Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Development

Abstract

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the role aural imitation ability, jazz theory knowledge, and personal background variables play in the development of jazz improvisation achievement. Participants (N = 70) included 26 high school and 44 college instrumentalists with varying degrees of jazz improvisation experience. Data were collected using four researcher-designed instruments: (a) Participant Improvisation Experience Survey (PIES), (b) Improvisation Achievement Performance Measure (IAPM), (c) Aural Imitation Measure (AIM), and (d) the Jazz Theory Measure (JTM). Results indicate that aural imitation ability and technical facility are fundamental skills supporting jazz improvisation achievement. Other contributing factors include improvisation experience, jazz experience, practicing improvisation, perceived self-confidence, self-assessment, and jazz theory knowledge. Further analysis of results led to improvisation being viewed from a developmental perspective and achievement levels being distinguished on a developmental continuum (i.e., novice, intermediate, advanced) based on performance evaluations within musical categories (i.e., rhythm/time feel, harmony, melody/rhythmic development, style, expressivity, and creativity).

Keywords

instrumental jazz improvisation development high school college

Over the past several decades, improvisation has steadily grown as a practice in music education and has been recognized as a core competency by the Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (1994) and re-stated as a National Core Arts Anchor Standard (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, 2013). Although many genres and traditions utilize improvisation as an integral component of performance, none appears more prominently featured than jazz improvisation in American music education. In its early days, jazz education occurred “on the bandstand” (Dobbins, 1988), with musicians learning how to improvise by observing and imitating others. Today, jazz education and learning how to improvise have become more systematic, using a combination of codified notational materials (Aebersold, 1967; Baker, 1980; Coker, Casale, Campbell & Greene, 1970; Reeves, 2006), recordings, theory training, private instruction, and ensemble experience. Despite the evolution of these instructional approaches, understanding of the sequence of improvisation development has not been systematically explored. How does a jazz musician develop the ability to improvise, and how might one describe that developmental process from novice to advanced levels? In order to approach this question, it is important to briefly outline the cognitive processes involved in improvisation, previous research on improvisation in music education, jazz improvisation studies, and developmental theory.

Cognitive Processes

Often a highly complex, multidimensional process, musical improvisation is commonly accepted as the extemporaneous creation and performance of music. Musical improvisation involves both internal and external constraints (Kenny & Gellrich, 2002). Internal constraints involve memory, motor/technical skills, and a musician’s knowledge base, while external constraints refer to sociocultural influences, such as musical style and expectation for its performance. There is a wide variety of improvised music that ranges from little or no stylistic constraints (e.g., free improvisation) to highly specific stylistic constraints (e.g., bebop). The temporal nature of music, however, is a constant constraint in improvisation and does not allow the reworking of musical ideas performed within a specific moment. If what the improviser plays is unsatisfactory or is deemed a “mistake,” the improviser’s only recourse is to return to the idea in a subsequent phrase and make it part of what was intended. Constraints play a varied yet important role in improvisation.

The ability to improvise is also dependent on a knowledge base, consisting of declarative and procedural knowledge (Berkowitz, 2009; Elliott, 1995; Kenny & Gellrich, 2002; Sternberg, 2009). Declarative knowledge refers to that which can be recalled and stated (e.g., song form, harmonic progression). Procedural knowledge is the demonstration of how to do something without conscious attention to doing it. This is evident in how musicians go about improvising, their use of muscle memory, the feel and flow of performing, and other subconscious processes. Pressing (1998) further describes the knowledge base as a storehouse of “musical materials and excerpts, repertoire, sub skills, perceptual strategies, problem-solving routines, hierarchical memory structures and schemas, [and] generalized motor programmes” (p. 53).

Technical fluency on one’s instrument is an important part of the improvisational process. The physical capability of realizing what is heard or felt internally is the improviser’s primary goal. Becoming intimately familiar with one’s instrument requires substantial practice in a declarative fashion and rehearsing it to the point of making it a procedural or automatic process. According to Nachmanovitch (1990), “Technique is the vehicle for surfacing normally unconscious material from the dream world and the myth world to where they become visible, nameable, singable” (p. 74). As technical skills improve, the improviser’s attention is directed toward higher-level thinking processes (Berkowitz, 2009), such as expressiveness, novelty, and coherence.

These higher level thinking processes include what Norgaard (2011) characterized as “evaluative monitoring” (p. 117), where the improviser monitors and evaluates her playing during performance. Berliner (1994) characterized this as the “third ear” (p. 218) and Berkowitz (2009) the “creator-witness” phenomenon. From a developmental standpoint, the creator-witness phenomenon seems to be most frequently experienced by expert improvisers; they are capable of rapid cognition on multiple levels, allowing for microprocesses (e.g., selection and performance of individual notes) to operate within the realm of the subconscious and macroprocesses (e.g., architectural shape of the solo) to be a central focus of conscious attention. Novice improvisers, on the other hand, lack the hyperconnectivity of experts (Kenny & Gellrich, 2002).

