Experiences of Musical Improvisation: Self-Individuation and Participatory Sense-Making

Abstract

Improvisation is an important element of global musical practices. However, musical improvisation is often neglected in K-12 and collegiate music education programs, with some music educators suggesting that improvisation cannot be taught. Rather, improvisation must be facilitated, enabled, and fostered. In this review of literature, I examined musicians’ experiences when improvising to provide information about the characteristics of the environment needed to foster student improvisation. I drew upon recent developments in music perception and cognition studies to frame a view of individual and group processes in improvisation, and I suggest steps teachers can take to facilitate improvisation in music education settings.

Keywords

dialogue embodied cognition enactivism free improvisation musical improvisation

Improvisation is an important element of global musical practices (Azzara, 2002; Bailey, 1993; Biasutti, 2017; Nachmanovitch, 1990; Sawyer, 1999). Even in the Western classical music tradition, musicians were expected to improvise in performance until the late 19th century when the written score assumed primacy (Azzara, 2002; Goertzen, 1996; Jaques-Dalcroze & Rothwell, 1932). Research findings indicate that improvisation activities can promote musical originality (Biasutti & Frezza, 2009; Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Lange, 2011), enhance individual performance abilities (Lange, 2011; Lewis, 2013), encourage independence in young musicians (Beegle, 2010; Pignato, 2013; Wall, 2018), and help students understand the social value of music (Kanellopoulos & Wright, 2012; Siljamäki, 2021; Willox et al., 2011). However, musical improvisation is often neglected in K-12 and collegiate music education programs (Biasutti, 2017; Pignato, 2013; Wall, 2018).

Scholars have identified a need for studies that address questions concerning how students feel about improvisation and what they perceive happens when they improvise (Azzara & Snell, 2016; Beegle, 2010; Burnard, 2002; Hickey, 2015). This understanding of students’ music improvisatory experiences could help educators incorporate improvisation into school music in ways that foster student self-expression (Lange, 2011; Lewis, 2013; Sansom, 2007; Willox et al., 2011), deep connection to and understanding of music (Sawyer, 2006), musical exploration and experimentation (Burrows, 2004; Jaques-Dalcroze & Rothwell, 1932; Kanellopoulos, 2011a), and development of connections between peers (Burrows, 2004; Kanellopoulos, 1999; Lange, 2011; Siljamäki, 2021; Willox et al., 2011). Furthermore, Sawyer (1999) suggested that if improvisation were taught before notation, music education programs could attract and retain more students because they could avoid the tedium of learning notation before playing music. However, scholars have claimed that improvisation cannot be taught in the traditional sense of transmitting skills (Bailey, 1993; Borgo, 2007; Hickey, 2009). Peters (2005) posited that there is no adequate method for teaching improvisation, only a pedagogical manner, and that allowing a space for improvisation is insufficient. Rather, a teacher needs to “carve out the space” (p. 305). In this review of literature, I examined musicians’ experiences when improvising to provide information about the environment needed for improvisation with the hope that this information can assist music teachers in carving out a space for student improvisation in classrooms and rehearsal halls.

The Theory of Linguistic Bodies

In their theory of linguistic bodies, Di Paolo et al. (2018) asserted that participatory sense-making—ongoing collaboration between two or more independent beings—can explain how individual meaning-making (cognition) can involve the activities of others to create new possibilities. Cognition is embodied because the mind involves a human being’s entire system, brain, and body (Schiavio & van der Schyff, 2018). Cognition is enactive because a being makes sense of (enacts) its world as it sustains itself and grows (Varela et al., 2017). To carry out these acts of sense-making (learning), human beings self-individuate (self-express) by making a distinction between themselves and their environment (Di Paolo et al., 2018). Human beings interact with their surroundings and other human beings through actions of the sensorimotor body (Varela et al., 2017). For example, in music improvisation, improvisers produce sonic worlds through the sensorimotor body’s sensitivities and actions (Pressing, 1988). Schiavio and De Jaegher (2017) conceived of making music with others as a form of participatory sense making wherein musicians can enact “unique shared worlds of meaning” (p. 33). In the theory of linguistic bodies, Di Paolo et al. (2018) described language development as enactive because it occurs through linguistic experiences like conversation. Given that scholars have increasingly viewed musical improvisation from an enactivist perspective (Borgo, 2018; Moran, 2014; van der Schyff, 2013) and have often compared improvisation to conversation (Monson, 1996; Sawyer, 1999), the theory of linguistic bodies provided an insightful framework for this review.

