Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to provide a rich multi-dimensional view of expert musical collaborative problem-solving processes. I analyzed the collaborative problem-solving process during three subsequent rehearsals by a professional string quartet, applying Roesler’s (2016) model of musical problem-solving components. As Roesler observed with shared problem solving during one-to-one instruction, problem-solving components were enacted by and distributed among members of the quartet in any combination. In addition, quartet members prompted problem-solving behavior from one another in a similar way that teachers prompted problem-solving behavior from students (Roesler, 2017). Leadership roles shifted fluidly among quartet members from moment to moment. Domain knowledge and musical context were a critical component of their decision-making process. Additional observed rehearsal strategies are outlined. Suggestions for future research and applications of these findings are discussed, including the learning of collaborative problem-solving skill through participation in small musical ensembles.

Keywords

collaboration communication creativity expertise expression problem solving social psychology

The process of bringing a musical score to life through practice, rehearsal, and live performance is full of possibilities and decisions. When an individual engages in musical practice, such as preparing a Bach Partita for performance, she is engaged in an activity replete with problem solving. She must make decisions as to style, phrase shaping, and tempo, while also working out the execution of challenging chords, rhythms, and string crossings. Each technical challenge, each unresolved choice, each musical goal, is a problem to be solved (see Duncker, 1945; Hambrick & Engle, 2003; Lüer & Spada, 1998; Roesler, 2016, 2017; Wenke & Frensch, 2003, for a robust discussion of problem solving and its attendant terms and definitions).

The process by which four collaborating musicians bring a musical score to life is especially intriguing. When a group of musicians comes together in a chamber ensemble rehearsal, with every tempo decision, every phrase, every bowing and bow stroke they discuss, they engage in a process of collaborative musical problem solving. They navigate together the achievement of unified voice and shape, balance and blend—all without a conductor or designated rehearsal leader (see Gilboa & Tal-Shmotkin, 2012; Tovstiga, Odenthal, & Goerner, 2005).

“Music is a collaborative practice,” Sawyer (2006) states within an in-depth analysis of collective improvised musical performance (p. 161). A large body of research has contributed to understanding the dynamics of collaborative rehearsal (Davidson & Good, 2002; Davidson & King, 2004; Gilboa & Tal-Shmotkin, 2012; Ginsborg, Chaffin, & Nicholson, 2006; Ginsborg & King, 2012; Hopkins, 2015; King, 2006; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Seddon, 2005; Seddon & Biasutti, 2009; Tovstiga et al., 2005). Gilboa and Tal-Shmotkin (2012) and Tovstiga et al. (2005) applied and adapted theories of organizational knowledge and behavior to examine chamber ensembles. They found the string quartet to be a highly complex self-governing entity comprised of interdependent individuals. Murnighan and Conlon (1991) underwent an extensive study of British professional string quartets, examining their rehearsal dynamics, roles (perceived and observed), success, and stability. They found that more successful quartets were more democratic, spent more of their rehearsal playing rather than talking, and focused more on musical aspects of rehearsals during performances. King (2006) found that behavioral roles could shift among student ensemble members, though the quartets with more stable leadership roles made more progress (perhaps in contrast to Murnighan and Conlon’s, 1991, observation of professional quartets). Davidson and King (2004) discuss ensemble social cohesion and rehearsal effectiveness within small- and large-group rehearsals. They highlight that high-functioning ensembles value the role of each individual and assert that “according to most of the existing studies, all players need to be equally involved in the rehearsal” (p. 109).

Experts as models for study

Experts, or models of expertise, have been established as informative subjects of study; observing such experts may offer insight into the characteristics, skills, knowledge, and habits needed to achieve expertise or acquire competence. Researchers have systematically observed experts in a wide variety of fields in an effort to illuminate the nature of those specific fields themselves, or to explain expertise and its acquisition generally (Chaffin & Imreh, 2001; Chaffin, Imreh, Lemieux, & Chen, 2003; Dickson, McVittie, & Kapilashrami, 2018; Downs, 2014; Drożdżowicz, 2018; Duke & Chapman, 2011; Duke & Simmons, 2006; Elliott, 2009; Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006; Hambrick, Campitelli, & Macnamara, 2017; Plomin, Shakeshaft, McMillan, & Trzaskowski, 2014; Vasyukova, 2012; Wieten, 2018). Others have also compared experts with novices to further illuminate expertise and the process of its acquisition (Davidson & King, 2004; Drożdżowicz, 2018; Duke, Simmons, & Cash, 2009; Ginsborg & King, 2012; Hoc, Guerin, & Mebarki, 2014; Nokes-Malach, Meade, & Morrow, 2012; Plomin et al., 2014).

