J., & Waters, R. H. (1948). The relationship between verbalization and remote association. Journal of General Psychology, 39, 167-173. Rips, L. J., Shoben, E. J., & Smith, F. E. (1973). Semantic distance and the verification of semantic relations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 1-20. Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129(3), 369-398. Rojek, C. (2004). Frank Sinatra. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Romney, A. K., & D'Andrade, R. G. (1964). Cognitive aspects of English kin terms. American Anthropologist, 66(3), 146-170. Romney, A. K., & Moore, C. (1998). Toward a theory of culture as shared cognitive structures. Ethos, 26(3), 314-337.

298 Romney, A. K., Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 99, 313-338. Rosch, E. (1977). Classification of real-world objects: Origins and representations in cognition. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Reading in cognitive science (pp. 212-222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. . In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350. Rosch, E. H. (1975a). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547. Rosch, E. H. (1975b). Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 192-233. Ross, N. (2004). Culture and cognition: Implications for theory and method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rumelhart, D. E., Lindsay, P. H., & Norman, D. A. (1972). A process model for long-term memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization and memory. New York: Academic Press. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rumelhart, D. E., & Todd, P. M. (1993). Learning and connectionist representations. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 3-30). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Russell, J. A. (1991b). Negative results on a reported facial expression of contempt. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 281-291. Russell, J. A. (1993). Forced-choice response format in the study of facial expression. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 41-51. Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression?: A review of the cross-cultural studies. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102-141.

299 Russell, P. (1997). Musical tastes and society. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russell, R. (1996). Bird lives! The high life and times of Charlie (yardbird) Parker. New York: DaCapo Press. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult ages differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403-428. Salzer, F. (1952). Structural hearing: Tonal coherence in music. New York: Charles Boni. Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5, 209. Schaeffer, B., & Wallace, R. (1970). The comparison of word meanings. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 144-152. Schenker, H. (1954). Harmony (E. Mann-Borgese, Trans.). In O. Jones (Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Schlaug, G. (2003). The brains of musicians. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 281-299. Schmid, M. D. (2003). The Richard Strauss companion. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers. Schneider, W. (1985). Toward a model of attention and the development of automatic processing. In M. Posner & O. S. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 475492). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schouten, J. F. (1938). The perception of subjective tones. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 34, 1418-1424. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press. Seeger, A. (1987). Why Suyá Sing: A musical anthropology of an amazonian people. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

300 Selfridge, O. G. (1958). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D. V. Blake & A. M. Uttley (Eds.), Proceedings of the symposium on mechanisation of thought processes (pp. 511529). London. Selz, O. (1913). Uber die gesetze des geordneten denkverlaufs. Stuttgart: Spemann. Selz, O. (1922). Zur psychologie des produktiven denkens und des irrtums. Bonn: Spermann. Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(3), 187207. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shepard, R. N. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imaging, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, 91, 417-447. Sheppard, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(67-81). Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1954). Study of positive and negative intergroup attitudes between experimentally produced groups: Robbers cave study. University of Oklahoma. Sherif, M., White, B. J., & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced groups. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 370-379. Sidran, B. (1971). Black talk. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sloboda, J. (1985). The musical mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Music structure and emotional response: Some empirical findings. Psychology of Music, 19, 110-120. Sloboda, J. A., & Parker, D. H. H. (1985). Immediate recall of melodies. In P. Howell, I. Cross & R. West (Eds.), Musical structure and cognition (pp. 143-167). New York: Academic Press. Smith, F. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 1, 214-241. Smith, R. D. (2006). The network of collaboration among rappers and its community structure. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2(1).

301 Smits, P. B., Verbeek, J. H., & de Buisonje, C. D. (2002). Learning in practice: Problem based learning in continuing medical education: A review of controlled evaluation studies. British Journal of Medicine, 324, 153-156. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215. Solis, G. (2009). Genius, improvisation, and the narratives of jazz history. In G. Solis & B. Nettl (Eds.), Musical improvisation: Art, education, and society. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Spearman, C. (1937). Psychology down the ages (Vol. 2). Oxford, UK: Macmillan. Stacy, A. W., Leigh, B. C., & Weingardt, K. (1997). An individual-difference perspective applied to word association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 229-237. Stebbins, R. A. (1989). Music among friends: The social networks of amateur musicians. In A. R. Blau & J. W. Foster (Eds.), Art and society (pp. 227-242). Albany: State University of New York Press. Stevens, S. S., & Davis, H. (1936). Psychophysiological acoustics: Pitch and loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 8(1), 1-13. Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. London: Sage. Steyvers, M., Shiffrin, R. M., & Nelson, D. L. (2005). Word association spaces for predicting semantic similarity effects in episodic memory. In A. Healy (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications: Festschrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Stich, S. (1983). Beyond belief: From folk psychology to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Storr, A. (1993). Music and the mind. New York: The Free Press. Stravinsky, I. (1936). Chronicle of my life. London: Gollancz. Stycos, J. M. (1981). A critique of focus group and survey research: The machismo case. Studies in Family Planning, 12(12 P1 1), 871-875. Szwed, J. (2002). So what: The life of Miles Davis. New York: Simon and Schuster.