Musical Improvisation

Human beings improvise throughout life. Musical improvisers draw upon sonic possibilities as well as their musical skills and knowledge to assert identity through their unique “voices.” All art could be described as an improvised act to some extent (Nachmanovitch, 1990). Specifically, “music improvisation could be defined as the real-time performance of novel music and consists of inventing music extemporaneously” (Biasutti, 2017, p. 1). Improvised music exists on a continuum from genre-specific to free improvisation. Free musical improvisation can be enjoyed by anyone willing to try it, because in free improvisation no prior musical experience is required (Bailey, 1993; Wilson & MacDonald, 2012). In group musical improvisation, students can explore musical possibilities and develop a sense of musical agency while creating shared meaning as they listen carefully and respond meaningfully to fellow improvisers (Lange, 2011; Siljamäki, 2021; Wilson & MacDonald, 2012). By facilitating music improvisation activities, teachers can help students cultivate their musical voices and grow as musical meaning-makers.

Method

The purpose of this review of literature was to examine musicians’ experiences when improvising to provide information about the environment needed for improvisation with the hope that this information could assist music teachers in facilitating student improvisation. To that end, I reviewed studies, dissertations, and books from the music education and improvisation research literature. Keywords and phrases used in the search included group improvisation, enactivism and musical improvisation, dialogue and improvisation, free improvisation, and collective free improvisation. The following themes emerged as I viewed the literature through an enactive lens: (a) sensorimotor agency: the wisdom of the body, (b) self-individuation: defining and caring for self, (c) participatory sense-making: agents collaborating in precarious conditions, and (d) linguistic bodies: creating new meanings.

Literature Review

Sensorimotor Agency: The Wisdom of the Body

Humans develop concretely organized sets of coordinating patterns of activity due to ongoing interactions in the world (Di Paolo, 2019). Pressing (1988) developed a convincing cognitive model of improvisation that describes interlocking patterns involved in musical improvisation. According to Pressing’s model, an improvising musician brings forth sounds through actions of the nervous, muscular, and skeletal systems and related connective tissues. Subsequently, the auditory system and physical senses enable the musician to evaluate the sounds produced then continue the process.

A musician learning to play an instrument is developing sensorimotor agency, a sense of having powers and sensitivities. Describing work with beginning piano students, Jaques-Dalcroze and Rothwell (1932) wrote of students learning to differentiate sounds by allowing their fingers to wander across the keys. Returning to piano lessons as an adult, Sudnow (1978) described the frustration of following a teacher’s instructions to learn from mental models. Conversely, Sudnow found satisfaction in learning to take direction from the fingers and of singing “with my fingers” (p. 152). van der Schyff et al. (2018) posited that a bass player asked to improvise on a new instrument will not start by only thinking of what notes, rhythmic patterns, and timbral configurations will be developed. Instead, that musician will experiment with how the fingers hit the strings, what is physically possible, and how the instrument responds to the musician’s actions. In musical improvisation, musicians assert identity through action, and in that way create worlds of sound. Consequently, the body discovers sounds through experience.

In musical improvisation, actions, and sensitivities of the body can generate and guide musical ideas. An improvising musician must learn to trust the body to guide important musical decisions, such as knowing when a section of music should end (Burrows, 2004). Angelino (2019) observed that highly skilled professional musical improvisers draw upon performance gestures to inspire future actions. In describing how they chose what to play, expert improvisers related finding material from physical actions (Norgaard, 2011). One violinist spoke of the hand crawling around and the brain choosing musical material produced by the actions of the hand.

Physical actions of bodies can influence the actions of other bodies in improvisation (e.g., Siljamäki, 2021; Sudnow, 1978; Walton et al., 2015). Based on their study of physical movement coordination by duos of improvising pianists, Walton et al. (2015) concluded that collaborating musicians may be understood as an independent system. Movements were most precisely coordinated when the pianists played freely improvised music. Sudnow (1978) learned to produce preferred musical effects in jazz improvisation by imitating an expert pianist’s body language. Members of a free improvisation choir discovered that individual movement could inspire musical ideas and that shared movement could spark expansion of expression or changes in musical direction (Siljamäki, 2021).

The human body engages with its environment through perception, motion, and sensation (Di Paolo et al., 2018). Teachers can facilitate the learning process by encouraging students to be aware of their bodies and the body language of others. In this way, improvisers learn through action. Stevens (in Bailey, 1993) spoke of improvisation as the basis for learning to play an instrument and of a person’s individual exploration as being of equal importance to formal instruction. Teachers might make time for individual exploration so that students can discover what their singing voice or instrument can do. Furthermore, students can be encouraged to share their discoveries with each other. Rhythmic exercises in which students are moving in rhythm together then creating patterns that fit together are a useful starting point for any group of improvisers. In a drum circle, improvisers coordinate physical movements and learn to negotiate aspects of playing together including starting, stopping, and continuing (Willox et al., 2011).