Ginsborg and King (2012) analyzed rehearsal strategies of chamber ensembles of varying levels of expertise. They applied a framework for coding attention to musical features/dimensions (or goals/targets) such as those designated as basic (e.g., rhythm, pitch), interpretive (rubato, phrasing), or expressive, as well as rehearsal strategies such as repeating a section or slowing the tempo for rehearsal purposes (Chaffin, Imreh, & Crawford, 2002; Ginsborg et al., 2006). Ginsborg and King (2012) also identified initiators (those who initiated attention to a goal) and examined verbal discussion versus non-verbal communication. They found that those with higher levels of expertise solved problems by talking less and playing/singing more, not unlike Davidson and King’s (2004) report that “nonverbal communication during playing often solved problems where talk had failed” (p. 114, see also Murnighan & Conlon, 1991).

Seddon and Biasutti (2009) observed communication between members of a professional string quartet and a previously studied student jazz sextet (Seddon, 2005). They focused on modes of communication (verbal and non-verbal) and levels of attunement (instruction, cooperation, collaboration), with collaboration—empathetic attunement—yielding the most creative and spontaneous moments in performance. They found that similar modes of communication were used in both groups; the professional string quartet achieved flexibility in performance, which the researchers attributed to empathetic creativity. While these studies highlight important roles and interactions that may be common across musical mediums and genres, the interactive components of the process by which members achieved each individual target were not considered.

Expertise in musical problem solving

Roesler (2016) analyzed the problem-solving process in music by observing the teaching of six expert music teachers, and thereby formulated a framework for systematically analyzing musical problem solving. The framework consists of five main component skills that interact to bring about problem solution: establish goals, evaluate, consider options, apply principles, and decide and act. The components of musical problem solving that comprise this framework are synonymous with those of problem-solving models established in other fields of study as diverse as health care, finance, child development, and business, as well as observations of various age groups and levels of expertise (Buijs, Smulders, & van der Meer, 2009; Hill-Briggs, 2003; Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Kotsopoulos & Lee, 2012; Lee, Koh, XCai, & Quek, 2012; Leong, Toh, Tay, Quek, & Dindyal, 2012; McCarty, Clifton, & Collard, 1999). She found that these five components could be divided between teacher and student in any combination. Roesler then applied this model to discover possible relationships between various teacher behaviors and learner problem-solving behavior within one-to-one music lessons (Roesler, 2017).

Beyond the teacher–student interactions Roesler observed between learners and their distinguished teachers, expertise in the moment-to-moment process of collaborative musical problem solving among members of a conductorless group has not yet been systematically analyzed. The purpose of this study was to demystify the nature of collaborative problem solving in music, and articulate the mechanisms by which it takes place, through the observation of rehearsals by a professional string quartet. Specifically, I sought to understand how the problem-solving behaviors of an expert string quartet may compare with the problem solving exhibited by expert teachers and their students within a one-to-one collaborative yet hierarchical process, as observed by Roesler (2016, 2017). Within lessons of six renowned artist-teachers, Roesler (2016) observed that, rather than only either the teacher or the student enacting all components of the problem-solving process, problem-solving components were divided between teacher and student in any combination, although the teacher often enacted behaviors that appeared to bring students into the problem-solving process (Roesler, 2017). I sought to understand whether any of these findings might be true of collaborative problem solving among four members of a string quartet. How are problem-solving components allocated among members of a string quartet during rehearsal? How do members of a group find out what each other is thinking? Furthermore, are roles always “equal” and non-hierarchical, as Tovstiga et al. (2005) posit, or do hierarchical relationships emerge within rehearsals of a high-functioning string quartet? Are such roles static or dynamic? My aim was to provide an in-depth picture of a professional chamber ensemble’s collaborative problem solving through

understanding the nature of the collaborative problem-solving process in conductorless chamber ensemble rehearsals, by identifying each problem-solving component behavior enacted by each member and how component behaviors are distributed among individuals during pursuit of the same rehearsal target;

identifying the characteristics of this professional group’s problem-solving approach, the strategies they use, and the roles carried out by each member during the process;

comparing and contrasting the problem-solving process during chamber rehearsals and one-to-one instruction.

Method

Because of the inherent complexity of the interactions among members of a string quartet, heretofore unexamined as component behaviors in relation to individual targets, an exploratory behavioral analysis was appropriate to understand the patterns and processes of problem solving in this setting. To realize these aims, I analyzed video footage of three consecutive rehearsals by a professional string quartet, highly successful by measures of performance (they regularly tour internationally) and employment as faculty-in-residence at a renowned school of music within a large North American university. One member of the ensemble set up a camera and videotaped their rehearsals while on an international tour in 2015, and later transferred the video files to me. Two of these rehearsals (136 and 114 min in length) took place in a rehearsal space they had been provided, and the last was a dress rehearsal (67 min in length) on the stage where they would later perform those pieces they rehearsed. The footage is unedited and uninterrupted, although the first rehearsal’s footage begins shortly after the rehearsal is underway and ends shortly before it is finished. The ensemble rehearsed string quartets by Ludwig von Beethoven (Op. 59 Nos. 1, 2, and 3), which they had all performed previously.

