The effect of varying encoding conditions on jazz,instrumental,and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy: Implications for music literacy

Abstract

The primary purposes of this study were (1) to determine the effect of three encoding conditions (singing, playing, studying silently) on participants’ music memorization accuracy; (2) to examine potential differences between choral, jazz, and concert band musicians’ accuracy in completing the music memorization task; and (3) to determine whether ensemble affiliation yielded any performance advantages among the three presentation conditions. Three folk melodies were selected for memorization under the three encoding conditions. Participants (N = 81) had 75 s to commit each melody to memory while studying silently, singing, or playing on a keyboard. Participants then notated the three melodies using conventional staff notation. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on one factor revealed significant differences based on participants’ ensemble affiliation. A Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc test revealed the jazz group had higher accuracy scores than the band group. No significant differences were found based on encoding conditions, and no significant interactions were found between the encoding conditions and ensemble groups. The experiment is framed by questions related to memory, reading, and differing notions of literacy.

Keywords

aural skills ensemble improvisation jazz memory meaning training

The role of memory in musical meaning making

Semantic meanings in music exist within both the stimulus and the perceiver. These two domains may be referred to as the objective set (the musical features themselves which we can objectively discuss) and the subjective set (the “aspects of groupings in a piece of music established through knowledge listeners bring to the piece in their long-term memory, such as knowledge of music-historical styles and performance practices”) (Snyder, 2000, p. 264). Musical meaning then is a two-way street between the stimulus and perceiver, sound and schemata (Elliott, 1995; Sloboda, 1985). This study attempts to examine subjective set differences related to variations in musical training through a notation memorization task.

Chunking as meaning making

Snyder (2000) posits that short-term memories organize music into chunks that, in turn, interact with long-term memories holding schemas, values, and emotions. Listeners’ different memory capacities are partly a function of the acquired schemata that are used to organize and store long-term memories (Ericsson & Chase, 1982). Different people chunk the same information differently. Snyder (2000, p. 54) illustrates this chunking phenomenon very clearly with one salient example. If the following numbers are introduced as a memorization stimulus (1492177619452001), the task becomes quite different with the addition of three spaces (1492_1776_1945_2001). Any US citizen who took a US history class would have no problem with this task as the numbers are transformed into four significant dates in American history. However, the non-US citizen might struggle more with the same sequence of numbers. Individual long-term memories help organize and store information received and chunked by short-term memories.

Syntax and hierarchical reading

The methods by which we perceive and chunk music may vary according to our understandings of syntax through both the subjective and objective sets—the way music is organized and the way our perception of music organizes the experience (Sloboda, 1985). According to Sloboda, an ability to read music and identify the parts in relation to their larger hierarchical function relates to music literacy. As musicians learn to read Western notation, their acquired subjective set forms the long-term memory schemata that ultimately increase fluency and comprehension. More specifically, the learned processes employed in reading or practicing music may influence schematic understandings of musical notation.

Whether a musician focuses on part or whole—local or global—elements of notation has implications for memory encoding as these perceptual attentions relate to how a reader may “chunk” or consolidate information. Sloboda (1976) conducted a foundational study that demonstrated musicians can memorize notated sequences of over three notes more efficiently than non-musicians when presented with the visual stimulus for 2 s. Sloboda compared these results to research in reading literacy, suggesting that degrees of literacy determine performance on two levels of processing: the visual and the conceptual. Sloboda (1976) writes,

Two coding processes act simultaneously on the stimulus, one a fast visual coding, and the other a slower, but more permanent abstract (or name) coding. In this case, non-musicians appear to be lacking a second, abstract, coding which musicians possess. (p. 1)

Greater literacy, then, enables readers to move from visual identification to the more abstract conceptual level more quickly by using various concept labels as information consolidation (Coltheart, 1972; Sloboda, 1974). Memory is related to literacy because understanding musical syntax enables greater chunking by allowing the reader to gather conceptual units from notation rather than many discrete points. Using Snyder’s above example, acquiring a deep understanding of musical syntax allows the musical reader to see five separate notes (C B F# D E) as one concept label (C major 9 # 11). Heightened literacy directs local information into more global contexts.