Self-Individuation: Defining and Caring for Self

Human beings self-individuate (assert identity) by actively producing a distinction between themselves and their environment (Varela et al., 2017). Musical improvisation requires individuals to exercise the freedom to assert and subordinate themselves (Kanellopoulos, 2011a; Sansom, 2007). Similarly, Lewis (2013), in a study of applied lessons with undergraduate classical pianists learning to improvise, and Sansom (2007), in a study of duos of professional musicians improvising together, concluded that the processes and interactions that shape musical content in improvised music-making relate to self-invention. Willox et al. (2011) found that at-risk high school students sought opportunities to express themselves and their unique perspectives through freer forms of musical practice like group improvisation. Researchers who examined improvisation in school settings of 8-year-old children (Kanellopoulos, 1999), of an educator who highlighted improvisation in teaching middle school students (Pignato, 2013), and of at-risk high school students (Willox et al., 2011), suggested that students derived satisfaction from creating their own music as they improvised, thereby expressing their identities.

Musical improvisation research findings indicate that improvisation activities can promote personal development and feelings of well-being. In a study of a community music free improvisation ensemble comprised of middle and high school students, Lange (2011) found that students reported feeling more self-confident because of their participation in the group. Furthermore, students reported that they believed they could try anything and that they would be accepted. Accordingly, Boyce-Tillman (2000) wrote of finding personal healing through the actions of creation and the freedom elicited in music improvisation and suggested its use in music education programs. In interviews with music students from North American post-secondary institutions, Ladano (2016) noted that participants recounted finding stress release, inner peace, confidence, and relief from anxiety (including performance anxiety) in music improvisation—particularly free improvisation.

By collecting music education student responses to a free improvisation module in a university course, Kanellopoulos and Wright (2012) sought to understand connections between informal learning practices (Green, 2008) and free improvisation. Instruction in improvisation techniques was not given. Rather, students engaged in free improvisation activities among themselves and with children. Comparing the experience of improvisation to being in a bouquet, one participant wrote of a person having their own aroma and being “part of a whole together with other equally distinctive flowers” (p. 141). In this way, an improviser may develop and assert their musical self by encountering other musical selves.

Fear of negative responses from other improvisers or anxiety about what to play can stifle participation and block self-expression (Siljamäki, 2021; Smith, 2014; Willox et al., 2011). Siljamäki (2021) found that singers in a free improvisation choir overcame fear and inhibition by creating a safe musical/social space. Members agreed to treat improvisation as play, to consider repetition and silence as valid musical contributions, and to accept or adapt all musical and movement offerings made by their collaborators. In another example, Smith (2014) combined collective free improvisation and expressive arts activities to aid undergraduate music students in deepening self-knowledge and freedom of expression. Participants discovered that self-knowledge gained by exploring their fears through journaling, movement, and drawing enabled the possibility of greater participation in free improvisation.

Teachers might consider how to allay student fears and inhibitions that block self-expression in improvisation. Explicit inclusion of all sounds and musical styles including silence (Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Siljamäki, 2021), willingness to repeat or imitate the musical ideas of others (Siljamäki, 2021), and the importance of listening carefully to each improviser (Willox et al., 2011) are conditions that can put improvisers at ease. In addition, teachers might make time for individual exploration of inhibitions blocking improvisation through journaling or visual arts activities (Smith, 2014).

In free improvisation, shy or quiet students may be emboldened to express themselves. Ladano (2018) found that undergraduate musicians felt that by singing or playing their instruments they could assume alternate identities during collective free musical improvisation sessions. Participants, many of whom self-identified as shy, reported that they believed their instruments (or voices) enabled them to express themselves more fully. Accordingly, music teachers might encourage students to use music to tell a story (Siljamäki, 2021), communicate emotions (Biasutti, 2017), or to assume an alternate identity (Ladano, 2018).

Participatory Sense-Making: Agents Collaborating in Precarious Conditions

In participatory sense-making, two or more individuals take part in an ongoing collaboration (Di Paolo et al., 2018). Nachmanovitch (1990) wrote of the mysterious and beautiful experience of discovering new musical forms and styles when a group of improvisers transforms into a united being with a distinct character. For instance, van der Schyff (2013) described an ensemble of improvisers collaborating to construct musical meanings through their actions while playing Zorn’s free improvisation game Cobra.