During the first two rehearsals, the group’s rehearsal sequence was as follows: play through a movement completely, then rehearse and problem-solve sections as requested by members (repeat sequence). The first rehearsal covered two movements and contained two of these cycles, with a break in between. The second rehearsal covered four movements and contained four of these cycles, with a break between the first and second cycle. During the dress rehearsal, the same pattern was observed, except they played only portions of movements, and problem-solving rehearsal time was shorter and more direct. Over the course of three rehearsals (5 hr 17 min), 33% of instructional time was spent in an extended performance (105 min), 8% on break (24 min), and 59% in problem-solving rehearsal time (188 min). This analysis largely focused on the 188 min spent in problem-solving rehearsal.

Problem-solving behaviors

I began by observing whole rehearsals, first familiarizing myself with the interactions and interpersonal rhythms of the string quartet, verbal and non-verbal. I then made several passes through each rehearsal, noting each instance of observable problem-solving behaviors by each member of the string quartet, applying Roesler’s (2016) framework describing and defining the components of problem solving:

Establish goal(s). Direct attention and action to accomplish desired ends.

Evaluate performance. Determine the extent to which goals have been met.

Conceive and consider options. Create and/or consider multiple possibilities that may lead to the accomplishment of a goal or consider the selection of alternative goals.

Generalize and apply principles. Formulate and connect knowledge to be applied over many situations, thereby guiding evaluations and decisions. (Note: for this analysis, analysis of musical context, harmony, and form are included as applications of previously acquired knowledge principles.)

Decide and act. Select from among possible options those that will be implemented to accomplish desired ends.

As in Roesler (2016, 2017), a problem was defined as any goal that has not yet been realized. I categorized problem-solving behaviors by each quartet member according to the definitions of each component above. In her 2016 and 2017 analyses, Roesler observed that each problem-solving component behavior could be enacted by either teacher or student in any combination. For example, see Figure 1 (Rehearsal Frame 1 from Roesler, 2017).

Figure 1.

Rehearsal frame 1 from Roesler (2017).

This characteristic of shared problem solving was considered as I approached the analysis of collaborative musical problem solving among four individuals. I noted who enacted each problem-solving component behavior throughout all three rehearsals. This study was limited to verbal and observable non-verbal behaviors; many unobservable mental processes and undetectable non-verbal behaviors may have been excluded.

Problem-solving-prompting behaviors

I noted the occurrence of behaviors that prompted problem-solving activity, originally observed as teacher behaviors prompting learner problem solving (Roesler, 2017). Of the behaviors defined in that framework, I labeled problem-solving-prompting behaviors, replacing “learners” from the original framework with “colleagues.” (See Table 1 for behaviors, definitions, and examples.)

Table 1.

Problem-solving-prompting behaviors of a professional string quartet, adapted from Roesler (2017).

Problem-solving-prompting behavior	Behavioral definition	Examples
Attention directive	Member directs colleagues’ attention to a particular broad goal.	“Be careful of the quality of the sound” “Play and figure out who has the melody” “Looking for . . . the highs and the lows. . . . I’m just planting the seeds.
Evaluation questions	Questions that prompt colleagues to evaluate performance or evaluate between options.	“Maybe I gave too much the one before?” “How does it feel to you?” “Did that feel better?”
Principle questions	Questions that invite colleagues to state principles that would explicate the accomplishment of or failure to accomplish a goal, or the reasoning and rationale for their decisions. (Note: This category was expanded to questions that prompted colleagues to analyze music.)	“It feels elevated, but we’re lower, right?” “What does it lead to?” “The other one, you kind of step to it. I guess the surprise is that you sit on it, right?” [sings cello line, looks at cello]
Decision questions	Questions that ask colleagues to make decisions or reveal their decisions.	“This [plays]—are we going for smooth or? . . .” “What’s the shape you’re looking for the first two bars of C?”
Goal questions	Questions that ask colleagues the goals on their minds. (Note: This question type was added beyond the original Roesler, 2017, framework, upon observation of the behavior among these subjects.)	“At D, what are the things we’re thinking about?” “What are you thinking?”

Note: Examples provided are direct quotations of the musicians observed in this analysis.

I recorded each instance of these behaviors and who performed each. In addition, I recorded instances in which quartet members made rehearsal sequence decisions. These were defined as any decision as to the sequencing of the rehearsal that did not entail musical decision-making. Examples include, “Let’s run it,” “Start at letter F,” or stopping the performance.

Scribe observation software (Duke & Stammen, 2011) was used to record these data. I also noted general themes that emerged related to the nature of problem solving as performed by this group of professionals, and the individual roles that emerged within the group from moment to moment.