Csikszentmihalyi and Rich (1997) have suggested that musical improvisation is an ideal activity for “flow” to occur. In this state, the improviser focuses all of her cognitive resources (i.e., knowledge base) on the task at hand to achieve an “order of consciousness” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 6) and immersion in the moment. In their study of 76 improvising musicians, Biasutti and Frezza (2009) found that flow was a common experience among participants. Their respondents experienced a feeling of going beyond their cognitive limitations and performing in a spontaneous and relaxed way. In essence, flow activities provide a sense of discovery, pushing people to higher levels of performance, which lead to previously unknown states of consciousness.

Research in Music Education

Research on improvisation has grown since its establishment as a core competency in music education. Topics that have received attention among researchers include the development of improvisation achievement among young children (Beegle, 2006; Brophy, 2005; Guilbault, 2009; Kiehn, 2003; Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009; Mang, 2005), factors that predict jazz improvisation achievement (Ciorba, 2009; Madura, 1996; May, 2003), and the type of instruction and its effect on improvisation achievement (Heil, 2005; Rowlyk, 2008; Watson, 2010). A closer examination of these studies reveals a variety of themes, outlined in the following paragraphs.

As children grow older and participate in more music-making activities, their improvisation becomes more purposeful and complex, including the use of motives, referents, and phrase structure (Brophy, 2005; Flohr, 1978; Kiehn, 2003; Mang, 2005; Moorhead & Pond, 1978). Improvisers draw upon a wide storehouse of knowledge when improvising (Beegle, 2006; Mang, 2005; Moorhead & Pond, 1978; Norgaard, 2011). Intentional teaching strategies and curricula for developing improvisational skill are effective (Burnsed, 1978; Heil, 2005), such as the inclusion of root melody accompaniment and emphasis on understanding harmonic progressions (Azzara, 1993; Guilbault, 2009). The inclusion of improvisation in instrumental study enhances performance (Azzara, 1993; McPherson, 2005), positively affects development of creative thinking (Kiehn, 2003), and is meaningful and enjoyable (Burnsed, 1978).

Singing and playing an instrument or multiple instruments positively influences improvisation achievement (Heil, 2005; McPherson, 1993) as does jazz theory knowledge, self-assessment, and aural imitation (Ciorba, 2009; May, 2003). Variables such as psychosocial maturity, age, sex, musical aptitude and music achievement may not influence improvisation achievement (Bash, 1984). Improvisation at expert levels involves sketch planning, evaluative monitoring, a rich knowledge base, harmonic and melodic directive influences, and excellent recall/memory skills (Norgaard, 2011). Improvisation may (Azzara, 1993) or may not (Burnsed, 1978; Rowlyk, 2008) affect achievement in sight-reading. And regular practice of improvisation leads to greater improvisation achievement (Heil, 2005; McPherson, 1993).

This summary of research suggests that improvisation is a “high-level teachable skill that improves with intellectual development, learning, practice, and experience” (Koutsoupidou & Hargreaves, 2009, p. 253). To aid teachers in achieving this goal, it would be helpful to have a developmental perspective of the skills, knowledge, attributes, and abilities of improvisers at various achievement levels.

Developmental Explanation of Improvisation

Developmental theories describe qualitative and/or quantitative changes over time, which include changes within one or more areas of behavior, changes in the relationships among many areas of behavior, and the general course of development (Miller, 1989). Although an empirically tested developmental model for jazz improvisation had not been developed prior to this study, an approach to teaching improvisation by Kratus (1996) contained a developmental explanation of the process. He based his approach on his conception of improvisation development and the Swanwick and Tillman (1986) sequence of musical development. According to his approach, there are seven levels of improvisation: (a) exploration, (b) process-oriented improvisation, (c) product-oriented improvisation, (d) fluid improvisation, (e) structural improvisation, (f) stylistic improvisation, and (g) personal improvisation. Movement from level to level depends on the improviser’s ability to demonstrate the characteristics of each level.

Kratus (1996) indicates five key differences between the novice and expert improviser: (a) The expert improviser can internally hear what notes he or she will play; (b) experts strive to create a product, whereas novices focus more on process; (c) experts have a total technical mastery of their instrument; (d) experts have a rich knowledge base; and (e) experts understand and utilize stylistic conventions. However, what can one say about improvisers at the intermediate level? How would this apply to jazz improvisation development?

Despite growth in jazz improvisation pedagogy, materials, and research, a systematic study focused of the development of jazz improvisation achievement had not been conducted prior to this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the role aural imitation ability, jazz theory knowledge, and personal background variables play in the development of jazz improvisation achievement among high school and college students. Research questions included the following:

What are the relationships between aural imitation ability, jazz theory knowledge, personal background variables, and the levels of participants’ improvisation achievement?

What developmental tendencies are evident in the cross-sectional analysis of the relationships among the variables and jazz improvisation achievement?

Method

Participants

High school and college instrumental music students (N = 70) who self-identified as having jazz improvisation experience were selected through stratified sampling (Miller, 2007). This type of sampling provides subgroups at defined points of variation (e.g., average, above average, and below average) in view of the phenomenon being studied. For this study, I sought participants with varying degrees of improvisation experience and achievement in order to analyze developmental characteristics and tendencies.