302 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Tarrant, M., North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2001). Social categorization, self-esteem, and the estimated musical preferences of male adolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 565-581. Teo, T., Hargreaves, D. J., & Lee, J. (2008). Musical preference, identification, and familiarity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 18-32. Tesser, N. (1998). The playboy guide to jazz: A selective guide to the most important CDs--and to the history of jazz. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1996). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Thomas, J. C. (1975). Chasin' the trane: The music and mystique of John Coltrane. New York: Da Capo. Thompson, W. (2004). From sounds to music: The contextualizations of pitch. Music Perception, 21(3), 431-456. Thompson, W. F., Russo, F. A., & Quinto, L. (2008). Audio-visual integration of emotional cues in song. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8), 1457-1470. Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Toney, G. T., & Weaver, J. B. (1994). Effects of gender and gender role self-perceptions on affective reactions to rock music videos. Sex Roles, 30(7/8), 567-583. Tovey, D. F. (1935). Essays in musical analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. D. (Eds.) (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 382-402). New York, NY: Academic Press. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist, 40, 385-398. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59, 433-460. Turner, J. C. (Ed.). (1978). Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. London: Academic Press.

303 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Uzzi, B. (2008). A social network's changing statistical properties and the quality of human innovation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41, 1-12. van Noorden, L. (1975). Temporal coherence in the perception of tone sequences. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven. Vargas, J. H. C. (2008). Jazz and male blackness: The politics of sociability in south central Los Angeles. Popular Music and Society, 31(1), 37-56. Voss, J., Vesonder, G., & Spilich, G. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 651667. Walker, R. (1978). Perception and music notation. Psychology of Music, 6(1), 21-46. Walker, R. (1985). Mental imagery and musical concepts: Some evidence from the congenitally blind. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 85, 229-238. Walker, R. (1987). The effects of culture, environment, age and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sounds. Perception and Psychophysics, 42(5), 491-502. Walker, R. (1997). Musically significant acoustic parameters and their notations in vocal performance across difference cultures. Journal of New Music Research, 26(4), 315-345. Walker, R. (2004). Cultural memes, innate proclivities and musical behaviour: A case study of the western traditions. Psychology of Music, 32(2), 153-190. Wang, R. (2003). Captain Walter Henri Dyett (1901-1969) Retrieved, 2009. Wasserman, S. (Ed.). (1979). A stochastic model for directed graphs with transition rates determined by reciprocity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinstein, D. (1983). Rock: Youth and its music. Popular Music and Society, 4(3), 2-16. Welker, R. L. (1982). Abstraction of themes from melodic variations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(3), 435-447.

304 Wertheimer, M. (1924). A source book of Gestalt psychology (W. Ellis, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Whyton, T. (2006). Birth of the school: Discursive methodologies in jazz education. Music Education Research, 8(1), 65-81. Williams, J. K. (1988). Archetypal schemata in jazz themes of the bebop era. Annual Review of Jazz Studies, 4, 49-74. Williams, M. (1993). The jazz tradition (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, G. B., & MacDonald, R. A. R. (2005). The meaning of the blues: Musical identities in talk about jazz. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 341-363. Wober, M. (1974). Towards an understanding of the Kiganda concept of intelligence. In J. W. Berry & P. R. Dasen (Eds.), Culture and cognition: Readings in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 261-280). London: Methuen. Zbikowski, L. (2002). Conceptualizing music: Cognitive structure, theory, and analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Zwicker, E., Flottorp, G., & Stevens, S. S. (1957). Critical bandwidth in loudness summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, 548-557.

305 APPENDIX A Focus Group Background Survey
Please list the instruments you play and practice, the age at which you started each, and the type of training you received (group lessons, private training, self-taught, or Suzuki) Instrument Age Type of training __________________________ ________ _____________________ __________________________ ________ _____________________ __________________________ ________ _____________________ __________________________ ________ _____________________ If different from the above age, at what age did you begin playing the instrument consistently (on daily basis), and how many years have you played each consistently? Instrument Age Years _________________________ ________ _______ _________________________ ________ _______ _________________________ ________ _______ _________________________ ________ _______ Do/did you practice? ! Yes ! No For “proficiency” please rate on a scale from 1-10, one being early beginning and 10 being professional level. For “years applicable,” please break down practice tendencies into appropriate time periods (i.e. 1990-1997, 45 min/day 5 days/wk). Instrument Proficiency Hrs per Day/Week Years Applicable __________________ __________ _______________ ___________ __________________ __________ _______________ ___________ __________________ __________ _______________ ___________ __________________ __________ _______________ ___________ Have you participated in school music activities (band, orchestra, choir, or other musical group)? ! Yes ! No. If so, please indicate below: Type of group Years Participated ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ Did you participate in music activities outside of school? ! Yes ! No If so, please indicate below: Type of group Years Participated ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ ____________________________ _______________________ Have you participated in ear training/aural skill courses (any level)? ! Yes ! No Do you have absolute (perfect) pitch? ! Yes ! No

Have you taken music courses at the university level? ! Yes ! No. If so, please indicate below (note: this does not have to be an exhaustive list, but should illustrate those courses most significant to your development as a musician): Course Year(s) ___________________________ ___________ ___________________________ ___________ ___________________________ ___________ ___________________________ ___________ ___________________________ ___________ Do you have a degree in music? ! Yes ! No. If so, please describe: ____________________. Do you or have you taught music? Type of class/lessons ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ ! Yes ! No. If yes, please indicate: Years Instructed ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________