Effects have been found between musician and non-musician groups in previous studies examining the efficient perception of musical syntax through reading notation (Halpern & Bower, 1982; Sloboda, 1985) or receiving aural stimuli (Gaab & Schlaug, 2003; Knecht, 2003). Only recently have different musical traditions such as jazz and classical been examined for possible subjective set differences in musical perception. These studies have focused on brain scan differences (Harris & de Jong, 2015; Pinho, de Manzano, Fransson, Eriksson, & Ullén, 2014) or aural discrimination differences (Goldman, Jackson, & Sajda, 2020; Tervaniemi, Janhunen, Kruck, Putkinen, & Huotilainen, 2015). Goldman et al. (2020) found jazz musicians to have an advantage over classically trained musicians in aurally identifying deviations in standard chord progressions, one measure of syntactical perception. However, perception of syntax through a reading task has yet to be examined between musical traditions with contrasting authentic practices: in this study, the differences between jazz and classical traditions. Studies measuring possible differences between different Western notation–oriented musical traditions in perceiving Western staff notation have yet to surface. This study aims to examine possible differences in memory for notation, which may result from the various literacies constructed by traditional band, choral, and jazz ensemble traditions.

Diverse literacies

Understanding how musicians learn to derive greater syntactical meaning from music is especially relevant to music educators because deriving meaning from musical organization rests at the foundation of music literacy. Various approaches to musical literacy introduce different musical thinking strategies preparing a musician to tackle the artistic challenges unique to their ensemble tradition. For example, each of the traditions within this study may prefer different labeling strategies which each hold different implications for hierarchical coding of syntax. Choral musicians may prefer solfege (Demorest, 2001; Smith & Sataloff, 2013; Weary, 2012), band musicians may read more at the letter level (Brittin, 2005; Lautzenheiser, 1999; Watkins, 2011), whereas jazz musicians may learn to think quickly at the chord-scale degree level (Berliner, 2009; Coker, Casale, & Campbell, 1970). Letters, solfège, and numbers may serve different performance goals between these three traditions, and they may also orient the reader toward different constructions of musical syntax. This study seeks to examine whether different authentic practices related to reading Western staff notation constructed through different ensemble affiliations could lead to differences in memory for Western staff notation.

Aural imagination and improvisation as literacy practice

Improvisation practice may provide musicians with an advantage in quickly identifying musical syntax in Western notation. Students with abilities in ear-playing and improvising tend to also have more advanced abilities in sight-reading (Grutzmacher, 1987; Luce, 1965; Mishra, 2014). Inner hearing, related to ear-playing and improvisation capacities, has also been found to enhance reading (Hayward & Gromko, 2009; Kopiez & In Lee, 2008). Those who can mentally process and manipulate sound structures may be able to interpret the symbol system of sound structures more efficiently. Azzara (1993) found that improvisation and ear-playing practice produced better sight readers. Improvisation often requires musicians to study forms, patterns, chords, and scales until such organizing elements can be performed reflexively. Azzara (1993) noted that such an approach to improvisation “is dependent on the recognition of relationships among tonal, rhythmic and expressive elements, that is, the assimilation of the syntactic features of the music” (p. 330). Instead of thinking note to note, advanced improvisers think of harmony, form, and constructing thematic development over, possibly, several choruses of improvisation (de Bruin, 2017). Certain kinds of improvisation provide mental practice with the rules of musical syntax, improving music-reading skills as it enhances abilities in identifying musical patterns such as scales, motivic repetition, or chordal outlines.

One problem has emerged as more researchers have sought to study improvisation with experimental controls: improvisation is not a singular practice. Improvisation is difficult to control because the various cognitive processes musicians employ while improvising vary considerably (Goldman, 2016; Nettl, 2013). These various approaches may yield widely variable objective set differences in novelty, spontaneity, and freedom (Goldman, 2016), which suggest an equally wide variety of subjective set differences. This is a problem as researchers attempt to discuss differences in perception or cognition resulting from the presence or absence of improvisation practice. One solution to this problem may be to view a musical tradition as embodying its own diverse ways of knowing which permit us to view musical cognition as a constellation of authentic practices nested within a learning tradition (Creech et al., 2008; Goldman, 2016) or cultural tradition (Campbell, 2003). As such, the vast differences between the jazz tradition (Berliner, 2009) or classically trained musicians are respected as diverse and manifold, rather than reduced to any single, oversimplified practice such as improvisation. Some experimental control is sacrificed in such a model; however, we are then able to examine perceptual differences resulting from culturally derived authentic practices. As improvisation studies are still relatively new, this seems to present an opportunity to examine musical cognition phenomena while not oversimplifying a music culture’s practices to stereotypes with sweeping stereotypes of cultural differences—like that of contrasting jazz and classical differences through an improvisation lens alone.

The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the effect of three encoding conditions (singing, playing, studying silently) on participants’ music notation memorization accuracy and (2) to examine potential differences between choral, jazz, and concert band musicians’ accuracy in completing the music notation memorization task.

The hypotheses and research questions supporting this study are as follows:

If the reading and writing task relates primarily to coding the syntactical information provided through reading staff notation, then there will be no differences between singing, playing, or silently studying the notation.

What is the effect of varying encoding conditions (singing, playing, studying silently) on jazz, instrumental, and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy?