Jazz ensemble directors and music education professors at five high schools in Michigan and nine colleges throughout Michigan and New York were contacted via e-mail and/or telephone about the need for participants. The selection of schools was based on the quality of the music program and the reputation of the jazz program, as well as personal acquaintance with faculty. Using firsthand knowledge of their students’ improvisation abilities, the music teachers helped recruit participants with varying levels of improvisation experience. Instrumentalists from one high school (n = 26) and five colleges (n = 44) responded to my request to participate.

Instruments

The Participant Improvisation Experience Survey (PIES) was developed to gather demographic and improvisation performance experience data from each participant. Data categories include the following: (a) year in school, (b) primary and secondary instrument(s), (c) gender, (d) age, (e) improvisation experience, (f) frequency of improvisation practice, (g) methods used for learning improvisation, (h) listening experience, (i) confidence level when improvising, and (j) self-reported rating of improvisation ability.

The Improvisation Achievement Performance Measure (IAPM; see Appendix A, available in the online supplemental materials at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental) utilizes a Likert-type rating scale developed to measure expert judges’ perceptions of improvisation achievement of each participant. Based on similar measures used in previous studies (Burnsed & Price, 1984; Ciorba, 2006; Madura, 1996; May, 2003; Smith, 2007) and the scale development guidelines by DeVellis (2003), the IAPM consists of seven categories: (a) technique, (b) rhythm/time feel, (c) harmony, (d) melodic/rhythmic development, (e) style, (f) expressivity, and (g) creativity. Although previous studies included these categories for determining improvisation achievement, the item(s) in each category were not specific enough for examining developmental tendencies of improvisers. I chose to further define each category through the addition of more items. This was accomplished by creating a word bank based on analysis of jazz books and periodicals (Aebersold, 1967; Axelrod, 1999; Berliner, 1994) describing characteristics of improvisation; words were then converted into statements. This led to a 37-item scale, which was subsequently reviewed by two university graduate students enrolled in the Jazz and Contemporary Improvisation major and pilot tested by three high school students and one university student. Based on the results of the pilot test and review, the IAPM was revised for the main study, reducing the number of items from 37 to 15.

In addition to the aforementioned categories, the IAPM asks evaluators to determine the overall improvisation achievement level of the performer on a 6-point scale (i.e., novice to expert). This rating was fundamental for establishing a baseline by which participants would be evaluated and their developmental tendencies analyzed when linked with the ratings in each category.

Based on similar tests by Madura (1992) and May (2003), the Aural Imitation Measure (AIM) was developed to evaluate participants’ aural acuity and recall abilities. The AIM contains 15 prerecorded jazz motives performed on piano and divided into three groups: (a) one-measure motives, (b) two-measure motives, and (c) four-measure motives. Examples were freely composed by the researcher or borrowed from existing jazz method books (Baker, 1980). They were recorded using an M-Audio keyboard connected to an iMac computer running Garageband. The performance track was exported as an MP3 and saved on an iPod. In order to ensure that the performer started on the correct pitch in his or her response, a lead sheet was created indicating the starting note and number of measures for each example.

The Jazz Theory Measure (JTM) was used to evaluate participants’ jazz theory knowledge. Based on similar measures by Ciorba (2006), Madura (1992), and May (1998), this test consists of 20 multiple-choice questions concerning chord construction, song forms, scales, and common jazz harmonic chord progressions. This instrument was pilot tested with the same two high school students and university jazz major. The scoring and results indicated that the JTM provided sufficient measurement of differing levels of basic jazz theory knowledge, and no changes were necessary.

Procedure

All data were collected in a practice room or designated classroom in the participants’ school. I arranged times with the music teachers, typically around ensemble rehearsal times, so that participants could be excused individually to complete the four assessments. Participants completed the written assessments (i.e., PIES and JTM) using paper and pencil and then performed the aural imitation and improvisation tasks. In some cases, this order was reversed due to ensemble rehearsal scheduling or students’ own schedules.

For the AIM, I explained the task to each participant and provided a lead sheet with the starting pitch. Using the recorded examples, each motive was performed two times for the participant, who had two opportunities to play back what s/he heard. I provided an example of a one-bar motive to clarify the procedure to the participants. Responses were recorded onto a TASCAM DR-1 portable digital recorder.

The improvisation task (for which the IAPM would be used) involved three parts: (a) a free improvisation exercise accompanied by a drone, (b) three choruses of a blues improvisation in F accompanied by a rhythm section, and (c) three choruses of improvisation with accompaniment over the changes of “Blue Bossa” by Kenny Dorham. The free improvisation exercise was chosen for its limited harmonic and rhythmic constraints, the F blues because of its representation as a fundamental form found in jazz music, and “Blue Bossa” was chosen on account of its modal characteristics, harmonic simplicity, and bossa nova time feel. The drone was created using GarageBand. The F blues and “Blue Bossa” accompaniments were produced using iRealb, a software application downloaded to my iPhone. MP3 files of all three accompaniments were loaded onto an iPod and played on a Bose SoundDock speaker system. Participants were given a lead sheet for the F Blues and “Blue Bossa.” Performances were recorded onto a TASCAM DR-1 portable digital recorder.