Rehearsal frames

In addition, I noted the occurrence of rehearsal frames, or periods of instructional time dedicated to the pursuit of an identifiable goal or goals (Duke, 1994). These rehearsal frames comprised all problem-solving rehearsal time (that which was not spent in long performance or on break). I noted who initiated each rehearsal frame, similar to the initiators Ginsborg and King (2012) identified during ensemble rehearsal. I then selected 21 epitomic rehearsal frames that were illustrative of various roles, rehearsal targets, approaches, and emergent themes. I transcribed all spoken and non-verbal interaction, and analyzed each action according to the frameworks above—the problem-solving and problem-solving-prompting activity within each. Such an analysis was possible only after multiple (approximately 5–10) passes through each rehearsal frame. Two of these transcripts are included in this article, and the rest are included in the online supplemental materials.

Reliability

After a training period on other material, a reliability observer identified the target categories, problem-solving behaviors, and problem-solving-prompting behaviors within five randomly selected rehearsal frames from among the 21 I had transcribed. The observer identified a total of 111 problem-solving behaviors and 18 problem-solving-prompting behaviors. Agreement for each was as follows: 94 of 111 problem-solving behaviors (85%) and 15 of 18 problem-solving-prompting behaviors (83%).

Results

This highly functional string quartet achieved their musical goals through a synergistic, interactive problem-solving process. As observed during one-to-one instruction (Roesler, 2016), problem-solving components were shared among members of the group in any combination during an iterative, organic exploration of possibilities. Their process was democratic, yet not a free-for-all without leadership; individuals exchanged leadership roles in the problem-solving process fluidly, moment by moment. Each member brought a high level of individual skill and domain knowledge to rehearsals; their collective minds, as their collective sounds, made possible a newly conceived musical communication.

Problem-solving process

Problem-solving involvement

Over the course of rehearsals, I observed every member perform all components of the problem-solving process (see Figures 2 and 3, and Supplemental Figures 7 and 8 in Appendix A of the online supplemental materials). During a given rehearsal frame, components were divided among members in any combination (see Figures 5 and 6 [Rehearsal Frames 1 and 2] and Rehearsal Frames 3–21 in Appendix B in the online supplemental materials). Rehearsal frames were initiated by different members at different times (see Figure 4), and problem-solving leadership could shift to another at any given moment. In this group, the second violinist initiated attention to rehearsal targets most frequently. Each member made evaluations and considered options more frequently than they observably initiated goals and made decisions. A combined total of each of these behaviors indicates that these “in-process” behaviors, evaluating (306) and considering options (274), occurred twice as often as establishing goals (138) and making decisions (124). This was especially true during the first two rehearsals; their problem-solving process was highly open-ended. Most often they considered each other’s ideas and tried them through performance trials (sometimes several) before making final decisions.

Figure 2.

Rehearsal 2 Problem-solving activity, problem-solving-prompting behaviors, and rehearsal sequence decisions by each member of a professional string quartet. Timeline from scribe observation software (Duke & Stammen, 2011) for analysis of Rehearsal 2. Problem-solving behaviors: establish goal (G), evaluate (E), consider options (O), apply principle (P), decide (D); problem-solving-prompting behaviors: evaluation question (EQ), decision question (DQ), principle/analysis question (p); rehearsal sequence directive (r).

Figure 3.

Number of each problem-solving component by each member of a professional string quartet over three rehearsals, and total of each component by all members over three rehearsals.

Figure 4.

Number of rehearsal targets initiated by each member of a professional string quartet over three rehearsals.

Figure 5.

Rehearsal frame 1. Problem-solving behaviors by each quartet member are noted on the right (G = goal, E = evaluate, O = options, p = principle/analysis, D = decision). Problem-solving-prompting behaviors are noted on the left (EQ = evaluation question, AD = attention directive, RSD = rehearsal sequence directive).

Figure 6.

Rehearsal Frame 2. Problem-Solving Behaviors by Each Quartet Member are Noted on the Right (G = Goal, E = Evaluate, O = Options, P = Principle/Analysis, D = Decision). Problem-Solving-Prompting Behaviors are Noted on the Left (EQ = Evaluation Question, DQ = Decision Question, GQ = Goal Question, AD = Attention Directive, RSD = Rehearsal Sequence Directive).

Prompting problem solving

Quartet members also prompted one another to perform problem-solving behaviors. For example, they asked others to voice their evaluations and decisions. They sought out each other’s understanding of the musical context and asked each other to explain the rationale for their decisions. They asked one another to come up with options for consideration, often demonstrating for one another possibilities in bow stroke, color, or phrasing. Every member enacted these problem-solving-prompting behaviors over the course of three rehearsals, and they occurred in every rehearsal frame I analyzed. (See examples in Table 1.)

Rehearsal sequence decisions

Each member propelled the rehearsal forward at different times by making decisions as to what to do next, when and where to play, and so on. The violist, however, took on this role more than anyone else in each rehearsal and over all three rehearsals (39 total). The cellist vocalized the fewest rehearsal sequence decisions (5).