If the authentic practices within the jazz tradition direct cognition to higher levels of musical syntax, then we should see higher memorization accuracy among jazz musicians.

Will there be significant differences in the memorization accuracy of jazz, choral, or concert band participants?

If the authentic practices within the jazz tradition code and label notated musical information at higher levels of musical syntax, then performance task differences (singing, playing, and silent studying) will not be responsible for differences between groups.

Will any one of the encoding conditions be more effective for any one of the three groups of musicians?

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 81) were undergraduate students currently enrolled at a large Southeastern university. Participants were grouped according to ensemble affiliation: concert band (n = 27), jazz (n = 27), and choral (n = 27). Criteria for all participants were the following: (1) completion of at least the first year of music theory indicating a basic facility with notation concepts, (2) at least one semester of piano study indicating an ability to play a simple right-hand melody, and (3) a major course of study aligned to their ensemble designation. Participants self-reporting perfect pitch were excluded from the study. Participants for whom piano was their primary instrument were also excluded as advanced piano skills may have created an unfair advantage during the playing condition. Participants were music major volunteers from the top-tier auditioned ensembles for the band and choral groups. To reach the predetermined number (n = 27) of participants within the jazz group, volunteers participated from each ensemble tier at the university. Participants were not pretested to determine learning modality preferences or audiation ability. While groups were determined by primary ensemble affiliation, as music majors, it is understood that many of the participants also engaged in secondary ensemble experiences outside of their primary ensemble affiliation.

Participants were recruited via their ensembles, and participation was both voluntary and confidential. Informed consent was obtained from all participants according to the university’s institutional review board (IRB) protocol.

Musical stimuli for memorization

Three melodic stimuli in treble clef were chosen according to the results of two preliminary studies. Each melody was 32 beats long and in a simple meter. This length was determined to be appropriate in measuring memory encoding among musicians with enhanced chunking abilities; a similar length was used by Sloboda and Parker (1985). The melodies were long enough to have musical meaning, defined by predictable harmony, rhythmic repetition, contrasting contours, and simple folk forms. These three melodies (Supplemental Appendix A) were scored according to the number of correctly notated pitches and revealed similar averages despite their differences in overall note quantities. The melodies selected were 4, 30, and 97 from the Sweet Pipes Adult Recorder Method Book 2 (Burakoff & Hettrick, 1980). All were diatonic and involved a simplicity befitting their folk origins. All melodies had rhythmic repetition and adhered to simple folk song forms (aabb, abba, aabc, etc.) which offered additional “chunkability” to the task. All melodies started and ended on the tonic. The key of C major was used for all stimuli, and melodies used no accidentals. All melodies were arranged into symmetrical four-bar lines by a staff which provided a natural visual outline of the phrase structure.

Presentation order

A total of nine counterbalanced presentation orders were created to control for possible order effects for melody, encoding condition, and sequence. In addition, to ensure that each group received a similar presentation order, the same schedule of presentations was maintained for each independent group (choral, band, jazz). This schedule eliminated the possibility of one group incidentally receiving one stimulus order more than another. The resultant presentation orders can be seen below (Table 1).

Table 1.

Presentation orders.

1	Silent₁	Sing₂	Play₃
2	Sing₂	Play₃	Silent₁
3	Play₃	Sing₂	Silent₁
4	Silent₂	Sing₃	Play₁
5	Sing₃	Play₁	Silent₂
6	Play₁	Sing₃	Silent₂
7	Silent₃	Sing₁	Play₂
8	Sing₁	Play₂	Silent₃
9	Play₂	Sing₁	Silent₃

Silent₁, silent study of Melody 1; Sing₂, sing practice of Melody 2; Play₃, play practice of Melody 3. This labeling pattern is consistent throughout the presentation order.

Independent variables

Participants studied and encoded the stimulus melodies for 75 s under the following three conditions:

Singing. Participants were instructed to hum or sing one of the three stimulus melodies. A reference note (C) was provided before the encoding period began.

Playing. Participants were instructed to play one of the three stimulus melodies using an electronic keyboard.

Studying silently. Participants were instructed to study silently one of the three stimulus melodies. A reference note (C) was provided before the encoding period began.

Participants were given no instruction regarding use of possible cognitive strategies (chaining, analyzing form and harmony, imagining sensorimotor performance, etc.). A pilot test was administered to five participants to determine the appropriate length for encoding and was determined to be 75 s. During the pilot test, participants expressed reluctance about singing in front of the researcher. Consequently, the researcher left the room during the practice stage of the singing condition only. The researcher remained in room during silent and playing practice periods.