Scoring and Data Analysis

The scoring of the AIM consisted of correct pitches (one point), contour/melodic shape (one point), and rhythm (one point), totaling three points per measure. This allowed participants to receive partial credit for accurately repeating some characteristics (e.g., rhythm and contour), and not others (e.g., pitch). The total number of possible points was 105. Scoring for the JTM consisted of the number of multiple choice questions answered correctly out of 20.

The recordings of the improvisation tasks were transferred to CD for evaluation by an independent judging panel consisting of two university graduate students and a professor in the Jazz and Contemporary Improvisation program. The resulting evaluative data were merged with the data from the AIM, JTM, and PIES, and entered into SPSS, Version 21, for statistical analysis.

Fundamental to the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data was the evaluation of improvisation achievement provided by the judging panel. Because it served as the dependent variable upon which the other variables were statistically measured, it was important to have reliable and valid ratings for each improviser. Internal reliability tests using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were conducted on the IAPM (.99) as well as the AIM (.85), JTM (.85), and the PIES (.72), suggesting reliable to strong internal consistency. In addition, an intraclass correlation coefficient of .85 was determined from the overall rating of participants’ achievement level by all three judges, suggesting strong agreement, despite slight differences in raw scores.

Results

In order to answer the first research question, I determined the jazz improvisation achievement levels of the participants and then divided them into three groups. A mean score was calculated from the judges’ ratings on participants’ overall achievement levels (i.e., summary Likert item at the end of the IAPM). Based on a 6-point scale (i.e., 1 = novice and 6 = advanced), 13 sets of scores were calculated, ranging from 1.33 to 5.33. The concentration of scores was highest between 2.33 and 4.00, suggesting a normal distribution of scores. To simplify this data set to discern possible developmental tendencies, I divided the 13 scores into thirds, resulting in three categories: (a) Novice (1.33 to 2.67), (b) Intermediate (3.00 to 3.67), and (c) Advanced (4.00 to 5.33). The novice and intermediate groups each included 27 participants, and the advanced group had 16 participants. (Table S1, available in the online supplemental materials at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental, shows the central tendencies of the three groups.) This distribution likely reflects the number of advanced improvisers (i.e., fewer) in society when compared with those of lower achievement levels.

I used a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient to investigate the relationship between aural imitation ability, jazz theory knowledge, personal background variables, and the levels of participants’ improvisation achievement (see Tables S2 and S3, available in the online supplemental materials at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). There was a strong positive correlation between instrument facility (as measured by the IAPM Question 1) and jazz improvisation achievement, r = .88, n = 70, p < .001, and between aural imitation ability and jazz improvisation achievement, r = .61, n = 70, p < .02. All other variables had significant moderate positive correlations with jazz improvisation achievement except for singing and the playing of secondary instruments, which were nonsignificant.

To further explore the relationship between the strongest correlated variables (technical facility and aural imitation), I conducted a simultaneous multiple regression analysis (see Table S4, available in the online supplemental materials at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental). Because sample size is important when analyzing power of effect among variables in a multiple regression analysis (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Pallant, 2010), I chose to limit the variables to the two strongest correlations for the analysis. Both variables combined to account for 79% of the variance in jazz improvisation achievement, R² = .79, F(2, 67) = 130.42, p < .001. Results also suggest a model in which both variables show statistical significance, with instrument facility recording a higher standardized beta value (β = .79, p < .001) than aural imitation ability (β = .15, p < .03), indicating that instrumental facility predicts more of the variance than aural imitation ability. On average, for each standard deviation (SD) unit change in aural imitation ability, jazz improvisation increased by .15 of a SD unit, once the other variable was taken into account. Tests for tolerance and variance inflation factor were conducted to investigate possible existence of multicollinearity. The tolerance value for both predictors was .66 (i.e., greater than .10), and the variance inflation factor value 1.51 (i.e., less than 10), suggesting sufficient independence and no existence of multicollinearity between the variables (Pallant, 2010).

Investigating the second research question pertaining to the developmental tendencies evident in the analysis of the aforementioned relationships, it was necessary to compare the means (see Tables S5 and S6, available in the online supplemental materials at http://jrme.sagepub.com/supplemental) of each of the post hoc researcher-assigned participant groups (i.e., Novice, Intermediate, Advanced) on several variables. To determine the existence of statistical significance in the change of mean scores, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. A series of tests for determining the homogeneity of variances among groups using the Levene method yielded no significant differences for all variables, except for practicing improvisation. Because a violation was detected, Welch and Brown-Forsythe tests were conducted on this variable, and the robustness of the equality of means was deemed acceptable (p < .0005). Therefore, homogeneity of variance was assumed and comparisons of independent variable means were carried out with confidence using a series of ANOVAs (see Table 1).

Table 1.

ANOVA Summary for Differences Among Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced Groups for Independent Variables.