Rehearsal Frame 1 (Figure 5) exemplifies many of the above characteristics and demonstrates the open-ended nature of this group’s problem-solving approach. In this rehearsal frame, every member is involved and contributes synergistically to a creative result, as they attend to phrasing, character, and bow stroke. The second violinist considers differences in shaping of various lines in the music through analysis. As they try his and the viola’s ideas, the second violinist does not feel it works, and asks the cellist, who agrees. The first violinist, however, feels there is value in what the second violinist initially suggested, and offers a perspective on the character that leads to a different articulation (as identified by the cellist); the first violinist supports this possibility through a consideration of Beethoven’s markings (and what he did not mark), again drawing upon score analysis and his broad arsenal of possible articulations. Throughout this rehearsal frame, all are involved in enacting various components of the problem-solving process, and they prompt one another to continue working through the problem by asking questions, offering possibilities, attending to additional goals (such as character), and trying and exploring again.

Problem-solving approach

The following themes emerged as characteristic of the rehearsals I observed by this particular professional string quartet:

Every rehearsal target involved a collaborative approach; I never observed one person simply directing a rehearsal frame without further discussion, clarification, or possibilities from one or more others, even if only briefly.

Particularly in the first two rehearsals, problems were usually addressed in an open-ended fashion, as, “I wonder if your stroke is a little too brushy” (Rehearsal Frame 5); or questions were asked to express goals or concerns, as in, “What is the balance plan at I?” (Rehearsal Frame 8) and “At D, what are the things we’re thinking about?” (Rehearsal Frame 17)

Members spoke candidly to one another. No one appeared afraid to hurt another (in contrast to a student duo Goodman [2000] observed, as reported by Davidson and King [2004]).

No one was observed taking personal offense at another’s comments or evaluations; instead, focus remained on the bettering of the music (similar to a professional-level duo Goodman [2000] observed, as reported by Davidson and King [2004]).

Members considered and acted upon each other’s evaluations. They appeared to trust one another and have a high regard for each other’s insights and rationale. There was a sense of humility in hearing one another’s perspectives. For example,

Vln 2: [Vln 1], I’m not sure if you were holding back. I think, regardless of where you come in, we need to hear sort of a [gestures strong down].

[Plays with vln 1] And then [demonstrates different dynamic in next bar].

Vln 1: [nods] Sure. Yeah. (from Rehearsal Frame 3)

Vln 1 to Viola: It shouldn’t be too short. It should be easy.

Viola tries several times, adjusting stroke.

Vln 1: Right. (from Rehearsal Frame 5)

Members asked one another questions frequently, seeking to understand one another’s perspectives. For example,

Vln 2 to Vln 1: Was I in the right place?

Vln 1: I think so. I think so. (from Rehearsal Frame 5)

Viola: Are we behind?

Cello: You guys are ahead. (from Rehearsal Frame 3)

1st violin is gesturing, as if thinking through passage silently.

Viola: What are you thinking?

Vln 1: I’m thinking about [sings]. Sometimes coming out of the fortissimo, I’m not quite certain what we’re going to do. (from Rehearsal Frame 4)

Members frequently analyzed the music (form, harmony) and considered the musical context to draw conclusions and make decisions. (See evidence of this in Rehearsal Frames 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 21.) For example,

Viola: So one’s a very sharp key, and one’s a very flat-sounding key, so it’d be more tinkly, bright for the sharp. (from Rehearsal Frame 9)

Vln 2: Yeah, I like it, I guess in context I feel that this is still a transition—

Viola: —transition? [nods]

Vln 1: [nods]

Vln 2: —to [sings].

Viola: That’s the real relax? Sure. (from Rehearsal Frame 18)

Members sought to understand each other’s musical communications through playing during rehearsal, and also through verbal discussion of musical communication, perhaps as a preparation for a performance in which only non-verbal, musical communication is possible (see Davidson & King, 2004; Ginsborg & King, 2012; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). See the following excerpts (and full Rehearsal Frames 2, 4, 17, 18, 20):

Vln 1: Want to just try it? (from Rehearsal Frame 4)

Vln 2: What I’ve noticed—and [to Vln 1] I don’t know if you’ve liked it or not, so it’s also a bit of a question for feedback—is [that] [vln 1] reacts dependent on what I provide. So if I push my sound toward him, he pushes in—I think we’ve had a history of doing that, of us pushing our sound together. So, the last couple months I’ve been experimenting with not [doing that], of giving you a bar to adjust to the sound; and when you don’t, I come up right away, or if I realize it was a bad decision, I switch. Otherwise, I’ve been sort of sitting a little bit longer before I adjust. . . . I think it could also work if you did the opposite—if you did the same thing. If you don’t want the angry character, but one of us is providing it, if you would just hang a little bit longer where you want it, that would help flip the switch. (from Rehearsal Frame 18)

Vln 2: And so are you thinking—Maybe this is an easier way to do it instead of talking about it, is—could we play, and do a huge exaggeration of what this part of your thought is?