Dependent measure

After the encoding period, participants transcribed as much of the initial melodic stimuli as they remembered onto staff paper without a keyboard for reference. The provided answer sheet included eight measures on staff paper and the correct key signature, with the correct rhythm notated above (Supplemental Appendix A). Participants viewed the response form in advance of the test, so they knew what information they would need to memorize during the trial. The given rhythmic notation attempted to control possible effects of rhythmic memory impacting participants’ melodic transcriptions. Rhythmic memory has been shown to operate independently of melodic memory (Boltz, 1999). Participants were allowed as much time as needed to complete the transcription task; however, participants spent no more than 3 min completing their melodic transcriptions.

Procedures

A copy of the instructions was given to each participant prior to the study. On the table where participants completed the music memory task, there was a keyboard for use during the playing condition, an answer packet, and two pencils. After participants were given an opportunity to ask questions, participants were given a brief demonstration of the task. In addition, each encoding condition was described by the following script placed on their desk:

Silent study

For this condition, please memorize the melody by studying the notation silently. You will be given a starting pitch of middle C. During the study period, please make no sound (no humming, singing, or tapping). The study period will be 75 s.

Singing

For this condition, please memorize the melody by humming or singing the notation. You will be given a starting pitch of middle C. During the study period, please do not play the keyboard. The study period will be 75 s.

Playing

For this condition, please memorize the melody by playing the notation on the keyboard provided. During the study period, you may only play the piano. Please do not play AND sing during this condition. The study period will be 75 s.

Data collection and analysis

Correct pitches for each transcription were marked according to the note head placement. Participants’ scores represented the number of pitches notated correctly. The maximum number of pitches marked correct was 57. By counting the number of correct pitches recalled by the participant and excluding rhythmic memory, the task places greater focus on the melodic and harmonic syntax of the stimuli. Scores for all transcriptions were organized according to the encoding condition and ensemble affiliation for statistical analysis. Please refer to the Supplemental Materials to examine harmonic and melodic syntax within the studied melodies.

Results

Participants’ accuracy scores on the music memory task were used to address Research Questions 1, 2, and 3. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one between-subjects factor (Ensemble Affiliation) and one within-subjects factor (Encoding Condition) was used to determine differences between Encoding Conditions and Ensemble Affiliation. Table 2 displays the overall means and standard deviations for each Encoding Condition and Ensemble Affiliation (total possible correct = 57). Table 3 displays the ANOVA table resulting from this analysis. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations (SDs) of overall pitch memory notation score.

	Choral		Band		Jazz		Overall
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Silent	27.74	10.11	29.70	7.51	33.37	9.51	30.27	9.29
Sing	29.04	7.36	27.59	9.81	32.85	7.53	29.83	8.50
Play	29.26	8.98	27.41	7.59	31.00	6.68	29.22	7.85
Total	28.68	8.80	28.23	8.33	32.41	7.69	29.77	8.55

Table 3.

Two-way ANOVA table demonstrating factors related to memory scores.

Source	Sum of Squares (SS)	df	Mean Square (MS)	F	p
Between subjects
Ensemble	859.69	2	429.84	4.09	.02
Subj/A	8,196.99	78	105.09
Within subjects
Encoding Condition	47.81	2	23.91	.44	.64
Encoding × Ensemble	154.21	4	38.55	.71	.59
Encoding × Subj/A	8,443.98	156	54.13

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

Research Question 1. What is the effect of varying encoding conditions (singing, playing, studying silently) on jazz, band, and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy?

No main effect was found between the three Encoding Conditions, F(2, 156) = 0.44, p = .64. This analysis indicates Encoding Condition did not significantly affect participants’ musical memorization accuracy. These results support the hypothesis that the memory task did not simply reveal possible learning modality advantages. As a general preference for a kinesthetic, aural, or visual task was not found, revealed differences found between ensembles may be more strongly linked to schemata differences.

Research Question 2. Will there be significant differences in the memorization accuracy of jazz, choral, or band participants?

A significant main effect was found for Ensemble Affiliation, F(2, 78) = 4.09, p = .02, $η_{p}^{2} = . 095$ . A Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc test revealed significant differences between the Jazz group and the Band group (p = .03) but not the Choral group (p = .056). No significant difference was found between the Band and Choral groups’ memorization accuracy (p = .96). These results indicate Ensemble Affiliation did have a significant effect on participants’ music memorization accuracy, with the Jazz group scoring higher than the Band group.

Research Question 3. Will any one of the encoding conditions be more effective for any one of the three groups of musicians?

The mean and standard deviation scores for each Encoding Condition by participant group can be seen in Table 2. The two-way ANOVA revealed no significant interaction between Encoding Condition and Ensemble Affiliation, F(4, 156) = 0.71, p = .59. This analysis indicates no Encoding Condition was more effective for any ensemble group. The Choral group, for example, did not memorize more accurately under the singing condition nor did the instrumentalists memorize more accurately under the playing condition.