Variable	SS	df	MS	F	p	η²
IMPROVISE
Between	42.52	2	21.26	4.61	.01	.12
Within	308.93	67	4.61
Total	351.44	69
JAZZEXP
Between	47.28	2	23.64	4.38	.02	.12
Within	351.19	65	5.40
Total	398.47	67
PRACTICEIMPROV
Between	21.65	2	10.82	8.86	.00	.21
Within	81.85	67	1.22
Total	103.50	69
SECINSTIMPROV
Between	8.46	2	4.23	2.56	.09	.07
Within	107.35	65	1.65
Total	115.81	67
SINGIMPROV
Between	6.31	2	3.15	2.30	.11	.06
Within	92.04	67	1.37
Total	98.34	69
LISTEN
Between	5.59	2	2.79	2.87	.06	.08
Within	64.18	66	.97
Total	69.77	68
CONFIDENCE
Between	8.39	2	4.20	4.38	.02	.12
Within	64.18	67	.96
Total	72.57	69
RATEYOURSELF
Between	8.24	2	4.12	4.08	.02	.11
Within	67.70	67	1.01
Total	75.94	69
AIMSCORE
Between	4912.89	2	2456.45	13.90	.00	.29
Within	11842.48	67	176.75
Total	16755.37	69
THEORYSCORE
Between	128.03	2	64.01	4.33	.02	.11
Within	989.82	67	14.77
Total	1117.84	69

Note. IMPROVISE = years of improvisation experience; JAZZEXP = years of jazz experience; PRACTICEIMPROV = extent to which one practices improvisation; SECINSTIMPROV = extent to which one improvises on secondary instruments; SINGIMPROV = extent to which one improvises vocally; LISTEN = extent to which one listens to jazz; CONFIDENCE = perceived confidence while improvising; RATEYOURSELF = self-assessment of ability; AIMSCORE = aural imitation score; THEORYSCORE = jazz theory score.

Significant differences among the three groups were detected for improvisation experience (p < .01), jazz experience (p < .02), practicing improvisation (p < .001), perceived self-confidence (p < .02), self-assessment (p < .02), aural imitation score (p < .001), and jazz theory score (p < .02). The effect sizes for these variables ranged from η² = .11 to .29, suggesting medium to large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s honest significant difference test revealed that for improvisation experience, confidence, self-assessment, and jazz theory, the mean score for the Novice group was significantly different from the Advanced group. The Intermediate group did not differ significantly from either group. For jazz experience, the mean score for the Novice group was significantly different from the Intermediate and Advanced groups, though the latter two did not show significant differences when compared to one another. In practicing improvisation, a Games-Howell test indicated there was a significant difference between the Novice and Advanced groups as well as the Intermediate and Advanced groups. No significant difference appeared between Novice and Intermediate groups. For aural imitation, there were significant differences between the means of all groups. The fact that a significant difference was detected between Novice and Advanced groups suggests developmental propensity. No significant differences were found between groups in secondary instrument improvisation (p < .09), vocal improvisation (p < .11), or listening to jazz music (p < .06).

Finally, comparing the means of performance ratings among groups on the IAPM yielded statistically significant results in all categories (see Table 2). The effect sizes for these variables largely exceeded the eta-squared value of .14, indicating a large effect for each category (Cohen, 1988). Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey honest significant difference test revealed that there were significant differences between the means of all groups in each category. This suggests that the IAPM categories lend themselves to developmental analysis and confirms the construct validity of the instrument.

Table 2.

ANOVA Summary for Differences Among Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced Groups for IAPM Categories.

Variable	SS	df	MS	f	p	η²
IAPMAVGQ1
Between	32.40	2	16.20	71.15	.001	.68
Within	15.25	67	0.23
Total	47.65	69
IAPMAVGQ2
Between	21.44	2	10.72	49.58	.001	.60
Within	14.48	67	0.22
Total	35.92	69
IAPMAVGQ3
Between	25.79	2	12.90	63.11	.001	.65
Within	13.69	67	0.20
Total	39.49	69
IAPMAVGQ4
Between	27.42	2	13.71	66.13	.001	.66
Within	13.89	67	0.21
Total	41.31	69
IAPMAVGQ5
Between	17.23	2	8.61	51.52	.001	.61
Within	11.20	67	0.17
Total	28.43	69
IAPMAVGQ6
Between	33.95	2	16.98	87.73	.001	.72
Within	12.97	67	0.19
Total	46.92	69
IAPMAVGQ7
Between	35.46	2	17.73	81.33	.001	.71
Within	14.61	67	0.22
Total	50.07	69
IAPMAVGQ8
Between	33.61	2	16.81	73.54	.001	.69
Within	15.31	67	0.23
Total	48.93	69
IAPMAVGQ9
Between	39.68	2	19.84	87.88	.001	.72
Within	15.13	67
Total	54.81	69
IAPMAVGQ10
Between	39.59	2	19.80	100.38	.001	.75
Within	13.21	67	0.20
Total	52.81	69
IAPMAVGQ11
Between	40.73	2	20.36	71.69	.001	.68
Within	19.03	67	0.28
Total	59.76	69
IAPMAVGQ12
Between	32.16	2	16.08	57.79	.001	.63
Within	18.64	67	0.28
Total	50.79	69
IAPMAVGQ13
Between	31.79	2	15.89	64.14	.001	.66
Within	16.60	67	0.25
Total	48.39	69
IAPMAVGQ14
Between	22.57	2	11.29	58.74	.001	.64
Within	12.87	67	0.19
Total	35.44	69
IAPMAVGQ15
Between	34.96	2	17.48	88.68	.001	.73
Within	13.21	67	0.20
Total	48.17	69