Vln 1: Sure [nods]. From D?

They play.

Vln 2: Can we do that one more time?

They play.

Viola: That’s very helpful to me. It wasn’t quite what I thought.

Vln 2: The question I have is a little bit if I’m reading correctly, and also, reading what the two of you [violin 1 and cello] are hoping for, I hear—it’s the third bar of D, you [Cello] start down there, but I hear you [Vln 1] go up, and then down. And it’s ok to do it differently, but that’s something that I realize, right now, confuses me in performance. Are you trying to be unified? (from Rehearsal Frame 17)

Cello: I think it’s the lead-in. So the first time I tried to keep us going through it, but I felt like we wanted to pull it back? [looking at Violin 1]

Vln 1: Well I detected—I thought that I heard that, that’s why we played the time that we did—

Cello: Oh really?

Vln 1: That’s what I thought—

Cello: I was trying to just let it go [gestures]. I was trying to just [plays motive].

Cello plays, violin 1 and viola join.

Cello: Yeah. That should be [gestures and sings]

Violin 1 plays transition motive again briefly.

Viola: And with that play a little bit [gestures and sings]. (from Rehearsal Frame 20)

Some rehearsal frames demonstrated that musical unification was achieved more successfully when musical leadership included everyone in the ensemble rather than only one member as a leader (see Davidson & King, 2004; Sawyer, 2006). For example,

After much discussion among viola, cello, and violin 2 regarding ensemble precision, the second violinist asks the first violinist, “How does it feel to you?”

Vln 1: You guys are waiting for me so I’m always on the edge of the beat, but also I’m not balancing myself to you guys anymore; I’m having to just always constantly play over 2 or 3 voices.

They play again.

Viola: I’m playing more transparently, but I’m leading more. . . .

Vln 1: The shapes that I can make when you guys do that are more attuned to what the music is doing, rather than me trying to use it to feed you guys. (from Rehearsal Frame 2)

Vln 1: [to violin 2 and viola] Why don’t we, the three of us, help him lead that. (from Rehearsal Frame 10)

Rehearsal Frame 2 (Figure 6) exemplifies many of the above characteristics I observed. Within a few minutes, they ask each other several questions and prompt one another to offer evaluations and possible solutions. Each member voices clearly and candidly their observations and concerns, as they seek to understand one another’s musical intent through playing, not only verbally. The solutions come about as they consider each other’s perspectives and apply their knowledge of ensemble playing in order to solve issues they are confronted with in a new space. They are most successful when all members take part in leading musical movement and shape, rather than only the first violin. Here, shaping the music (and its influence on playing together as an ensemble) is most successfully a collaborative experience, working best when all are engaged in a form of leadership, while remaining attuned to the others.

Discussion

Perhaps the most interesting characteristic I observed in these string quartet rehearsals, in which there is no designated leader (e.g., conductor) or understood hierarchy (e.g., teacher/student), is the dynamic nature of the roles played out by each member of the group. Although the group is conductorless, they are not without leadership. Group members were constantly educating one another. In a sense, I observed hierarchical roles similar to those observed in teacher–student one-to-one instruction (Roesler, 2017), and members of this quartet seemed to accept those roles in a given moment of rehearsal. But rather than remaining static (as the most productive student groups observed by King, 2006), leadership roles—or the analogous roles of teacher(s) and student(s)—shifted fluidly, seamlessly, from one moment to the next. At one moment, one or more members were observed evaluating, directing, showing options for others—the behaviors of teachers within one-to-one instruction—and in another moment a member who had been in the “student” role might be observed adopting the “teacher” role, directing the former evaluator/director, now in the position of a “student.” The democratic roles of this quartet do not reflect the attitudes toward leadership expressed by some (though not all) quartets in an earlier study, in which the first violin was either observed as, self-appointed, or verbally designated the primary leader (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). In this professional quartet, I observed no “paradox of the second fiddle” (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991, p. 169). To the contrary, the second violinist initiated the most rehearsal targets of any of the group (see Figure 4).

In this highly functional ensemble, every member was involved in collaborative problem-solving and invested in the process. Some “specialty” roles appeared to emerge, such as a higher number of rehearsal sequence decisions by the violist, the most targets initiated by the second violinist, more attention directed to intonation and bow stroke by the first violinist, or an apparent deference to the cellist on matters of rhythm, tempo, and ensemble. Generally, however, there was no one person that was the apparent rehearsal leader. Notably, every individual’s knowledge and musical convictions appeared critical to the success of the collaborative problem-solving process (see Davidson & King, 2004). Individuals’ ideas were nearly always considered and built upon; one member’s concern might prompt another member to voice possibilities, which led to further ideas by another. Instinctively, each member prompted one another to be involved in the process at times through questions and open-ended directives, in a similar way that teachers might prompt students to be involved in the problem-solving process (Roesler, 2017).