Discussion

Research Question 1. What is the effect of varying encoding conditions (singing, playing, studying silently) on jazz, instrumental, and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy?

No significant differences in memorization accuracy were found for any of the encoding conditions. While these findings do not support other studies which indicate mental practice or auto-generative processes—such as singing—as best practices for long-term memory (Bernardi, Schories, Jabusch, Colombo, & Altenmüller, 2012; Mishra, 2002), this study used a very short encoding time period. The way musicians approach memory encoding over 2 min might be qualitatively different from the way they approach memory encoding over days or weeks. The purpose of this study was not to determine best memorization practices, but rather memorization differences stemming from divergent practices in reading Western notation. These results do seem to indicate that differences found between traditions may not be explained by learning modality preferences (singing, playing, silent study), but rather through subjective set differences in how the brain finds and identifies meaning through notation. A finding of no difference supports the hypothesis that memorization differences found in this study may be explained by different ways of knowing written notation rather than through performance task differences that may align to their primary mode of making music—singing or playing.

Research Question 2. Will there be significant differences in the memorization accuracy of jazz, choral, or concert band participants?

In this study, Ensemble Affiliation did have a significant effect on participants’ memorization accuracy. This finding supports the initial hypothesis that the authentic practices within the jazz ensemble tradition direct cognition to higher levels of syntax. Participants who affiliated primarily with the jazz ensembles recalled more pitches correctly than participants who affiliated with the band group and nearly met the alpha level for the choral group as well. The authentic practices through which musicians construct meaning from Western notation seem to affect one’s comprehension of musical syntax.

Previous researchers have suggested that improvisation is a form of practice with musical syntax, which may result in higher degrees of chunking ability (Azzara, 1993; Goldman et al., 2020; McPherson, 1995). An improviser must quickly apply the “rules” of harmony, melody, form, and phrasing, which may be considered a form of syntactical practice. Goldman et al. (2020) believed that the advantages jazz musicians received in his study in more efficiently identifying harmonic structures revealed a different approach to classification and categorization of sounds stemming from their improvisation practice. For the improvising jazz musician, a single chord may represent myriad possibilities in voicing, tonality options, important intervals, harmonic substitutions, or “vocabulary” from the tradition. In addition, jazz musicians frequently practice chord sequences common to the tradition such as ii-V-I, larger forms such as the blues, or any number of sequences derived from jazz standards. Harmonic thinking in jazz is a significant component of learning the tradition; this is practiced through improvisation and also through rote memorization of chord sequences, singing the changes, taking forms to new keys, and composing original material to fit over the changes, among others (Berliner, 2009). Practicing the kind of chunking strategies that form the hierarchical understandings enhancing chunking ability may go deeper than improvisation practice alone. Jazz musicians employ these practices to improve in improvisation, yet it may also be these other, less creative, activities that helped jazz musicians more efficiently identify syntactical structures within the melodic stimuli in the study.

This distinction may be important, especially as educators seek to apply emerging “jazz versus classical” research findings to their teaching practice. While improvisation may not be an authentic practice in many concert band or choral classrooms, it would seem that practicing one’s musical memory, learning by ear, coding melodic pitches according to scale degree function, transposing melodies to new keys, or even navigating novel pathways through harmonic sequences with a guide tone melody may be practices more fitting the problems that arise by being an independent musician of the contemporary or modern classical milieu. Such activities practicing harmonic knowledge in new ways may contribute to more efficient reading, and this would certainly contribute to a more global knowledge of the content within a musical text. In addition, the teacher or student who may find discomfort with improvisation may find more comfort through these more convergent approaches to exploring and practicing harmonic functions. The practices that offered more efficient reading strategies for the jazz group need not be permanently fixed to the jazz tradition.

Research Question 3. Will any one of the encoding conditions be more effective for any one of the three groups of musicians?

No significant interactions were found between group affiliation and encoding conditions. No ensemble group completed the memory task more successfully under one encoding condition than another. These findings support the hypothesis that differences in memory result from the unique ways of knowing notation constructed by a tradition’s approach to literacy rather than a modality preference possibly created by their performance practice.

The role of “primary instruments” in processing music notation was limited in this study. For instance, the choral group did not demonstrate a memory advantage under the singing condition. Serafine’s (1988) statement that music is “played first with the mind” (p. iv) suggests that a trained musician does not need an instrument in hand to understand the syntactical meanings communicated through staff notation. Musical cognition research may be of particular interest to music educators seeking pedagogical methods that address musical understanding independent of performance. Diverse analytical approaches to reading a score may be common in theory and ear training research (Karpinski, 2000); however, such diverse ways of knowing notation may also be relevant to the music literacies addressed through performance ensemble classrooms.