Note. IAPMAVGQ1 = instrument facility; IAPMAVGQ2 = ability to play with good time; IAPMAVGQ3 = ability to demonstrate rhythmic definition while floating atop the time feel; IAPMAVGQ4 = ability to play within the chord changes; IAPMAVGQ5 = demonstration of advanced harmonic knowledge when playing; IAPMAVGQ6 = ability to create melodic solo lines; IAPMAVGQ7 = use of patterns and licks; IAPMAVGQ8 = use of motivic development in the solo; IAPMAVGQ9 = demonstration of a rich knowledge base of melodic and rhythmic ideas; IAPMAVGQ10 = demonstration of awareness for shaping lines and performing logical phrases; IAPMAVGQ11 = demonstration of solid eighth note lines; IAPMAVGQ12 = ability to perform articulations, tone, and rhythmic feel appropriate to song style; IAPMAVGQ13 = demonstration of passion and character; IAPMAVGQ14 = demonstration of sensitivity towards use of space, including responding to accompaniment; IAPMAVGQ15 = demonstration of originality through improvisation.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the role aural imitation ability, jazz theory knowledge, and personal background variables play in the development of jazz improvisation achievement. The results indicate that aural imitation and instrument facility play a significant role and were significant predictors of jazz improvisation achievement. Variables including improvisation experience, jazz experience, practicing improvisation, perceived self-confidence, self-assessment, and jazz theory also appear to play a role in development, but further study is needed. Age, singing, and playing a secondary instrument, however, did not show a relationship with improvisation achievement.

The aural imitation finding confirms similar reports by May (2003) and Madura (1992), while the finding for technical facility confirms research results by McPherson (1993). The ability to hear external and internal sound sources and reproduce what is heard is fundamental to improvisation. In this study, it was evident that one’s aural imitation ability is correlated with strong technical facility on an instrument. Superior technical facility provides the capacity for high levels of improvisation achievement, assuming the improviser has the requisite skills and knowledge for improvising in the jazz idiom. As technical skills improve, the musician’s attention is directed toward higher level thinking processes (Berkowitz, 2009), such as expressiveness, novelty, and coherence.

Self-assessment shared a significant correlation with jazz improvisation achievement, confirming findings by Ciorba (2006) and May (2003). This suggests that improvisers are aware of their improvisatory capabilities and rate themselves accordingly. This ability increases with higher levels of improvisation achievement. In addition, jazz experience was significantly correlated with improvisation achievement, a key finding in Madura’s (1992) research: The more one practices in a stylistic domain, the better one becomes at performing in that domain. Although jazz theory knowledge shared a moderate correlation with improvisation achievement, it was not found to be a predictor, as in studies by Ciorba (2006) and Madura (1992). This discrepancy may likely be attributed to use of a different jazz theory measure in this study. Another consideration is that musicians with superior aural imitation ability are capable of hearing and producing harmonically complex musical passages, demonstrating procedural knowledge while lacking the declarative knowledge to describe the theoretical name or function of the music.

The findings of this study also suggest that jazz improvisation achievement is not dependent on age. In previous studies on improvisation involving children, improvisation became more purposeful and complex as a result of maturation (Brophy, 2005; Flohr, 1979; Kiehn, 2003; Mang, 2005; Moorhead & Pond, 1978). As children grew older, improvisations contained more use of motives, referents, and phrase structure. In this study of jazz improvisation (a highly stylized form of music), achievement was dependent on technical facility, aural imitation ability, and a specialized knowledge base of the jazz idiom. Finally, singing and playing a secondary instrument did not correlate with improvisation achievement, contradicting findings by Heil (2005) and McPherson (1993). This could be attributed to the limitation of the survey instrument, which may not have been sufficiently specific in assessing these variables.

In my efforts to summarize my findings in relation to previous literature and to depict my understanding of instrumental jazz improvisation development, I created the Developmental Continuum of Jazz Improvisation Achievement (Developmental Continuum; Figure 1). The top of the table represents key developmental characteristics discussed in the literature, whereas the bottom half represents those characteristics examined in this study that demonstrated statistically significant changes across all groups. As noted previously, the three developmental levels (i.e., novice, intermediate, advanced) were derived from the three groups of participants based on their improvisation achievement scores.

Figure 1.

Developmental Continuum of Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Achievement.

To better understand the Developmental Continuum, consider its use in evaluating a student improviser. To what extent does the student demonstrate appropriate rhythm/time feel? How might one describe the student’s melodic/rhythmic ideas, harmonic knowledge, style, expressivity, and creativity? How strong is the student’s aural imitation ability and technical facility? Naturally, improvisers will exhibit a diverse array of strengths and weaknesses across categories. Therefore, it is likely that performers will be rated at a different level in each category (e.g., novice for melodic/rhythmic ideas and intermediate for expressivity). To advance in a category, the student and teacher can view the characteristics of the next level and work on developing those characteristics.