Of course, their creative results are especially possible due to the depth and breadth of each individual’s knowledge and skill. Domain knowledge appears to be a critical characteristic of expert creative problem solvers. Each member exhibited an expert level of skill and musicianship, and brought a depth of understanding to the rehearsal, as evidenced in the many times each stated their evaluations and made decisions through verbalizations of principles and knowledge schema. The frequency of such occurrences aligns with those exhibited by distinguished studio teachers (Roesler, 2016, 2017), who frequently explained the reasons for their decisions to students and connected the effect of physical effects of movement on sound, as also observed by Duke and Simmons (2006). These four highly trained musicians did not simply direct each other what to do, nor did they mechanistically regurgitate the markings on the page; they frequently analyzed the musical composition using knowledge of theory and form, and they drew upon the overarching context as they made specific decisions as to written markings, or unwritten articulations, shaping, dynamics, or tempi. They expressed to one another creative possibilities in character, related to their understanding of the composer’s intent and the conventions of the period. They drew upon their experience playing in various venues as they adjusted to different acoustics, as was especially observable during their last (dress) rehearsal on the stage on which they would be performing. And they drew upon their knowledge and experience in ensemble playing, applying principles related to excellent unification of sound, blend, balance, and musical movement. These observations corroborate findings and assertions that domain-specific knowledge, as well as general problem-solving skill, is key to successful problem solving in any field (Lin & Cho, 2011; Sweller, 1988; Youssef-Shalala, Ayres, Schubert, & Sweller, 2014).

In future research, additional comparisons may be made between problem-solving processes by student chamber ensembles of varying levels and professional music ensembles such as this string quartet. Although researchers have examined differences in expertise during collaborative rehearsals, none have done so within rehearsal frames, related to specific rehearsal targets. Moreover, observing problem solving in a rehearsal involving music of a different nature (e.g., a newly composed work rather than standard repertoire which all members have played previously) could also yield a richer understanding of the process. In addition, exploring diverse styles and ensemble types such as a jazz combo or conductorless orchestra might add insight to the in situ problem solving required of performers and learners in various contexts.

This study demonstrates the value of utilizing the natural, authentic setting of the string quartet rehearsal to examine its highly observable and dynamic collaborative problem solving processes. Furthermore, it is recommended that the conductorless chamber ensemble be considered as an important medium through which collaborative problem solving may be developed and practiced, including within music education and music teacher education curricula. Moreover, those seeking to acquire musical problem-solving competence and expertise can benefit from observing models of expert musical problem solving in rehearsal, such as this highly successful professional string quartet.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-pom-10.1177_0305735621998746 – Supplemental material for Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pom-10.1177_0305735621998746 for Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet by Rebecca A Roesler in Psychology of Music

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-pom-10.1177_0305735621998746 – Supplemental material for Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-pom-10.1177_0305735621998746 for Fantastic four! Problem-solving processes of a professional string quartet by Rebecca A Roesler in Psychology of Music

Footnotes

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Rebecca A Roesler

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Buijs

Smulders

van der Meer

(2009). Towards a more realistic creative problem solving approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00541.x

Chaffin

Imreh

(2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of information about the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, 39–69.

Chaffin

Imreh

Crawford

(2002). Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance. Erlbaum.

Chaffin

Imreh

Lemieux

A. F.

Chen

(2003). “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 465–490.

Davidson

J. W.

Good

J. M. M.

(2002). Social and musical co-ordination between members of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30, 186–201.

Davidson

J. W.

King

(2004). Strategies for ensemble practice. In Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 105–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://byui.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=rih&AN=A475389&site=ehost-live

Dickson

C. A. W.

McVittie

Kapilashrami

(2018). Expertise in action: Insights into the dynamic nature of expertise in community-based nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27, e451–e462. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13950

Downs

R. M.

(2014). Exploring the nature and development of expertise in geography. In Montello

D. R.

Grossner

Janelle

D. G.

(Eds.), Space in mind: Concepts for spatial learning and education (pp. 281–309). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Drożdżowicz

(2018). Philosophical expertise beyond intuitions. Philosophical Psychology, 31, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2017.1403576

10.

Duke

R. A.

(1994). Bringing the art of rehearsing into focus: The rehearsal frame as a model for prescriptive analysis of rehearsal conducting. Journal of Band Research, 30(1), 78–95.

11.

Duke

R. A.

Chapman

(2011). Changing learners: The nature of expertise in music teaching. In Ward-Steinman

P. M.

(Ed.), Advances in Social-Psychology and Music Education Research. (AN: 2011-17045) (1st ed., pp. 29–38). Ashgate.

12.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

(2006). The nature of expertise: Narrative descriptions of 19 common elements observed in the lessons of three renowned artist-teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 7–19.