Acts of participatory sense-making occur under precarious conditions because misunderstanding is always possible (Di Paolo et al., 2018). The same may be said of group improvisation. In group musical improvisation, a musician may not know what their act of communication, even the choice to be silent, means until fellow improvisers respond (Berliner, 1994; Kanellopoulos, 2011a; Wilson & MacDonald, 2012).

Kanellopoulos (2011b) described experiences of improvising with a young mandolin player, 11-year-old Phil. The two musicians discussed who was leading their improvisations. Phil remarked, “you, you lead me, and I lead you as well” (p. 193). Hence, through dialogic turn-taking, these two musicians confronted the precarious conditions resulting from not having an official leader in group improvisation.

Musicians can find a powerful form of risk-taking in group improvisation due to the constant need to consider their responses in association with the musical offerings of individual improvisers and of the group (Kenny & Gellrich, 2002). Wilson and MacDonald (2012) used discourse analysis to examine how musicians who engage in free improvisation maintain and negotiate their musical identities. Participants spoke of group free improvisation as a social interaction requiring a balance of attention to individual and group processes. In a study of free improvising musical trios, Wilson and MacDonald (2016) found that participants spoke of listening and evaluating during the process of improvisation, then responding by continuing the ongoing musical direction or changing the musical direction.

Wall (2018) investigated what happens when middle school band students learn while improvising during group lessons. The findings of the study suggested the following:

By improvising, students can explore musical fluency in individual ways.

Young improvisers can make musical choices relevant to their interests and create structures that aid their playing.

Students can learn through individual exploration and through collaboration.

Beegle (2010) examined collective creativity in a fifth-grade classroom. Small groups worked independently to devise musical responses to a series of prompts. Each group of students used the same process in planning their improvisations: role assignments, exploration, run-throughs, and discussion and negotiation. The students spoke of three considerations for evaluating their improvisations: planning and organization, ensemble cohesion, and instrumentation and texture choice.

Kanellopoulos (1999) undertook an ethnographic case study with a group of 8-year-old school children. Although the children had no formal musical training, they developed a valid framework for improvising music, continued it in collaboration, and enhanced it through lessons learned from experience. Similarly, Burnard (2002) observed weekly lunchtime meetings of 18 12-year-old members of a school music club. The author concluded that the experience of group improvisation was uniquely characterized by social bonding and affirmation of individual identity. Furthermore, in group improvisation, every child could participate in immediate creation and take risks within a group.

When students face the challenge of tending to individual and group processes found in participatory sense-making, they have the chance to take risks and form bonds. Music educators can enable participatory sense-making in music improvisation by fostering conditions that address questions such as the following. Who is the leader? Can students produce structures for creating and learning on their own? What happens when the instructor becomes one of the improvisers?

Linguistic Bodies: Creating New Meanings

Participatory sense-making may lead to the creation of new possibilities (Di Paolo et al., 2018; Kanellopoulos, 2011a). In the theory of linguistic bodies, Di Paolo et al. (2018) posited that sense-making can be co-authored through dialogue built from social acts. Correspondingly, musicians often use conversation as a metaphor to describe the improvisational process (Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996; Sawyer, 2006). Scholars have used ideas from Bakhtin, a literary theorist, to explain musical dialogue (Monson, 1996; Sawyer, 2006).

Kanellopoulos (2011a) described free improvisation as a musical dialogue in which each point of view, or voice, acknowledges its debt and responsibility to other points of view. Furthermore, each improvising musician responds to other improvisers’ musical ideas even if those ideas lead to previously unexplored places. For example, members of a self-directed free improvisation choir adopted concepts from improvisational theater to guide their interactions (Siljamäki, 2021). Concepts included (a) accept ideas, or say yes to everything, (b) support your partner(s), and (c) play the game.

Schiavio et al. (2019) gathered responses from music instructors at a community music program in Austria. During guided improvisation practices, musicians from varied backgrounds explored individual musical identities, created music together, and built community. Although verbal communication was limited, movement-based dialogue allowed participants to adapt musical phrases improvised by others. The shared expressive movements allowed people who do not share the same language or cultural background to create meaning together.