Can you read music? ! Yes ! No ! Some. How often do you read music (on a weekly basis), and how would you rate your music-reading proficiency on a scale from 1 to 10? ____________________. How many times do you perform per week (on average)? ______________________. How would you describe the of music you play on a regular basis? You may include a variety of styles or descriptions. Description How Often? ________________________________ ___________ ________________________________ ___________ ________________________________ ___________ ________________________________ ___________ Do you identify yourself with any particular music community in Chicago? What is your primary motivation for collaborating with particular musicians on a regular basis? Please explain: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

307 APPENDIX B Focus Group Study Circle Diagrams Focus Group 1, Participant 1

308 Focus Group 1, Participant 2

309 Focus Group 1, Participant 3

310 Focus Group 1, Participant 4

311 Focus Group 1, Participant 5

312 Focus Group 1, Participant 6

313 Focus Group 1, Participant 7

314 Focus Group 2, Participant 1

315 Focus Group 2, Participant 2

316 Focus Group 2, Participant 3

317 Focus Group 2, Participant 4

318 Focus Group 2, Participant 5

319 APPENDIX C Name Associations Excerpt: Louis Armstrong, Heebie Jeebies
Perf./No. LA1 LA2 LA3 LA4 LA5 LA6 LA7 LA8 LA9 LA10 LA11 LA12 LA13 LA14 LA15 LA16 LA17 LA18 LA19 LA20 LA21 LA22 LA23 LA24 LA25 LA26 LA27 LA28 LA29 LA30 LA31 LA32 LA33 LA34 LA35 LA36 LA37 LA38 LA39 LA40 LA41 LA42 LA43 LA44 Name Wynton Marsalis King Oliver Roy Eldridge Sidney Bechet ng Bix Beiderbecke Baby Dodds Louis Armstrong Lil Armstrong Ella Fitzgerald Nicholas Payton Duke Ellington Cootie Williams Miles Davis Jelly Roll Morton Sweets Edison Buddy Bolden Thelonious Monk Art Davis Dizzy Gillespie Johnny Dodds Jon Faddis Josh Berman Earl Hines Bobby Lewis Frank Sinatra Al Hirt Fats Waller Dan DeLorenzo Tommy Dorsey Composer of Moonlight the Stars and You Freddie Hubbard Chet Baker Tom Waits Don Cherry Cannonball Adderley Erroll Garner Charlie Parker Nappy Tradier Ruby Braff Zaide Krisberg Rob Parton Kermit Ruffins Kid Ory Freq 13 13 7 6 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. LA45 LA46 LA47 LA48 LA49 LA50 LA51 LA52 LA53 LA54 LA55 LA56 LA57 LA58 LA59 LA60 LA61 LA62 LA63 LA64 LA65 LA66 LA67 LA68 LA69 LA70 LA71 LA72 LA73 Name Jabbo Smith Tito Carrillo Pharez Whitted Bob Perna Orbert Davis Bob Koester Keefe Jackson Jack Teagarden Steven Bernstein Lestor Bowie Charlie Christian Peter Bartols Franz Jackson Rick Falato Bryan Tipps Tony Alaniz Clark Terry Red Norvo Lester Young Von Freeman George Bean Zutty Singleton Pee Wee Russell Johnny St. Cyr Kenny G Charlie Haden James Davis Hot Five Don Byron Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

320 Excerpt: Ornette Coleman, Lonely Woman
Perf./No. OC1 OC2 OC3 OC4 OC5 OC6 OC7 OC8 OC9 OC10 OC11 OC12 OC13 OC14 OC15 OC16 OC17 OC18 OC19 OC20 OC21 OC22 OC23 OC24 OC25 OC26 OC27 OC28 OC29 OC30 OC31 OC32 OC33 OC34 OC35 OC36 OC37 OC38 OC39 OC40 OC41 OC42 OC43 OC44 Name Don Cherry Charlie Haden Charlie Parker Dewey Redman Ornette Coleman Ed Blackwell Billy Higgins John Zorn ng John Coltrane Eric Dolphy Caroline Davis Miles Davis Sarah Vaughn Joe Lovano Julius Hemphill Greg Ward Josh Berman Cannonball Adderley Kenny Garrett Jeff Parker Jackie Mclean Albert Ayler Rudy Manthahappa Charles Gorczynski Greg Osby Fred Anderson Hank Crawford Aram Shelton Richard Davis Jeff Beer Dan DeLorenzo Dave Bryant John Turner Charles Mingus Andrew D'Angelo Ken Vandermark Remi LeBouf James Spaulding Anthony Braxton Louis Armstrong Sam Rivers Ron Dewar Chris McBride Freq 16 16 9 7 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. OC45 OC46 OC47 OC48 OC49 OC50 OC51 OC52 OC53 OC54 OC55 OC56 OC57 OC58 OC59 OC60 OC61 OC62 OC63 OC64 OC65 OC66 OC67 OC68 OC69 OC70 OC71 OC72 OC73 OC74 OC75 Name Mike Lebrun Jeb Bishop Mars Williams Muddy Waters Johnny Hodges Pat Metheny Charles Lloyd Arthur Blythe Keefe Jackson Lee Konitz Tony Malaby Jim Black Marty Tilton Geof Bradfield Quin Kirchner Ethan Iverson Clark Sommers Mike Lewis Dave Liebman Rob Mazurek Ted Sirota Mahalia Jackson Sonny Simmons Jameel Moondoc Chris Vielleux Sun Ra Dave Douglas Chris Potter Keith Jarrett Scott Colley Dave Rempis Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