The Developmental Continuum should be considered a preliminary framework for understanding instrumental jazz improvisation development. Many questions still exist regarding how one develops improvisation expertise, particularly with respect to catalysts that prompt movement from one level to the next. The likelihood of additional perspectives, characteristics, and degrees of differentiation among improvisers suggests the complexity of understanding and explaining the developmental process. As Koopman (1995) stated, “The [levels] reconstructed in the logic [i.e., sequence] part of developmental theory are abstract in nature. They are not necessarily found in concrete form in empirical reality, and they do not correspond to specific ages in human life” (p. 52). Therefore, this model should be considered preliminary and exploratory, while additional studies are recommended for confirming or refuting the suggestions made here.

Implications

Of primary importance to developing instrumental jazz improvisation expertise is the cultivation of aural imitation and technical facility. Rather than focusing solely on written notation for developing technical facility, musicians can do so using aural imitation. Otherwise known as ear-to-hand coordination, this skill can be developed through regular practice playing by ear; musicians can play along with recordings, imitate live musicians, or realize music heard in one’s imagination. Combining aural imitation with technical facility then enables musicians to improvise what they hear internally and externally. Over time and with consistent practice, a sense of fluency and fluidity develops in realizing one’s musical thoughts through sound, leading to hyperconnectivity in cognitive processing.

As musicians develop their aural imitation ability using authentic recordings or playing with other jazz musicians, they also develop other musical characteristics noted in the Developmental Continuum (i.e., technical facility, rhythm/time feel, melodic/rhythmic ideas, harmonic knowledge, style, expressivity, and creativity). They internalize the jazz vernacular, adding declarative and procedural memes and schemata to their knowledge bases, leading to greater possibilities when improvising. Thus, regularly playing with recordings and with others in a live setting is beneficial for developing improvisation achievement.

Learning jazz theory alongside aural imitation practices strengthens the declarative knowledge base, facilitating growth in improvisation expertise. Teachers are encouraged to discuss chord progressions, scale compatibility, song forms, and other theoretical aspects when teaching improvisation. Since confidence and the ability to assess one’s performance appear to increase with greater improvisation achievement, instructional strategies should aim to build confidence levels in addition to targeting specific skills. Music teachers should help improvisers recognize their own particular strengths and weaknesses and suggest ways to promote and improve them.

Finally, jazz improvisation achievement increases with greater improvisation and jazz experience. The more teachers incorporate improvisation in jazz rehearsals, particularly in large ensembles, the greater the opportunity and possibility there is for growth. In essence, providing students with tools, such as aural imitation ability, technical facility, and jazz theory knowledge, while articulating how they can be utilized for improvising music, will help them to develop confidence and understand the process.

Conclusion

This study examined instrumental jazz improvisation development resulting in the creation of the Developmental Continuum of Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Achievement. This model may serve as a tool for evaluating students’ improvisation abilities and help determine what skills and knowledge bases need further development. It would be helpful for future studies to confirm, refute, and/or enrich the model based on similar data gathering and analyses. If the model is sound, future studies should further explore the relationships that confidence, self-assessment, and jazz theory knowledge have with improvisation achievement to determine their representation on the Developmental Continuum. Additional research questions should also examine the relationship between self-awareness and evaluative monitoring (Norgaard, 2011) and whether higher capabilities of evaluative monitoring lead to greater states of flow.

Although singing and playing a secondary instrument did not correlate with improvisation achievement in this study, future studies should examine these variables. For example, one might examine the use of scat singing or vocal improvisation as an intermediary step to instrumental jazz improvisation. What kinesthetic/motor skill developments occur when improvising on multiple instruments, and what effect does this have on developing improvisation expertise?

Lastly, future research should investigate whether discrete stages of development exist and how they can be represented in the model. Researchers should also analyze factors that facilitate movement from one level to the next and discern whether a hierarchy of skills is needed for advancement on the continuum. Studying a larger population of improvisers over a longer time might be helpful in determining which variables are key movers in developing improvisation expertise. Greater understanding of jazz improvisation development will enable music educators and improvisers to implement more effective and targeted learning strategies, leading to more advanced levels of improvisation achievement.

Footnotes

Supplemental Materials

The online appendix and tables are available at .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

C. Michael Palmer is an assistant professor of music education in the School of Music at Ball State University. His research interests include music composition and improvisation, music cognition, and music teacher education.

References

Aebersold

(1967). How to play jazz and improvise (Vol. 1). New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersold Jazz.

Axelrod

(1999). The complete idiot’s guide to jazz. New York: Alpha Books.

Azzara

C. D.

(1993). Audiation-based improvisation techniques and elementary instrumental students’ music achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 328–342. doi:10.2307/3345508

Baker

D. N.

(1980). Improvisational patterns: The blues. New York, NY: Charles Colin.