Conceiving group improvisation as dialogue, Lage-Gómez and Cremades-Andreu (2019) studied how students in a secondary school required music course used group improvisation to evoke a painting. Through experimentation, the class developed unique musical meanings, and the group improvisation became more than the sum of its individual parts. Participants remarked that they preferred to create their own music and that they enjoyed always hearing something different. They liked that they did not know what was going to happen or what they individually would do each time they improvised. Keys to the success of the project included active student participation throughout the process, recognition of the importance of silence as a starting point, individualized and contextualized approaches (instructors spent the first two terms of the year gathering student input and reflecting on student learning styles), and an experimental approach as a creative strategy. The character of the music emerged from a balance between the musical interests of the students and proposals by the teacher. Features of the music included sound palettes, free improvisation, experimentation, and soundscapes.

In the theory of linguistic bodies, language development is considered to depend on linguistic engagements rather than skill-building (Di Paolo et al., 2018). Musicians of all skill levels can invent spontaneous music (Bailey, 1993; Kanellopoulos, 1999; Siljamäki, 2021). Moreover, acts of careful listening and responding can allow group improvisation to become something greater than the sum of its parts (Berliner, 1994; Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Willox et al., 2011). Differences in musical and cultural backgrounds are not necessarily impediments to group improvisation (Schiavio et al., 2019; Siljamäki, 2021). Rather, when an instructor carves out the space and time, improvises with students, says yes to student input, and fosters a playful, empathetic community of music makers, new musical meanings can emerge.

Implications for Music Education

The purpose of this review of literature was to provide information about the environment needed for musical improvisation with the hope that this information could assist music educators in facilitating student improvisation. In this section, I present four key implications for music education: (a) improvisation is learned through action; (b) asserting identity, self-invention, and defining self; (c) connection and empowerment; and (d) creating new meanings. Following each implication, I provide an applicable musical engagement activity for use by music educators.

Improvisation is Learned Through Action

Human beings learn by interacting with their environment (Varela et al., 2017). Similarly, musicians learn to improvise as they interact with a world of sound and other improvisers (Thomson, 2008). The space for improvisation, therefore, emphasizes process over product (Biasutti, 2017). In this space, hands on opportunities are available as often as possible (Willox et al., 2011), and students are encouraged to start making music as soon as they arrive (Bailey, 1993). Music educators facilitate participation and collaboration (Willox et al., 2011), fostering communities of musical improvisation practice, rather than transmitting skills (Sawyer, 2006). Furthermore, the music educator is one of the improvisers (Hickey, 2015; Kanellopoulos, 1999; Sawyer, 2006). Activities are designed so that everyone in the room is included and appropriately challenged (Bailey, 1993; Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Sawyer, 2006). Students are encouraged to be aware of physical motions and their relation to sounds and collaboration as well as to move when they feel the need. An atmosphere of playful experimentation is created in which a music educator convinces young musicians to believe they can improvise before they know how to do it (Bailey, 1993). Even instruments can be improvised (Kanellopoulos, 1999; Willox et al., 2011), and the class or ensemble can play in alternative spaces (Siljamäki, 2021). All are encouraged to listen to everyone, and everyone is heard because the instructor makes sure to listen to every improviser (Willox et al., 2011).

Musical Engagement Activity

This activity could be used with any age group and would work particularly well with bands or choral ensembles. Have players inhale deeply and play or sing a long note as evenly as possible (everyone should begin their initial note at the same time), then keep sustaining, breathing, and restarting as the group creates a coherent whole. To ensure comfort, instruct players to change their chosen note if they find it difficult to sustain. Once a player is comfortable with the process of inhaling and playing evenly, they can change notes in accord with what they hear from the group. A more advanced singer/player can concentrate on tone quality or how they use their breath (Stevens, in Bailey, 1993).

Asserting Identity, Self-invention, and Defining Self

The processes and interactions that shape musical content in improvised music-making relate to self-invention (Sansom, 2007). Accordingly, musical improvisation can offer students the opportunity and courage to express themselves (Lange, 2011; Siljamäki, 2021), to invent and assert musical selves by creating sounds and meaning (Willox et al., 2011), or to find satisfaction in knowing they have brought forth something original (Kanellopoulos, 1999; Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019). A music educator can facilitate student self-expression in improvisation by fostering conditions that aid students in finding what to play. In the space for free improvisation, all sounds and musical styles are possible, and there are no wrong notes. Excerpts of popular music, video game music, or music that students have prepared in class can become part of an improvised piece (Pignato, 2013). Repetition or imitation of a collaborating musician’s ideas can be sources of what to play and of support and affirmation for fellow musicians. Silence is valued as a starting point—a condition in which to listen, prepare oneself, and be open to possibilities—and as a musical choice (Burrows, 2004; Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Lewis, 2013; Sansom, 2007; Siljamäki, 2021). An environment conducive to free improvisation prioritizes responsibility to collaborating musicians (Kanellopoulos, 2011a; Siljamäki, 2021; Willox et al., 2011).

