Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Science

Study With Jazz Improv Musicians Sheds Light On the Source of Creativity In the Brain (technologynetworks.com) 48

Posted by BeauHD from the understanding-of-creativity dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Technology Networks: According to a popular view, creativity is a product of the brain's right hemisphere -- innovative people are considered "right-brain thinkers" while "left-brain thinkers" are thought to be analytical and logical. Neuroscientists who are skeptical of this idea have argued that there is not enough evidence to support this idea and an ability as complex as human creativity must draw on vast swaths of both hemispheres. A new brain-imaging study out of Drexel University's Creativity Research Lab sheds light on this controversy by studying the brain activity of jazz guitarists during improvisation. The study, which was recently published in the journal NeuroImage, showed that creativity is, in fact, driven primarily by the right hemisphere in musicians who are comparatively inexperienced at improvisation. However, musicians who are highly experienced at improvisation rely primarily on their left hemisphere. This suggests that creativity is a "right-brain ability" when a person deals with an unfamiliar situation but that creativity draws on well-learned, left-hemisphere routines when a person is experienced at the task. "[W]hen a person is an expert, his or her performing is produced primarily by relatively unconscious, automatic processes that are difficult for a person to consciously alter, but easy to disrupt in the attempt, as when self-consciousness causes a person to 'choke' or falter," the report says. "In contrast, novices' performances tend to be under deliberate, conscious control. Thus, they are better able to make adjustments according to instructions given by a teacher or coach."

"Recordings of brain activity could reveal the point at which a performer is ready to release some conscious control and rely on unconscious, well-learned routines. Releasing conscious control prematurely may cause the performer to lock-in bad habits or nonoptimal technique."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study With Jazz Improv Musicians Sheds Light On the Source of Creativity In the Brain More

Study With Jazz Improv Musicians Sheds Light On the Source of Creativity In the Brain

Comments Filter:

  • Epistemology (Score:3, Funny)

    by moxrespawn ( 6714000 ) on Saturday April 11, 2020 @10:37AM (#59932394)

    I've had some people tell me Jazz is good music, but since they can't prove it scientifically, I immediately reject their claim.

    (/sarc, just in case, since this is Slashdot)

    • Actually, you can either do science, or prove something. :)
      Unless you count "statistically reliable observation" as proof, unlike mathematicians. :)

      And I could show you, scientifically, that Jazz music is in fact really bad music *to me*, but really good, to analytical minds. (Or vice versa for masochist versions of me and them.)
      (Don't forget a third group, that prefers basically music-accompanied poems... speech-focused people.)

      It's about harmonies and patterns and being interesting, and trigggering the ri

      • Hmm... I found an analytical mind that doesn't like Jazz.

        Hypothesis falsified.

        Other than that, in a broader and correct epistemology context, which you already seem pretty clear on with your "mathematicians" note, interesting post.

      • If you don't hear the patterns, jazz is just noise. But one of the nice things about jazz is that about half of it is the same 100ish songs over and over (the Great American Songbook)--and being familiar with the songs makes the patterns more recognizable.

        My gateway album was My Favorite Things, by John Coltrane. The title track is very recognizably the song from The Sound of Music, but if someone heard only the middle fuguette, with--three chords being pounded out on the piano, and just two notes on the

        • Yes, I am hoping to get others hooked

          I am sorry, you can't get me hooked

          I know that human brain starts to enjoy repeated things, but I'm not doing that to miself

      • If'n you wanna bring analytical stuff into it all, I wonder more and more just exatcly about the relationship of what we consider "music" or a "correct note" vs. something that is "off key" and the notes at whatever frequency and how it all relates to math and "natural rules" associated with such (like pi being almost but not quite 22/7, the relationships of various shapes and the angles of their corners, or between any two points on them, etc)

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        "That is what "good" literally means. And that is why it feels good."

        I think your hypothesis needs some work, starting with what you believe good "literally means" and continuing with your assumption that the music "most people like" "feels good".

        "Note how I said *analytical*. With regard to this study."