Limitations

This study revealed differences in memorization accuracy between ensemble groups. However, this study did not closely examine ensemble-specific practices. To understand how specific practices relate to memory abilities, a more controlled study would be necessary. Much was assumed by ensemble affiliation. Further study with participants willing to undergo more comprehensive audiation pre testing or self-reporting of practice strategies would be necessary to draw any further conclusions on how a given practice may be responsible for enhanced abilities in reading for musical syntax.

As ensemble constructed literacy is concerned, nearly all jazz band participants were jazz majors who also participated in jazz combo ensembles. However, the idiosyncratic practices of a jazz combo were not taken into consideration. Jazz combo ensemble practices may include frequent memorization of melodies, ear-playing, frequent informal performance, solo transcription, improvisation, and composition. These common jazz combo practices likely contribute to improved performance on a notation memory task. It may also be that students who excel at jazz are more skilled at playing by ear giving them a possible natural advantage to the task; the extent to which this may be a talent versus a trained ability is difficult to separate. A study of band and jazz musicians pretested for ear playing abilities would make a better distinction between audiation capacities and different ways of knowing notation. Due to the complex differences between traditions, this study opted to consider literacy as a constellation of musical practices. Admittedly, cultural differences in literacy is a topic rife with control issues. Access to sizable populations of both jazz and classical musicians allowing for more selective participation would be needed to obtain these more desired controls. Furthermore, the task within this study examined one small component of acquiring literacy with Western music notation—syntax. However, literacy is a constellation of practices, so to make sweeping conclusions on greater or lesser degrees of “literacy” is far beyond the scope of this study which only examined memory advantages related to the perception of musical syntax.

Implications for practice and future study

The results of this study further support the hypothesis that frequent memorization of simple musical forms, playing by ear, and improvisation may all contribute to enhanced understanding of musical syntax (Azzara, 1993; Choksy & Kodály, 1981; McPherson, 1995, 1997). Examining performance practices that direct attention to hierarchical structure—such as manipulating musical forms, improvisation, and various means of labeling—may better prepare students’ development of a comprehensive musical literacy. For example, some authentic practices within the jazz tradition found in commercially available jazz method books for beginning ensemble instruction such as Curtis Winters’ (2014) Improv Pathways or Mike Steinel’s (2000) Essential Elements-Jazz introduce translating patterns into new keys, simple aural transcription, improvisation, and reading number notation. Such practices direct attention to syntactical organization through developmentally appropriate pedagogy, and these methods could easily be translated into the pedagogical practices of non-jazz traditions at the secondary level. While the participants of this study were college-age musicians, as reading competency takes years to acquire, their unique ways of knowing and reading notation were likely developed through their participation in their respective ensemble traditions which largely begin around middle school in the United States. Certainly, few jazz majors would be admitted to a competitive jazz program without significant prior training and experiences in the authentic practices within the performance tradition, many of which may be already outlined in widely available instructional materials.

The variations within music literacy practices seem to hold many parallels to the ways we develop literacy in language (Cooper & Kiger, 2003; Wish, Speicher, Zellner, & Hejna, 2015). Literacy is a complex set of understandings related to a symbol system (Mills & McPherson, 2006); therefore, expanding the ways we practice and express syntactical and prosodic features of music may enhance musical literacy. Like music, language literacy is developed through a variety of aural, oral, and written experiences (Cooper & Kiger, 2003). While the participants of this study did not specifically define their daily practice room activities, Paul Berliner’s ethnographic study, Thinking in Jazz, suggests that jazz literacy is also constructed through a wide range of aural, oral, and written learning experiences. Many of these learning processes also seem to align with the informal practices detailed through the work of Lucy Green (2002). The results of this study suggest that engaging in a range of creative and recreative musical practices may contribute just as meaningfully to acquiring music literacy as similarly diverse practices construct language literacy.

The current Modern Band movement provides many ideas toward adopting informal learning strategies in school music settings (Wish et al., 2015). These strategies, common in popular music, introduce composition, aural transcription, basic chord function knowledge, and improvisation at the early stages of instruction. While Modern Band does present changes to both instrumentation and style in music education programs (products), Modern Band also presents a new view of the processes by which literacy is constructed, processes informed by the founder’s experience as an English as a second language (ESL) teacher. David Wish et al. (2015) encourage educators to view Modern Band pedagogy as a tool to be applied in any music classroom, not just rock band, as these processes are not tied to a style, but rather are effective strategies for musical language development (p. 3). Some of these features include the role of authorship in meaning construction, low-stakes performance opportunities, improvisation and experimentation from the earliest stages, non-punitive feedback encouraging the behavior of improvisation before addressing the quality of an improvised product, acquired versus learned approaches to grammar, student choice, the prominence of listening in language development, and the role of low affective filters in fluency development. These are just a few of the principles underlying Wish’s theory of Music as a Second Language, which may parallel many aspects of jazz education.