Understanding that self-individuation requires recognition of risk and opportunity, music educators might seek ways to help learners overcome the fear of improvising. For instance, an educator might devote time after an improvisation session for students to write in a journal about how they felt as they improvised to help students understand why they might be afraid or feel blocked (Smith, 2014). Similarly, students and teachers might take time to reflect on their improvisation activities to discuss how they felt during the improvisation and what worked or did not work (Biasutti, 2017; Smith, 2014). Students might become characters in a story or adopt different emotions to convey (Biasutti, 2017). They might assign character names and attributes to their instruments or voices and musically speak through their instruments rather than as themselves (Ladano, 2018).

Musical Engagement Activity

An activity that can work well with any group, especially a chorus or general music class, is Telephone Sound and Motion. (Tec, 1992). Everyone stands or sits in a circle. One musician who is designated as the leader faces the person to the left, and makes a sound accompanied by a motion. The person to the left then turns to the person to their left and reproduces the motion and sound they observed. Each successive person must try to reproduce exactly what they see and hear in the moment. The pace must be such that no one is turning and reproducing the sound and motion before seeing/hearing the complete sound/motion, but fast enough to make the activity challenging. After the sound/motion has gone around the circle a few times and when the sound/motion is a far away as possible, the leader may introduce a second motion to add to the fun.

Connection and Empowerment

Music educators who foster conditions that encourage the musical sense-making activities of students can connect with their students in powerful ways. By becoming a turn-taker in the dialogic process of improvisation, a music educator can offer students the chance to discover that their musical ideas are important and that all voices work together to sustain the collaboration (Kanellopoulos, 2011b). By improvising with students, an educator provides students the opportunity to create music and to learn by doing (Kanellopoulos, 1999). Furthermore, that educator may rediscover their musical self (Kanellopoulos & Wright, 2012). At the same time, when an instructor steps back and puts students in charge of directing the activities of a free improvisation ensemble (Hickey, 2015) or challenges students to devise performance plans (Beegle, 2010) or learning processes and structures (Wall, 2018), students can develop their own systems and methods for individual and group improvisation. Thus, the space for improvisation requires independence, self-direction, trust, and mutual respect. A music educator might sponsor a lunchtime or after school improvisation club (Burnard, 2002; Wall, 2018) in which students can explore their interests. An ensemble might improvise an aural version of a painting as part of their spring concert. Participating in a drum circle is an effective way to learn how to begin an improvisation, to accompany fellow improvisers, to solo, to explore dynamics, and to find an ending. If drums are not available, they can be improvised from found objects, or students can play their instruments or sing as if they were drumming.

Musical Engagement Activities

Any ensemble or general music class might experiment with creating musical soundscapes. Students can choose an emotion or a landscape or natural occurrence such as a thunderstorm to evoke as they play and/or sing. An activity that can work with any kind of ensemble is Group Rests (Tec, 1992). In this activity, participants are free to make music which bears little or no relation to what else is going on. However, occasionally, a real tutti silence must occur, without anyone directing it. The goal is to achieve several precise silences and returns to singing/playing by way of eye contact and/or unconscious communication.

Creating New Meanings

In improvisation, students can experience the freedom to create new worlds of musical sound and meaning in collaboration with others (Lage-Gómez & Cremades-Andreu, 2019; Siljamäki, 2021). Thus, the space for improvisation is one of curiosity, exploration, and adventure. Pairs of students might have short musical conversations, simply playing or singing (in gibberish or actual words) their musical statements, questions, and answers. To introduce students to improvising music together, an individual student creates a short melody and sustains the final pitch (or repeating pattern). This sustained note (or rhythmic pattern) accompanies the melody of the following student. The process continues around the circle or other formation as needed until everyone has had a turn.

In group musical improvisation, a musician may not know what their act of communication means until fellow improvisers respond (Berliner, 1994; Wilson & MacDonald, 2012). Hence, the space for improvisation requires empathy, listening, and responsibility toward others. An instructor can secretly assign roles in small improvising groups so that only the player knows their role. Roles can be things like “disruptor” or “provide support to other players.”

Musical Engagement Activity

A class or ensemble could devise their own improvisation game with cards that instruct the ensemble, smaller sections, or individuals to play the soundtrack to a visual image, to be silent, to play softly, to add a tune they know or to let their instrument become a character in a story.