        I noted a number of stupid things you said. With regard to your hypothesis. (grammar intentional)

        Lots of musical forms have "deliberate dissonant frequencies and arrythmic sequences", Jazz did not invent the

      • Some people find jazz music from the bebop and free jazz periods (1940~1960) to be off-putting because of the "noiselike" quality it can have. Melodies are based on exotic scales; underpinned with loose, experimental harmonies; performed in odd rhythmic patterns; interjected with endless, meandering solos... it can be lot for a casual listener to digest, let alone enjoy.

        But not all jazz is like that! Music from the ragtime era of the 1890s right up through the swing era of the 1940s can also properly be c

    • Music is art.
      The purpose of art is to evoke an emotional response in the observer.
      As such, you can't say any given music is 'good' or 'bad' in the absolute tense of those words and expect to be taken seriously; it's only 'good' or 'bad' to you, and then only at the time you say it's 'good' or 'bad'; at some future time, your personal judgement of the same piece of music may change.

      • I find your bolding quite artistic. As long as you acknowledge that there are wide domains of things that have a truth value that is not determinable by scientific method, we're good.

        • Main branches of philosophy:

          Epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge.
          Metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of reality.
          Ethics. Ethics is the study of moral value, right and wrong.
          Logic. Logic is the study of right reasoning.
          Aesthetics.

          Not subsumable under "science", nor can they be negated.

        • As long as you acknowledge that there are wide domains of things that have a truth value that is not determinable by scientific method, we're good.

          Did you not actually read the entire comment?

          • I did. You are taking a position in the domain of aesthetics, which is fine, but not demonstrable via science.

            You are still implicitly claiming such questions have a truth value, even if there is disagreement on what it is, or one's opinion on it changes over time.

            If it was not implicitly acknowledged, you'd have friends saying "Hey! Did you hear this new band? The quality of their music is indeterminable!".

            • You are taking a position in the domain of aesthetics, which is fine, but not demonstrable via science.

              *sigh* science has nothing to do with it whatsoever, functionally speaking, that's the point. Otherwise you may as well be asking troll-like questions like "what's the evolutionary advantage of music?". It is what it is. It's arguably a very uniquely human thing. It doesn't have to be 'scientiically explainable', it doesn't have to have an 'evolutionary purpose', it just is what it is. Some people like music, some people don't, some people like some music and don't like others. There is no 'good' or 'bad' t

              • It doesn't have to be 'scientiically explainable', it doesn't have to have an 'evolutionary purpose', it just is what it is.

                Correct.

                I think you may not be familiar with my core position here on Slashdot.

                • I think perhaps for the level of investment I have in Slashdot (e.g., LOW) I don't really want or need to get tht deeply involved in anyones' 'core position' on things. Nothing personal.

  • First, they used guitar players. I would want to see sax, trumpet, and piano players. Drummers, too. Because left- or right-handedness has a lot to do with this and guitar has a very specific division of labor between the hands. And there are left-handed people who play guitar right-handed.

    Second, there are varying degrees of improvisation, from rote expressions of pre-learned licks to completely free blowing like Archie Shepp. In my experience, most jazz guitar players fall in the first category. (Fr

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dvice ( 6309704 )

      I would also draw a line between improvising and being creative. Actually I make several categories:
      - Improvising (like when playing music, talking, writing poems). This is pretty much what chatbots do and most people can do it without much trouble assuming the area is familiar to them.
      - Looking things from opposite perspective (e.g. rats in restaurant are bad vs. rats in restaurant are good). This is also rather easy, systematic method anyone can use.
      - Looking things from new perspective. The thing you nee

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Not all jazz is improvisational and the claim that jazz first used "guitar players" does not make any sense.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ktakki ( 64573 )

        "First, they..." in my comment refers to the authors of the study, not jazz. That's why it doesn't make sense to you.

    • I would say, spot on, as this is a study about -musical- creativity, which is not per se the same as creativity like solving puzzles, or imagining a solution to a problem, or imagining a landscape to paint, or marketing a product, and the list goes on. Jazz guitarists could just as well have become so damn good with their creative music making that the concentration on the flow of notes to play by stimulating motor function takes precedence over the creativity function, as musical creativity may come natur

  • that it is music for "left-brain thinkers".

    People that enjoy it more for its analytical properties than its emotional ones. Complexities that feel good to them, even if they break harmonic or rhythmic patterns that make that kind of music utterly ugly and even painful to some others.