13.

Duke

R. A.

Simmons

A. L.

Cash

C. D.

(2009). It’s not how much; it’s how: Characteristics of practice behavior and retention of performance skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408328851.

14.

Duke

R. A.

Stammen

(2011). Scribe (4.2) [Computer software]. Austin: University of Texas.

15.

Duncker

(1945). On problem-solving ( Lees

L. S.

, Trans.). Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599

16.

Elliott

J. G.

(2009). The nature of teacher authority and teacher expertise. Support for Learning, 24(4), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01429.x

17.

Ericsson

K. A.

Charness

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

(2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Gilboa

Tal-Shmotkin

(2012). String quartets as self-managed teams: An interdisciplinary perspective. Psychology of Music, 40(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610377593

19.

Ginsborg

Chaffin

Nicholson

(2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. International Conference on Musical Collaboration, 34(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061851

20.

Ginsborg

King

(2012). Rehearsal talk: Familiarity and expertise in singer-pianist duos. Musicæ Scientiæ: The Journal of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, 16(2), 148–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864911435733

21.

Goodman

(2000). Analysing the ensemble in music rehearsal and performance: The nature and effects of interaction in Cello-Piano Duos (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of London, London, UK.

22.

Hambrick

D. Z.

Campitelli

Macnamara

B. N.

(2017). The science of expertise: Behavioral, neural, and genetic approaches to complex skill. London, England: Routledge.

23.

Hambrick

D. Z.

Engle

R. W.

(2003). The role of working memory in problem solving. In Davidson

J. E.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 176–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

24.

Hill-Briggs

(2003). Problem solving in diabetes self-management: A model of chronic illness self-management behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(3), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324796ABM2503_04

25.

Hoc

Guerin

Mebarki

(2014). The nature of expertise in scheduling: The case of timetabling. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(2), 192–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20359

26.

Hopkins

M. T.

(2015). Collaborative composing in high school string chamber music ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62, 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414555135

27.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101.

28.

King

E. C.

(2006). The roles of student musicians in quartet rehearsals. Psychology of Music, 34, 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061855

29.

Kotsopoulos

Lee

(2012). A naturalistic study of executive function and mathematical problem-solving. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31, 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.12.005

30.

Lee

C. B.

Koh

N. K.

XCai

X. L.

Quek

C. L.

(2012). Children’s use of meta-cognition in solving everyday problems: Children’s monetary decision-making. Australian Journal of Education, 56(1), 22–39.

31.

Leong

Y. H.

Toh

T. L.

Tay

E. G.

Quek

K. S.

Dindyal

(2012). Relooking “Look Back”: A student’s attempt at problem solving using Polya’s model. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science & Technology, 43, 357–369.

32.

Lin

C.-Y.

Cho

(2011). Predicting creative problem-solving in math from a dynamic system model of creative problem solving ability. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.595986

33.

Lüer

Spada

(1998). Denken und Problemlösen [Thinking and problem solving]. In Spada

(Ed.), Lehrbuch Allgemeine Psychologie (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 189–280). Bern: Hans Huber.

34.

McCarty

M. E.

Clifton

R. K.

Collard

R. R.

(1999). Problem solving in infancy: The emergence of an action plan. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1091–1101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.4.1091

35.

Murnighan

J. K.

Conlon

D. E.

(1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393352

36.

Nokes-Malach

T. J.

Meade

M. L.

Morrow

D. G.

(2012). The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 18(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2011.642206

37.

Plomin

Shakeshaft

N. G.

McMillan

Trzaskowski

(2014). Nature, nurture, and expertise. Intelligence, 45, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.008

38.

Roesler

R. A.

(2016). Toward solving the problem of problem solving: An analysis framework. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 26(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083715602124

39.

Roesler

R. A.

(2017). Independence pending: Teacher behaviors preceding learner problem solving. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64, 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416672858

40.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061850

41.

Seddon

F. A.

(2005). Modes of communication during jazz improvisation. British Journal of Music Education, 22(1), 47–61.

42.

Seddon

F. A.

Biasutti

(2009). Modes of communication between members of a string quartet. Small Group Research, 40, 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408329277

43.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

44.

Tovstiga

Odenthal

Goerner

(2005). Sense making and learning in complex organisations: The string quartet revisited. International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy, 1, 215. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2005.008514

45.

Vasyukova

E. E.

(2012). The nature of chess expertise: Knowledge or search? Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 5, 511–528. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2012.0032

46.

Wenke

Frensch

P. A.

(2003). Is success or failure at solving complex problems related to intellectual ability? In Davidson

J. E.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 87–126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Wieten

(2018). Expertise in evidence-based medicine: A tale of three models. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 13, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-018-0055-2

48.

Youssef-Shalala

Ayres

Schubert

Sweller

(2014). Using a general problem-solving strategy to promote transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 215–231.

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

0.24 MB

0.35 MB