Conclusion

When they include group musical improvisation activities in their classrooms and rehearsal halls, music educators can bridge preparation differences and varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Schiavio et al., 2019). Anyone can enjoy group improvisation because the only thing that is required is whatever is available (Bailey, 1993). The environment for group improvisation is characterized by curiosity, adventure, playfulness, empathy, responsibility to others, and careful, deep listening (Kanellopoulos, 1999; Willox et al., 2011). In the improvisational space, a music educator can help student musicians find a haven by focusing on making music together as a socially interactive process (Siljamäki, 2021). Moreover, students learn skills related to making sound, playing together in rhythm, hearing music everywhere, and listening carefully to each other that they can use in all kinds of music making. Music educators who carve out the space for improvisation offer their students and themselves the opportunity to live more fully by bringing forth intricate musical worlds together (Loaiza, 2016).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Mary Ann Lanier

References

Angelino

(2019). Motor intentionality and the intentionality of improvisation: A contribution to a phenomenology of musical improvisation. Continental Philosophy Review, 52, 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-018-9452-x

Azzara

C. D.

(2002). Improvisation. In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), New handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 171–187). Oxford University Press.

Azzara

C. D.

Snell

II (2016, October). Assessment of improvisation in music. Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935321.013.103

Bailey

(1993). Improvisation: Its nature and practice in music. Da Capo Press.

Beegle

A. C.

(2010). A classroom-based study of small-group planned improvisation with fifth-grade children. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58(3), 219–239. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410379916

Berliner

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

Biasutti

(2017). Teaching improvisation through process: Applications in music education and implications for general education. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00911

Biasutti

Frezza

(2009). Dimensions of music improvisation. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902861240

Borgo

(2007). Free jazz in the classroom: An ecological approach to music education. Jazz Perspectives, 1(1), 1–25. https://doi.org//10.1080/17494060601061061030

10.

Borgo

(2018). The complex dynamics of improvisation. In Bader

(Ed.), Springer handbook of systematic musicology (pp. 1017–1027). Springer Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55004-5_52

11.

Boyce-Tillman

(2000). Promoting well-being through music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 8(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/40495438

12.

Burnard

(2002). Investigating children’s meaning-making and the emergence of musical interaction in group improvisation. British Journal of Music Education, 19(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051702000244

13.

Burrows

(2004). Resonances: Exploring improvisation and its implications for music education/by Jared Burrows. Simon Fraser University.

14.

Di Paolo

E. A

. (2019). Process and individuation: The development of sensorimotor agency. Human Development, 63, 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503827

15.

Di Paolo

E. A.

Cuffari

De Jaegher

. (2018). Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11244.001.0001

16.

Goertzen

(1996). By way of introduction: Preluding by 18th- and early 19th-century pianists. The Journal of Musicology, 14(3), 299–337. https://doi.org/10.2307/764060

17.

Green

(2008). Music, informal learning and the school: A new classroom pedagogy. Routledge.

18.

Hickey

(2009). Can improvisation be “taught?”: A call for free improvisation in our schools. International Journal of Music Education, 27(4), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761409345442

19.

Hickey

(2015). Learning from the experts: A study of free-improvisation pedagogues in university settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414556319

20.

Jaques-Dalcroze

Rothwell

(1932). Rhythmics and pianoforte improvisation. Music & Letters, 13(4), 371–380. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/728261

21.

Kanellopoulos

P. A.

(1999). A children’s conception and practice of musical improvisation. Psychology of Music, 27, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735699272008

22.

Kanellopoulos

P. A.

(2011a). Freedom and responsibility: The aesthetics of free musical improvisation and its educational implications—A view from Bakhtin. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 19(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.2979/philmusieducrevi.19.2.113

23.

Kanellopoulos

P. A.

(2011b). In pursuit of musical freedom through free improvisation: A Bakhtinian perspective to music education. In White

E. J.

Peters

M. A.

(Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe: Vol. 7. Global studies in education (pp. 91–115). Peter Lang.

24.

Kanellopoulos

P. A.

Wright

(2012). Improvisation as an informal music learning process: Implications for teacher education. In Karlsen

Väkevä

(Eds.), Future prospects for music education: Corroborating informal learning pedagogy (pp. 129–157). Cambridge Scholars Publisher.

25.

Kenny

B. J.

Gellrich

(2002). Improvisation. In Parncutt

McPherson

(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 117–134). Oxford University Press.

26.

Ladano

(2016). Free improvisation and performance anxiety in musicians. In Heble

Laver

(Eds.), Improvisation and music education (pp. 46–59). Routledge.

27.

Ladano

(2018). The improvising musician’s mask: Using musical instruments to build self-confidence and social skills in collective free improvisation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. York University.

28.

Lage-Gómez

Cremades-Andreu

(2019). Group improvisation as dialogue: Opening creative spaces in secondary music education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 31, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.12.007

29.

Lange

B. R.

(2011). Teaching the ethics of free improvisation. Critical Studies in Improvisation, 7(2), 1–11. https://www.criticalimprov.com/index.php/csieci/article/view/964/2309

30.

Lewis

(2013). Dialogue as a way of knowing: Understanding solo improvisation and its implications for an education of freedom. Psychomusicology, 23(4), 255–161. https://doi.org/10.1037pmu0000013

31.

Loaiza

J. M.

(2016). Musicking, embodiment and participatory enaction of music: Outline and key points. Connection Science, 28(4), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2016.1236366

32.

Monson

(1996). Saying something: Jazz improvisation and interaction. University of Chicago Press.

33.

Moran

(2014). Social implications arise in embodied music cognition research which can counter musicological “individualism.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 676. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00676

34.

Nachmanovitch

(1990). Free play: Improvisation in life and art. Putnam.

35.

Norgaard

(2011). Descriptions of improvisational thinking by artist-level jazz musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429411405669

36.

Peters

(2005). Can improvisation be taught? The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(3), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00453.x

37.

Pignato

(2013). Angelica gets the spirit out: Improvisation, epiphany, and transformation. Research Studies in Music Education, 35(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X13486569

38.

Pressing

(1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In Sloboda

(Ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 130–177). Oxford University Press.

39.

Sansom

M. J.

(2007). Improvisation and identity: A qualitative study. Critical Studies in Improvisation, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.21083/csieci.v3i1.48

40.

Sawyer

R. K.

(1999). Improvised conversations: Music, collaboration, and development. Psychology of Music, 27(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735699272009

41.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2006). Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music, 34(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606061850

42.

Schiavio

De Jaegher

(2017). Participatory sense-making in joint musical practice. In Lesaffre

Maes

Leman

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to embodied music interaction (pp. 31–39). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621364-4

43.

Schiavio

van der Schyff

(2018). 4E music pedagogy and the principles of self-organization. Behavioral Sciences, 8(8), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8080072

44.

Schiavio

van der Schyff

Gande

Kruse-Weber

(2019). Negotiating individuality and collectivity in community music: A qualitative case study. Psychology of Music, 47(5), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735618775806

45.

Siljamäki

(2021). Free improvisation in choral settings: An ecological perspective. Research Studies in Music Education, 44(1), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X20985314

46.

Smith

T. D.

(2014). Using the expressive arts to facilitate group music improvisation and individual reflection: Expanding consciousness in music learning for self-development (Publication No. 3645985) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

47.

Sudnow

(1978). Ways of the hand: The organization of improvised conduct. Harvard University Press.

48.

Tec

(1992). Toward improvisatory competence. [Unpublished manuscript].

49.

Thomson

(2008). The pedagogical imperative of musical improvisation. Critical Studies in Improvisation, 3(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.21083/csieci.v3i2.353

50.

van der Schyff

. (2013). The free improvisation game: Performing John Zorn’s Cobra. Journal of Music Performance Research. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JRMP/2013/schyff.pdf

51.

van der Schyff

Schiavio

Walton

Velardo

Chemero

. (2018). Musical creativity and the embodied mind: Exploring the possibilities of 4E cognition and dynamical systems theory. Music & Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204318792319

52.

Varela

F. J.

Kabat-Zinn

Thompson

Rosch

(2017). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.

53.

Wall

M. P.

(2018). Improvising to learn. Research Studies in Music Education, 40(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X17745180

54.

Walton

A. E.

Richardson

M. J.

Langland-Hassan

Chemero

(2015). Improvisation and the self-organization of multiple musical bodies. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 313. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00313

55.

Willox

A. C.

Heble

Jackson

Walker

Waterman

(2011). Say who you are, play who you are: Improvisation pedagogy and youth on the margins. Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education, 10(1), 114–131. http://act.maydaygroup.org/articles/Willox10_1.pdf

56.

Wilson

G. B.

MacDonald

R. A. R.

(2012). The sign of silence: Negotiating musical identities in an improvising ensemble. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 558–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612449506

57.

Wilson

G. B.

MacDonald

R. A. R.

(2016). Musical choices during group free improvisation: A qualitative psychological investigation. Psychology of Music, 44(5), 1029–1043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615606527