    It's just two different types of people.
    With the problem being, that certain loud Jazz fans (certaiy not all) somehow think that makes them superior, and everyone who disagrees, likes "rap" (they mean commercial autotune gangsta

    • People that enjoy it more for its analytical properties than its emotional ones.

      No, jazz is not just for "left-brain thinkers". If you don't hear emotional content in this music, you aren't listening.

      https://youtu.be/uEyvjHuMR4E [youtu.be]

      https://youtu.be/dnK6OHPQZbA [youtu.be]

      https://youtu.be/y5pTSxaedUc [youtu.be]

      • I'm a musician. Jazz sounds like absolute utter wank garbage trotted out by players with little skill. Those who say they like it are either tone deaf or trying to look edgy to their circle of hangers on.
        • Ah, I see: so you only play precisely what's on the page, wtih no variations whatsoever? I imagine your tempo is always machine-like in it's accuracy and consistency, too, and you never make any mistakes -- and if you do, you probably beat yourself up about it for days on end.
          If that's you, then you're probably a very good studio musician, or perhaps play in an orchestra, but I doubt you're a singer-songwriter type, because if that's you then you lack creativity, are too bound to the 'rules', and perhaps t

        • I find the jazz players appreciate and can play almost any kind of music well, and with technical proficiency.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Years ago, I was listening to a spoken word piece by a jazz musician (I forget who). Talking about his career and rise through the profession. The last line was something like, "And when you make a mistake, that's Jazz."

      • If you've ever been a performer, especially a singer, for any decent length of time, you learn that you never, never, ever let on to the audience that you made a mistake of any kind, and you never apologize, you act like you meant to do it, you own it -- and the audience will believe you did it on purpose (most of the time; fuck up bad enough and they'll know, but they want to believe you did it on purpose anyway).

    • Yeah, the whole point of Jazz is, that it is music for "left-brain thinkers".

      Uh, no.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      You need a remedial course on what jazz is and an explanation of what the article is saying tailored to a layman. The article is right, it's your understanding that is the problem.

      This isn't about jazz either. Jazz, and improvisation, are only mechanisms to observe activity.

      As an experienced symphonic musician, something that was always clear to me was that when I performed, I generally never thought about the various motions required to play my instrument. Instead, I concentrated on the sound and the ac

  • These 2 core musicians are so passe.
  • Its all mind altering drugs assisted. :(
  • The differential in brain hemisphere usage for improvisation between experienced and inexperienced musicians is because experienced musicians are drawing upon memory of past improvisations rather than creating entirely new and unique improvisations. In other words, they are improvising sequences of previously played notes, which means the total quantity of individual notes improvised is much smaller. Stated more directly, they're playing more from memory processes than they are from creative processes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 )
      You use about 200 different muscles just to walk across the room. Do you really think you need conscious control of all those 200-odd muscles individually to do that? If you suddenly had to consciously control all of them, you'd be like QWOP [wikipedia.org], only worse. Any muscian, and especially one who plays and sings at the same time, isn't 'consciously controlling' every single individual note they're playing. Much of that, like walking, is reflex and muscle memory, running on automatic. The conscious control is super

  • It depends on a lot of experience and even muscle memory to string together melodic and/or rhythmic patterns that 'sound good' together. These are left brain processes, developed by years of learning technical skills and music theory. Otherwise it just comes out sounding like a kid pounding on pots and pans. So it would seem reasonable that, even if the improvisation part of jazz comes from the right brain, it needs to be filtered through the left. And brain imaging would probably bear this out.

  • It's the area that was completely inactive while they were playing.

  • If that were indeed the case, I'd expect they found the "source of creativity" to be coffee, marijuana, and heroin.

  • Music is very math based. When learning music theory and why things work the way they do, it takes a good bit of understanding this. So it would make sense that less experienced musicians would be using more of their right brain. But after years of doing this you no longer have to think about it in the same way and it becomes more instinctive and you don't have to think about it in the same way any longer.

    I played several instruments when I was younger and played guitar in several bands, gave lessons, e

  • This study will undoubtedly be haled as the foundation of understanding for Jazz. Today, the world has a new understanding of reality.

Slashdot Top Deals

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Close