321 Excerpt: John Coltrane, Giant Steps
Perf./No. JC1 JC2 JC3 JC4 JC5 JC6 JC7 JC8 JC9 JC10 JC11 JC12 JC13 JC14 JC15 JC16 JC17 JC18 JC19 JC20 JC21 JC22 JC23 JC24 JC25 JC26 JC27 JC28 JC29 JC30 JC31 JC32 JC33 JC34 JC35 JC36 JC37 JC38 JC39 JC40 JC41 JC42 JC43 JC44 Name Tommy Flanagan Sonny Rollins Elvin Jones Michael Brecker McCoy Tyner Wayne Shorter Charlie Parker Miles Davis ng Jerry Bergonzi Lester Young John Coltrane Jimmy Garrison Dave Liebman Paul Chambers Joe Lovano George Garzone John Wojciechowski Hank Mobley Benny Golson James Moody Rob Haight Dewey Redman Nick Mazzarella Scott Burns Charles Lloyd Steve Grossman Kenny Garrett Steve Coleman Doug Rosenberg Greg Ward Cannonball Adderley Pharoah Sanders Alice Coltrane Shadow Wilson Bob Mintzer Joe Henderson Charlie Rouse Geof Bradfield Karel van Beekom Ralph Bowen Phil Woods Max Krukoff Mike Lebrun Freq 12 11 10 7 7 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. JC45 JC46 JC47 JC48 JC49 JC50 JC51 JC52 JC53 JC54 JC55 JC56 JC57 JC58 JC59 JC60 JC61 JC62 JC63 JC64 JC65 JC66 JC67 JC68 JC69 JC70 JC71 Name Matt Martin Josh Burke Chris Weller Coleman Hawkins Johnny Griffin Eric Alexander Ron Perrillo Ron Dewar Jim Gailloretto Jackie McLean Cameron Pfiffner Wynton Kelly Dexter Gordon Rob Clearfield John Smillie Art Davis Pat LaBarbara Mark Turner Art Taylor Steve Lacy Jimmy Heath Tom Garling Freddie Hubbard Red Garland Chip McNeill Pat Metheny Branford Marsalis Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

322 Excerpt: Miles Davis, So What
Perf./No. MD1 MD2 MD3 MD4 MD5 MD6 MD7 MD8 MD9 MD10 MD11 MD12 MD13 MD14 MD15 MD16 MD17 MD18 MD19 MD20 MD21 MD22 MD23 MD24 MD25 MD26 MD27 MD28 MD29 MD30 MD31 MD32 MD33 MD34 MD35 MD36 MD37 MD38 MD39 MD40 MD41 MD42 MD43 MD44 Name Bill Evans John Coltrane Paul Chambers Jimmy Cobb Cannonball Adderley Wallace Roney Freddie Hubbard Wayne Shorter Art Farmer Gil Evans Philly Joe Jones Wynton Marsalis James Davis Dizzy Gillespie Miles Davis Louis Armstrong Herbie Hancock ng Chet Baker Tony Williams Wynton Kelly Lee Morgan Art Davis Charlie Parker Roy Hargrove Thad Jones Nat Adderley Ramin Khamsei Greg Duncan Benje Daneman Tom Harrell Andrew Oom Tito Carrillo John Hart Fats Navarro Marquis Hill Josh Berman George Benson Pharez Whitted Bobby Broom Jaimie Branch Frank Rosaly Dave Douglas Larry Bowen Freq 19 15 11 9 8 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. MD45 MD46 MD47 MD48 MD49 MD50 MD51 MD52 MD53 Name Mike Smith John Smillie Thad Franklin Mulgrew Miller Ron Dewar Jeff Parker Johnny Coles Tim Hagens Ahmad Jamal Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

323 Excerpt: Duke Ellington, Take the ‘A’ Train

Perf./No. DE1 DE2 DE3 DE4 DE5 DE6 DE7 DE8 DE9 DE10 DE11 DE12 DE13 DE14 DE15 DE16 DE17 DE18 DE19 DE20 DE21 DE22 DE23 DE24 DE25 DE26 DE27 DE28 DE29 DE30 DE31 DE32 DE33 DE34 DE35 DE36 DE37 DE38 DE39 DE40 DE41 DE42 DE43 DE44

Name Count Basie Billy Strayhorn Johnny Hodges Cootie Williams Thelonious Monk Duke Ellington Glenn Miller Benny Goodman ng Earl Hines Woody Herman Jimmy Blanton Harry Carney Fletcher Henderson Lester Young Bob Mintzer Louis Armstrong Art Tatum Charles Mingus Sonny Greer Mel Torme The Manhattan Transfer Billy Eckstine Nat King Cole Gunther Schuller Coleman Hawkins Billie Holiday Carl Atkins Thad Jones Anthony Bruno Harry Allen The St. Charles North HS Jazz Ensemble Slim Gaillard Hank Jones Wycliffe Gordon Jimmie Lunceford Joel Spencer Josh Moshier Oscar Pettiford Allan Gressick Doug Stone Clark Terry Laurence Brown Fats Waller

Freq 16 14 10 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perf./No. DE45 DE46 DE47 DE48 DE49 DE50 DE51 DE52 DE53 DE54 DE55 DE56 DE57 DE58 DE59 DE60 DE61 DE62 DE63 DE64 DE65 DE66 DE67 DE68 DE69 DE70 DE71 DE72 DE73 DE74 DE75 DE76 DE77 DE78

Name Freq Jodie Christian 1 Joe Pass 1 Lee Rothenberg 1 Lester Brown 1 Red Mitchell 1 Yoko Noge 1 Kens Kilian 1 John Rapson 1 Laurence Oliver 1 Jo Jones 1 Erma Thompson 1 Eddie Johnson 1 Allison Orobia 1 Rick Falato 1 Bill O'Connell 1 Teddy Wilson 1 Chris Potter 1 Rex Stewart 1 George Fludas 1 Clark Sommers 1 Brian O'Hern 1 Bob Dogan 1 Wynton Marsalis 1 Sid Catlett 1 Cab Calloway 1 Ben Webster 1 James P. Johnson 1 Jaki Byard 1 Juan Tizol 1 Eric Haas 1 every "current" big band 1 Carmen McRae 1 Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra 1 Oscar Peterson 1

324 Excerpt: Herbie Hancock, Dolphin Dance
Perf./No. HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5 HH6 HH7 HH8 HH9 HH10 HH11 HH12 HH13 HH14 HH15 HH16 HH17 HH18 HH19 HH20 HH21 HH22 HH23 HH24 HH25 HH26 HH27 HH28 HH29 HH30 HH31 HH32 HH33 HH34 HH35 HH36 HH37 HH38 HH39 HH40 HH41 HH42 HH43 HH44 Name Tony Williams Ron Carter Ron Perrillo Chick Corea Miles Davis Bill Evans Wynton Kelly Brad Mehldau Bud Powell Keith Jarrett ng Wayne Shorter Herbie Hancock McCoy Tyner Oscar Peterson Freddie Hubbard Dan Cray Gary Peacock Jack DeJohnette Joan Hickey Jodie Christian John Coltrane Mulgrew Miller Red Garland Rob Clearfield Aaron Parks Andres Castillo Andrew Hill Bill Stewart Brian Ritter Cecil Taylor Charles Lloyd Chet Baker Chucho Valdez Danilo Perez Dave Miller Dennis Luxion Eric Alexander Horace Silver Jacky Terrasson Jim Baker Joe Henderson Keith Hall Kenny Kirkland Freq 13 11 11 10 7 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. HH45 HH46 HH47 HH48 HH49 HH50 HH51 HH52 HH53 HH54 HH55 HH56 Name Kevin Hays Larry Grenadier Mel Rhyne Patrick Mulcahy Paul Chambers Phil Mattson Rufus Reid Sam Jones Scott Hesse Stefon Harris Victor Feldman Willie Pickens Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

325 Excerpt: Coleman Hawkins, Body and Soul
Perf./No. CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4 CH5 CH6 CH7 CH8 CH9 CH10 CH11 CH12 CH13 CH14 CH15 CH16 CH17 CH18 CH19 CH20 CH21 CH22 CH23 CH24 CH25 CH26 CH27 CH28 CH29 CH30 CH31 CH32 CH33 CH34 CH35 CH36 CH37 CH38 CH39 CH40 CH41 CH42 CH43 CH44 Name Lester Young Ben Webster Sonny Rollins Charlie Parker Dexter Gordon Johnny Hodges ng Count Basie Stan Getz Billie Holiday Coleman Hawkins Don Byas Duke Ellington Franz Jackson John Coltrane Leon "Chu" Berry Paul Gonsalves Charles Mingus Eddie Johnson Fletcher Henderson Jimmy Blanton Joe Lovano Louis Armstrong Lucky Thompson Von Freeman Albert Ayler Art Blakey Art Tatum Ben Jansson Benny Golson Benny Goodman Bill O'Connell Bud Powell Chris Cheek Dave Todd David Sanchez Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis Fred Anderson George Garzone Hattush Alexander Herschel Evans James Moody Jimmy Dorsey Jimmy Hamilton Freq 23 12 10 7 7 6 6 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. CH45 CH46 CH47 CH48 CH49 CH50 CH51 CH52 CH53 CH54 CH55 CH56 CH57 Name Keefe Jackson Kenny Poole Lena Horne Lester Brown Lin Halliday Matt Wilson Pablo Casals Red Mitchell Rich Moore Rick Falato Ron Perrillo Scott Mason Tim Haldeman Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

326 Excerpt: Billie Holiday, God Bless the Child

Perf./No. BH1 BH2 BH3 BH4 BH5 BH6 BH7 BH8 BH9 BH10 BH11 BH12 BH13 BH14 BH15 BH16 BH17 BH18 BH19 BH20 BH21 BH22 BH23 BH24 BH25 BH26 BH27 BH28 BH29 BH30 BH31 BH32 BH33 BH34 BH35 BH36 BH37 BH38 BH39 BH40 BH41 BH42 BH43 BH44

Name Ella Fitzgerald Lester Young Sarah Vaughn Carmen McRae Louis Armstrong Madeline Peyroux Billie Holiday Dinah Washington Miles Davis Charlie Parker Count Basie Duke Ellington Nancy Wilson ng Sonny Rollins Teddy Wilson Bessie Smith Blossom Dearie Dianne Reaves Nina Simone Abbey Lincoln Amy Winehouse Aretha Franklin Astrud Gilberto Ben Webster Cassandra Wilson Charlie Shavers Chet Baker Coleman Hawkins Dee Dee Bridgewater Diana Krall Diana Ross Dizzy Gillespie Earma Thompson Erin McDougald Frank Sinatra Hinda Hoffman Jim Hall Joanna Newsom Joni Mitchell Josh Berman Karen Dalton Kenny Clarke Kim Gordon

Freq 24 20 14 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perf./No. BH45 BH46 BH47 BH48 BH49 BH50 BH51 BH52 BH53 BH54 BH55 BH56 BH57 BH58 BH59

Name Lee Rothenberg Lena Horne Liz Johnson Maria Schneider Mike Molloy Patricia Barber Paula Greer Red Mitchell Rod Phasouk Rose Colella Stevie Wonder Susanna McCorkle Teddy Thomas Tony Bennett Tori Amos

Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

327 Excerpt: Charles Mingus, Fables of Faubus

Perf./No. CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 CM7 CM8 CM9 CM10 CM11 CM12 CM13 CM14 CM15 CM16 CM17 CM18 CM19 CM20 CM21 CM22 CM23 CM24 CM25 CM26 CM27 CM28 CM29 CM30 CM31 CM32 CM33 CM34 CM35 CM36 CM37 CM38 CM39 CM40 CM41 CM42 CM43 CM44

Name Paul Chambers Ray Brown Oscar Pettiford Ron Carter Dannie Richmond Sam Jones Charles Mingus Eric Dolphy Jimmy Blanton Charlie Haden Dave Holland Jimmy Garrison Wilbur Ware Dennis Carroll Duke Ellington Eddie Gomez Josh Abrams Scott LaFaro Avishai Cohen Gary Peacock Jaco Pastorius Max Roach ng Richard Davis Slam Stewart Ted Curson Aaron Tully Amalie Smith Ben Street Bob Brookmeyer Bob Moses Booker Irving Brian Doherty Brian Ritter Butch Warren Charlie Parker Chet Baker Chris Potter Christian McBride Clark Sommers Clark Terry Cory Biggerstaff Dan DeLorenzo Dan Friedman

Freq 11 11 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perf./No. CM45 CM46 CM47 CM48 CM49 CM50 CM51 CM52 CM53 CM54 CM55 CM56 CM57 CM58 CM59 CM60 CM61 CM62 CM63 CM64 CM65 CM66 CM67 CM68 CM69

Name Fred Hopkins Gabe Noel Henry Grimes James Merenda Jimmy Knepper John Tate Jon Dann Karl Seigfried Kent Kessler Larry Gray Larry Kohut Lorin Cohen Matt Ulery Mike Holstein Nat Hentoff Ornette Coleman Patrick Mulcahy Paul Motian Percy Heath Reggie Workman Rodney Whittaker Rufus Reid Scott Colley Sean Parsons Tyler Mitchell

Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

328 Excerpt: Thelonious Monk, ‘Round Midnight

Perf./No. TM1 TM2 TM3 TM4 TM5 TM6 TM7 TM8 TM9 TM10 TM11 TM12 TM13 TM14 TM15 TM16 TM17 TM18 TM19 TM20 TM21 TM22 TM23 TM24 TM25 TM26 TM27 TM28 TM29 TM30 TM31 TM32 TM33 TM34 TM35 TM36 TM37 TM38 TM39 TM40 TM41 TM42 TM43 TM44

Name Art Tatum John Coltrane Charlie Rouse Duke Ellington Ron Perrillo Chick Corea Miles Davis Bud Powell Charles Mingus Johnny Griffin Thelonious Monk Bob Dogan Brad Mehldau James P. Johnson Steve Lacy Alex Von Schlippenbach Bill Frisell Cecil Taylor Dexter Gordon Herbie Nichols Jaki Byard Keith Jarrett Marcus Roberts Misha Mengelberg Oscar Peterson Phineas Newborn Rob Clearfield Roy Haynes Wynton Kelly Aaron Goldberg Andrew Hill Anthony Braxton Anthony Coleman Anton Denner Barry Harris Benny Green Bobby Broom Bobby McFerrin Brian O'Hern Charlie Parker Coleman Hawkins Cyrus Chestnut Danilo Perez Doug Hayes

Freq 9 9 8 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perf./No. TM45 TM46 TM47 TM48 TM49 TM50 TM51 TM52 TM53 TM54 TM55 TM56 TM57 TM58 TM59 TM60 TM61 TM62 TM63 TM64 TM65 TM66 TM67 TM68 TM69 TM70 TM71 TM72 TM73 TM74 TM75 TM76 TM77 TM78

Name Eddie Harris Erroll Garner Fats Waller George Gershwin Geri Allen Hermeto Pascoal Horace Parlan Horace Silver Irene Schweitzer Jacky Terrasson Jason Moran Jeff Parker Joan Hickey Jodie Christian Joe Pass John Ore Kenny Barron Lin Halliday Mal Waldron Matt Shipp Kathy Kelly Morton Feldman ng Paul Bley Paul Giallorenzo Pierre Walker Red Garland Ruben Gonzalez Sergei Prokofiev Shadow Wilson Stan Tracey Stefon Harris Steve Million Willie "The Lion" Smith

Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

329 Excerpt: West Montgomery, Four on Six

Perf./No. WM1 WM2 WM3 WM4 WM5 WM6 WM7 WM8 WM9 WM10 WM11 WM12 WM13 WM14 WM15 WM16 WM17 WM18 WM19 WM20 WM21 WM22 WM23 WM24 WM25 WM26 WM27 WM28 WM29 WM30 WM31 WM32 WM33 WM34 WM35 WM36 WM37 WM38 WM39 WM40 WM41 WM42 WM43 WM44

Name Grant Green Bobby Broom Jim Hall Charlie Christian Jeff Parker George Benson Wes Montgomery Kenny Burrell Pat Martino Dave Miller ng Barney Kessel Jimmy Cobb Joe Pass John Coltrane Wynton Kelly Alejandro Urzagaste Andy Brown Dan Friedman Herb Ellis John Scofield Johnny Griffin Kyle Asche Mike Allemana Miles Davis Russel Malone Anthony Bracco Bill Evans Billy Bauer Bob Palmieri Charlie Parker Chick Corea Dan Effland David Baker Elvin Jones Fred Lonberg-Holm Freddie Hubbard Henry Johnson Jean "Django" Reinhardt Jimmy Raney John McLean John Smillie John Zilesko Kurt Rosenwinkel

Freq 18 11 9 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Perf./No. WM45 WM46 WM47 WM48 WM49 WM50 WM51 WM52 WM53 WM54 WM55 WM56 WM57 WM58 WM59 WM60 WM61

Name Matt Schneider Maz Roach Mel Rhyne Milt Jackson Pat Metheny Pat Fleming Peter Bernstein Philly Joe Jones Sam Macy Scott Hesse Sonny Rollins Tal Farlow The Beatles Tim Haden Tom Allen Tommy Flanagan Von Freeman

Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

330 Excerpt: Charlie Parker, Now’s the Time
Perf./No. CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 CP11 CP12 CP13 CP14 CP15 CP16 CP17 CP18 CP19 CP20 CP21 CP22 CP23 CP24 CP25 CP26 CP27 CP28 CP29 CP30 CP31 CP32 CP33 CP34 CP35 CP36 CP37 CP38 CP39 CP40 CP41 CP42 CP43 CP44 Name Dizzy Gillespie Sonny Stitt Charlie Parker Max Roach Bud Powell Miles Davis Ornette Coleman Cannonball Adderley Lester Young Thelonious Monk Caroline Davis Charles McPherson Greg Ward Art Pepper Barry Harris Jackie McLean Johnny Hodges Kenny Garrett Lou Donaldson Mike Smith ng Paul Chambers Phil Woods Taku Akiyami Tommy Potter Von Freeman Al Haig Art Blakey Benny Golson Bobby Broom Charles Mingus Chris McBride Chris Potter Coleman Hawkins Count Basie Dave Douglas Dean Benedetti Dennis Carroll Dexter Gordon Dick Oatts Jake Vinsel James Moody Jimmy Ford Jimmy Hamilton Freq 17 15 8 8 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. CP45 CP46 CP47 CP48 CP49 CP50 CP51 CP52 CP53 CP54 CP55 CP56 CP57 CP58 CP59 CP60 CP61 CP62 CP63 CP64 CP65 CP66 CP67 Name Jodie Christian Joe Henderson John Crawford Keefe Jackson Keith Jarrett Kenny Clarke Kids at Manhattan School of Music King Pleasure Lee Konitz Lee Morgan Lennie Tristano Louis Armstrong Mike LeBrun Oliver Nelson Oscar Pettiford Paquito D'Rivera Pat Mallinger Ray Brown Rob Clearfield Sam "Lightnin" Hopkins Sonny Rollins Teddy Kotick Wynton Marsalis Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

331 Excerpt: Jaco Pastorius, Continuum
Perf./No. JP1 JP2 JP3 JP4 JP5 JP6 JP7 JP8 JP9 JP10 JP11 JP12 JP13 JP14 JP15 JP16 JP17 JP18 JP19 JP20 JP21 JP22 JP23 JP24 JP25 JP26 JP27 JP28 JP29 JP30 JP31 JP32 JP33 JP34 JP35 JP36 JP37 JP38 JP39 JP40 JP41 JP42 JP43 JP44 Name Joe Zawinul Wayne Shorter Herbie Hancock Pat Metheny Chick Corea John Patitucci Miles Davis Jaco Pastorius Marcus Miller ng Ron Perrillo Victor Wooten Bob Moses Bryan Doherty Charles Mingus Dave Holland Dennis Carroll Stanley Clarke Charlie Parker Jimmy Haslip Josh Shapiro Michael Brecker Patrick Mulcahy Richard Bona Steve Swallow Aaron Tully Airto Moreira Al Di Meola Amalie Smith Billy Dickens Christian McBride Clark Sommers Connie Grauer Drew Gress Duane Stuermer Eberhard Weber Garrett McGinn Hermeto Pascoal Ira Sullivan Jack DeJohnette Jan Garbarek Jan Hammer Janek Gwizdala Jason Steele Freq 14 14 8 8 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. JP45 JP46 JP47 JP48 JP49 JP50 JP51 JP52 JP53 JP54 JP55 JP56 JP57 JP58 JP59 JP60 JP61 JP62 JP63 JP64 JP65 JP66 JP67 Name Jean-Luc Ponty Jeff Berlin Jimi Hendrix John Scofield Joni Mitchell Josh Ramos Kelly Sill Larry Kohut Lorin Cohen Mark Egan Mat Lux Matt Garrison Mozart Nick West Oteil Burbridge Richard Winkelmann Rufus Reid Smokin' Joe Steve Vai Tim Haden Tim Ipsen Tim Lincoln Tim Seisser Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

332 Excerpt: Max Roach, Freedom Day
Perf./No. MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4 MR5 MR6 MR7 MR8 MR9 MR10 MR11 MR12 MR13 MR14 MR15 MR16 MR17 MR18 MR19 MR20 MR21 MR22 MR23 MR24 MR25 MR26 MR27 MR28 MR29 MR30 MR31 MR32 MR33 MR34 MR35 MR36 MR37 MR38 MR39 MR40 MR41 MR42 MR43 MR44 Name Art Blakey Max Roach Elvin Jones Philly Joe Jones Tony Williams Buddy Rich George Fludas Mikel Avery ng Roy Haynes Billy Higgins Joel Spencer Billy Cobham Brian Blade Charlie Parker Clifford Brown Frank Rosaly Freddie Hubbard Gene Krupa Jack DeJohnette Ted Sirota Tim Daisy Wayne Shorter Ed Breazeale Art Taylor Alan Dawson Booker Little Branford Marsalis Brian Ritter Carl Allen Cecil Taylor Charles Rumback Curtis Fuller Dana Hall Dennis Carroll Ed Blackwell Every Drummer that came after him Gary Shandling Gerrick King Jazz Messengers Jim Black Jimmy Cobb John Smillie Jon Wert Freq 13 13 11 11 10 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. MR45 MR46 MR47 MR48 MR49 MR50 MR51 MR52 MR53 MR54 MR55 MR56 MR57 MR58 MR59 MR60 MR61 MR62 MR63 MR64 MR65 Name Keith Hall Kenny Clarke Louis Hayes Marshall Thompson Matt Wilson Max Krukoff Michael Zerang Miles Davis Milford Graves Nasheet Waits Otis Ray Appleton Quin Kirchner Rashied Ali Sharif Zaben Simon Lott Sonny Murray Sonny Rollins Vance Okraszweski Victor Lewis Walter Perkins Wynton Marsalis Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

333 Excerpt: Sonny Rollins, Without a Song
Perf./No. SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 SR6 SR7 SR8 SR9 SR10 SR11 SR12 SR13 SR14 SR15 SR16 SR17 SR18 SR19 SR20 SR21 SR22 SR23 SR24 SR25 SR26 SR27 SR28 SR29 SR30 SR31 SR32 SR33 SR34 SR35 SR36 SR37 SR38 SR39 SR40 SR41 SR42 SR43 SR44 Name Jim Hall John Coltrane Bobby Broom Coleman Hawkins Hank Mobley Bob Cranshaw Joe Lovano ng Sonny Stitt Stan Getz Charlie Parker Dexter Gordon Lester Young Miles Davis Ron Dewar Sonny Rollins Branford Marsalis Dennis Carroll Eddie Harris Harold Land Keefe Jackson Lee Konitz Lin Halliday Scott Burns Tim Haldeman Wayne Shorter Aaron Krueger Art Farmer Ben Riley Ben Webster Bill Stewart Bob Mintzer Bob Perna Brian Ritter Cannonball Adderley Charles Lloyd Charlie Persip Chris McBride Clifford Brown Dave Rempis David Murray Dewey Redman Don Byas Doug Stone Freq 11 11 8 7 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Perf./No. SR45 SR46 SR47 SR48 SR49 SR50 SR51 SR52 SR53 SR54 SR55 SR56 SR57 SR58 SR59 SR60 SR61 SR62 SR63 SR64 SR65 SR66 SR67 SR68 SR69 SR70 SR71 SR72 SR73 SR74 SR75 SR76 SR77 SR78 SR79 Name Eddie Bayard Ella Fitzgerald Elvin Jones Franz Jackson Gato Barbieri Gene Ammons Geof Bradfield Greg Cohen Greg Ward Gunther Schuller Horace Silver Jeff Parker Jerry Bergonzi Joe Henderson Johnny Griffin Joshua Redman Kobie Watkins Matt Schneider Max Roach Michael Brecker Mike LeBrun Ornette Coleman Pat Mallinger Paul Chambers Pete La Roca Philly Joe Jones Ralph Bowen Ray Brown Rob Haight Sam Jones Sam Macy Steve Grossman Steve Swallow Von Freeman Wes Montgomery Freq 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1