This study relied on examining musical memory through notation. While notation does not feature prominently in Modern Band, the pedagogy nevertheless stakes a claim on literacy development as it is oriented toward the development of music as a second language. Wish emphasizes that language is first developed by listening, then by speaking, and finally by reading and writing. Thus, graphemic, or notational, literacy is supported by the aural and oral capacities of linguistic expression. Wish centers practices such as improvisation, listening, and composition in musical language acquisition—practices also central to jazz education. It may be that just as language literacy depends on unwritten modes of thought such as listening and speaking, so music literacy may also be heavily influenced by oral and aural experiences separate from experiences centered by notation. As the results of this study suggest some practices common within the jazz tradition may be helpful in constructing literacy, the processes suggested by Wish’s Music as a Second Language pedagogy may provide a helpful theoretical framework to define specific variables responsible for the enhanced musical memories demonstrated by the jazz group in this study.

The results of this study suggest creative acts such as composition, arranging, improvisation, or novel interpretation may provide the learner with different operative approaches to knowing the symbol system of Western notation. The three ensembles examined may also engage in different views of the recreative act of reading through letter, number, or solfege. Finally, each tradition may connect to audiences and each other in culturally specific ways, encoding different social meanings to the sounds they work toward producing. All of these concerns point to differences in identifying the meaning and purposes behind acquiring music literacy. The results of this study suggest that differences do exist between culturally specific ways of knowing Western notation. In addition, insofar as musical syntax remains an objective of music literacy, examining common reading practices outside one’s own tradition may enhance abilities to identify musical meaning in notation within their own tradition. Such an invitation to diverse ways of knowing would only seem to deepen meanings received from sound symbols.

Conclusion

The ability to memorize is not just an innate skill that some musicians possess and others do not. While there is a nature component to any ability, memory construction is also a function of nurture. Memorization is a trainable skill; this skill is related to an ability to find meanings in larger chunks of information. The jazz musicians in this study, who may creatively and recreatively practice musical syntax differently than the other groups, had an advantage in the memory encoding task. This study was a start to understanding how various authentic practices contained within ensemble traditions may influence music memory, only one of many cognitive processes contributing to music literacy.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_0305735621988971 – Supplemental material for The effect of varying encoding conditions on jazz, instrumental, and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy: Implications for music literacy

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pom-10.1177_0305735621988971 for The effect of varying encoding conditions on jazz, instrumental, and choral musicians’ memorization accuracy: Implications for music literacy by Aaron Lohmeyer in Psychology of Music

Footnotes

Author note

Research for this article was conducted during doctoral studies I attended through a graduate assistantship.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Aaron Lohmeyer

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Azzara

C. D.

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

Berliner

P. F.

(2009). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bernardi

N. F.

Schories

Jabusch

H. C.

Colombo

Altenmüller

(2012). Mental practice in music memorization: An ecological, empirical study. Music Perception, 30, 275–290. doi:10.1525/mp2012.30.3.275

Boltz

M. G.

(1999). The processing of melodic and temporal information: Independent or unified dimensions? Journal of New Music Research, 28, 67–79.

Brittin

R. V.

(2005). Preservice and experienced teachers’ lesson plans for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 26–39.

Burakoff

Hettrick

W. E.

(1980). The sweet pipes recorder book: Adult method book 2. Arlington, TX: Sweet Pipes.

Campbell

P. S.

(2003). Ethnomusicology and music education: Crossroads for knowing music, education, and culture. Research Studies in Music Education, 21, 16–30.

Choksy

Kodály

(1981). The Kodály context: Creating an environment for musical learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Coker

Casale

Campbell

(1970). Patterns for jazz. Miami, FL: Warner Brothers Publications.

10.

Coltheart

(1972). Visual information-processing. In Dodwell

P. C.

(Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 62–85). Oxford, UK: Penguin.

11.

Cooper

Kiger

(2003). Literacy: Helping children construct literacy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

12.

Creech

Papageorgi

Duffy

Morton

Hadden

Potter

Welch

(2008). Investigating musical performance: Commonality and diversity among classical and non-classical musicians. Music Education Research, 10, 215–234.

13.

de Bruin

L. R

. (2017). Evolving regulatory processes used by students and experts in the acquiring of improvisational skills: A qualitative study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 65, 483–507. doi:10.1177/0022429417744348

14.

Demorest

S. M.

(2001). Building choral excellence: Teaching sight-singing in the choral rehearsal. London, England: Oxford University Press.

15.

Elliott

D. J.

(1995). Music matters: A new philosophy of music education. London, England: Oxford University Press.

16.

Ericsson

K. A.

Chase

W. G.

(1982). Exceptional memory: Extraordinary feats of memory can be matched or surpassed by people with average memories that have been improved by training. American Scientist, 70, 607–615.

17.

Gaab

Schlaug

(2003). The effect of musicianship on pitch memory in performance matched groups. NeuroReport, 14, 2291–2295.

18.

Goldman

(2016, December). Improvisation as a way of knowing. Music Theory Online, 22(4). Retrieved from https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.16.22.4/mto.16.22.4.goldman.html

19.

Goldman

Jackson

Sajda

(2020). Improvisation experience predicts how musicians categorize musical structures. Psychology of Music, 48, 18–34.

20.

Green

(2002). How popular musicians learn: A way ahead for music education. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

21.

Grutzmacher

P. A.

(1987). The effect of tonal pattern training on the aural perception, reading recognition, and melodic sight-reading achievement of first-year instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 171–181.

22.

Halpern

A. R.

Bower

G. H.

(1982). Musical expertise and melodic structure in memory for musical notation. The American Journal of Psychology, 95, 31–50.

23.

Harris

de Jong

B. M.

(2015). Differential parietal and temporal contributions to music perception in improvising and score-dependent musicians, an fMRI study. Brain Research, 1624, 253–264.

24.

Hayward

C. M.

Gromko

(2009). Relationships among music sight-reading and technical proficiency, spatial visualization, and aural discrimination. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 26–36.

25.

Karpinski

G. S.

(2000). Aural skills acquisition: The development of listening, reading, and performing skills in college-level musicians. London, England: Oxford University Press.

26.

Knecht

M. G.

(2003). Music expertise and memory: The relationship between music expertise and memory of music patterns, within various degrees of contextual constraint. Music Education Research, 5, 227–242.

27.

Kopiez

In Lee

(2008). Towards a general model of skills involved in sight-reading music. Music Education Research, 10, 41–62.

28.

Lautzenheiser

(1999). Essential elements for band. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.

29.

Luce

J. R.

(1965). Sight-reading and ear-playing abilities as related to instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 13(2), 101–109.

30.

McPherson

G. E.

(1995). Five aspects of musical performance and their correlates. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 115–121.

31.

McPherson

G. E.

(1997). Cognitive strategies and skill acquisition in musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 64–71.

32.

Mills

McPherson

G. E.

(2006). Musical literacy. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 177–191). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

Mishra

(2002). A qualitative analysis of strategies employed in efficient and inefficient memorization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 74–86.

34.

Mishra

(2014). Factors related to sight-reading accuracy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 452–465.

35.

Nettl

(2013). Contemplating the concept of improvisation and its history in scholarship. Music Theory Online, 19, 1–4.

36.

Pinho

A. L.

de Manzano

Ö.

Fransson

Eriksson

Ullén

(2014). Connecting to create: Expertise in musical improvisation is associated with increased functional connectivity between premotor and prefrontal areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 6156–6163.

37.

Serafine

M. L.

(1988). Music as cognition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

38.

Sloboda

J. A.

(1974). The eye-hand span: An approach to the study of sight-reading. Psychology of Music, 2, 4–10.

39.

Sloboda

J. A.

(1976). Visual perception of musical notation: Registering pitch symbols in memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 1–16.

40.

Sloboda

J. A.

(1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Sloboda

J. A.

Parker

D. H. H.

(1985). Immediate recall of melodies. In Howell

Cross

West

(Eds.), Musical structure and cognition (pp. 143–167). New York, NY: Academic Press.

42.

Smith

Sataloff

R. T.

(2013). Choral pedagogy. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

43.

Snyder

(2000). Music and memory: An introduction. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

44.

Steinel

(2000). Essential elements-jazz. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard.

45.

Tervaniemi

Janhunen

Kruck

Putkinen

Huotilainen

(2015). Auditory profiles of classical, jazz, and rock musicians: Genre-specific sensitivity to musical sound features. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1900.

46.

Watkins

K. T.

(2011). An analysis of select beginning band method books and the level to which they address the national standards for music education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.

47.

Weary

K. J.

(2012, April). Teaching musical literacy: Developing the independent choral singer. Choral Director. Retrieved from http://www.choraldirectormag.com/articles/commentary/teaching-musical-literacy-developing-the-independent-choral-singer/

48.

Winters

(2014). Improv pathways. Provo, UT: Stepwise Publications.

49.

Wish

Speicher

Zellner

Hejna

(2015). Music as a second language & the modern band movement. Verona, NJ: Little Kids Rock.

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

10.13 MB