Bash

(1984). The relationship among musical aptitude, musical achievement, psychosocial maturity, sex, age, preliminary improvisation performance and the acquisition of improvisation performance skill. Jazz Research Papers, 7, 26–29.

Beegle

A. C.

(2006). Children at work in the musical expression: A classroom-based study of small group improvisation. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3224185)

Berkowitz

A. L.

(2009). Cognition in improvisation: The art and science of spontaneous musical performance. (Doctoral dissertation.) Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3365197)

Berliner

(1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Biasutti

Frezza

(2009). Dimensions of music improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 232–242. doi:10.1080/10400410902861240

10.

Brophy

T. S.

(2005). A longitudinal study of selected characteristics of children’s melodic improvisations. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 120–133. doi:10.1177/002242940505300203

11.

Burnsed

C. V.

(1978). The development and evaluation of an introductory jazz improvisation sequence for intermediate band students. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 7901829)

12.

Burnsed

Price

H. E.

(1984). Improvisation and evaluation. Jazz Research Papers, 4, 35–42.

13.

Ciorba

C. R.

(2006). The creation of a model to predict jazz improvisation achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3243107).

14.

Ciorba

C. R.

(2009). Predicting jazz improvisation achievement through the creation of a path-analytical model. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 43–57.

15.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Cohen

J. W.

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Coker

Casale

Campbell

Greene

(1970). Patterns for jazz. Miami, FL: Studio P/R.

18.

Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National Standards for Arts Education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

19.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

20.

Csikszentmihalyi

Rich

G. J.

(1997). Musical improvisation: A systems approach. In Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.), Creativity in performance (pp. 43–66), Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

21.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Dobbins

(1988). Jazz and academia: street music in the ivory tower. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 30–41.

23.

Elliott

(1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. New York, NY: Oxford.

24.

Flohr

J. W.

(1979). Musical improvisation behavior of young children. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8009033)

25.

Guilbault

D. M.

(2009). The effects of harmonic accompaniment on the tonal improvisations of students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 81–91. doi:10.1177/0022429409337201

26.

Heil

L. T.

(2005). The effects of two vocal jazz improvisation methods on high school choir students’ attitudes and performance achievement. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3234220)

27.

Kenny

B. J.

Gellrich

(2002). Improvisation. In Parncutt

McPherson

G. E.

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance (pp. 117–134). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Kiehn

M. T.

(2003). Development of music creativity among elementary school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 278–288. doi:10.2307/3345655

29.

Koopman

(1995). Stage theories of musical development. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29(2), 49–66.

30.

Koutsoupidou

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2009). An experimental study of the effects of improvisation on the development of children’s creative thinking in music. Psychology of Music, 37, 251–278. doi:10.1177/0305735608097246

31.

Kratus

(1996). A developmental approach to teaching music improvisation. International Journal of Music Education, 26, 27–38. doi:10.1177/025576149502600103

32.

Madura

P. D.

(1992). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, previous musical experience, general creativity, and gender (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database. (UMI No. 304007466).

33.

Madura

P. D.

(1996). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, musical experience, creativity, and gender. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 252–267. doi:10.2307/3345598

34.

Mang

(2005). The referent of children’s early songs. Music Education Research, 7, 3–20.

35.

May

L.F.

(1998). Relationships among jazz theory achievement, jazz aural skills, aural imitation, and achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

36.

May

L. F.

(2003). Factors and abilities influencing achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 245–258. doi:10.2307/3345377

37.

McPherson

G. E.

(1993). Evaluating improvisational ability of high school instrumentalists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 119, 11–20.

38.

McPherson

G. E.

(2005). From child to musician: skill development during the beginning stages of learning an instrument. Psychology of Music, 33, 5–35. doi:10.1177/0305735605048012

39.

Miller

P. H.

(1989). Theories of developmental psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.

40.

Miller

S. A.

(2007). Developmental research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Moorhead

G. E.

Pond

(1978). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for the Advancement of Music Education.

42.

Nachmanovitch

(1990). Free play: Improvisation in life and art. New York, NY: Tarcher/Putnam.

43.

National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/

44.

Norgaard

(2011). Descriptions of improvisational thinking by artist-level jazz musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 109–127. doi:10.1177/0022429411405669

45.

Pallant

(2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

46.

Pressing

(1998). Psychological constraints on improvisational expertise and communication. In Nettl

Russell

(Eds.), In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation (pp. 47–67). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

47.

Reeves

S. D.

(2006). Creative jazz improvisation (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

48.

Rowlyk

W. T.

(2008). Effects of improvisation instruction on nonimprovisation music achievement of seventh and eighth grade instrumental music students. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3300374)

49.

Smith

D. T.

(2007). Development and validation of a rating scale for wind jazz improvisation performance. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 304841129)

50.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2009). Cognitive psychology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

51.

Swanwick

Tillman

(1986). The sequence of musical development: A study of children’s composition. British Journal of Music Education, 3, 305–339. doi:10.1017/S0265051700000814

52.

Watson

K.E.

(2010). The effects of aural versus notated instructional materials on achievement and self-efficacy in jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 240–259.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB