Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle · 03-29-2002, 05:01 PM

This is a continuation of a discussion started in this thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000112" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000112</a>

Since we are both musicians, WJ and I have been discussing music; particularly, the way creativity works, and the philosophical implications. Here is a summary of some of the interesting points made so far.

WJ asked, where does improvisation come from? I said that it comes from building new arrangements of all the little musical ideas we have learned, either by listening to other musicians, or by randomly experimenting on a musical instrument.
I asserted that music is a philosophical system closely related to mathematics. WJ, however, feels that the music came first, and that music theory is an after the fact attempt to explain it.
WJ pointed out that, in fact, the creative aspect of improvisation, and indeed, most playing, happens at a sobconscious level.
WJ mentioned the feeling that a lot of musicians have, of "getting lost" in the music. It's a kind of meditative experience, where you don't actually think consciously about what you are doing, rather you just let things happen. Your subconscious does the work. I can attest to the reality of this experience.

At this point, we began discussing the nature of the subconscious, and I advanced my own, rather tentative theory of subconscious, which, for convenience, I will reproduce here:

Quote:

In this post I will use the word "script" in the psychological sense, which roughly means, "a fixed and repeatable sequence of behavior."

Okay. Let's say you have a script that runs A-B-C-D. So that when A turns up, you would habitually run through the sequence B-C-D. However, if this script is a sequence of behavior you use quite often, you might begin to skip the intervening steps. So now you have a second script that runs A-D. A-D supercedes A-B-C-D, but the older script still exists -- it doesn't go away. You can still recall A-B-C-D if you think about it, but most of the time you will just use the new script, A-D. A-B-C-D has been relegated to a subconscious state.

Note that the start and ending positions are still the same, we have just dropped the intervening steps. A-D might not make logical sense by itself, and rely on A-B-C-D for its justification. So if you asked someone what they were doing, they might still say A-B-C-D, even though their behavior more closely resembles A-D. The two scripts remain related to each other, it's just that you can do A-D without having to think about the intervening steps. That, I think, is a pretty good description of sub-conscious behavior.

Let's consider a musical example of this notion of subconscious. A possible A-B-C-D script might be:

(A) You hear a particular progression of chords and rhythm.
(B) You remember the guitar riff Chuck Berry plays over that progression.
(C) You figure out how to make your fingers move to produce Chuck Berry's riff.
(D)You play the riff.

If you do this often enough, you will come up with a new psychological script like this:

(A) You hear a particular progression of chords and rhythm.
(D) You play the riff.

Now, every time you want to play that riff, you will do it according to the second script, rather than the first.

Why is this a good thing for music? Well, the first script is longer. If you had to use the first script rather than the second, there would be a short delay of a few hundredths of a second while you went through steps B and C. As a result, your playing would sound more hesitant, and less fluid. An onlooker would probably say you were too self-conscious, and not very spontaneous.

If you want to be a good player, you have to practice to the point where all your scripts are of the sub-conscious A-D variety. As a consequence, we get that well-documented phenomenon, where one seems to get "lost" in the music. I think what that really means, is that we're concentrating on the mood, the music, and the other musicians rather than having to concentrate on the notes we are playing.

I would like to continue the discussion here, with a view to exploring the philosophical implications of music, creativity, and subconscious.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kim o' the Concrete Jungle ]

dostf · 03-29-2002, 07:01 PM

Kim:

Enjoyed you post! As a musician myself(although still part time dammit) i look forward to reading it.
I would generally agree with what you have stated so far. It seems thought that although leaving out steps b and c. only eliminates the "thinking" stage as you have stated. I am not sure it produces that feeling of "getting Lost" we all to one degree or another have experienced. It is still based on "what we know". It's more when we play what "we don't know" correctly that it goes to a different level.??? -just a thought.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle · 03-29-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
It seems thought that although leaving out steps b and c. only eliminates the "thinking" stage as you have stated. I am not sure it produces that feeling of "getting Lost" we all to one degree or another have experienced. It is still based on "what we know". It's more when we play what "we don't know" correctly that it goes to a different level.??? -just a thought.

Just to clarify, I'm not linking that feeling of "becoming one with the music" directly to the idea of playing at the subconscious level. I'm only saying that practicing until you can play something without having to think about it, frees you up to concentrate on the mood, the music, and the other musicians.

Personally I think that this feeling comes from a particularly intense form of concentration, where you're blocking everything out except for the sound and the feel of the music. And I think it becomes particularly intense on stage, when you've got the adrenalin rush of public performance, and when you've got all your gear cranked up -- that always helps you get into the "zone"; or, at least, it does once you've gotten over the nerves.

WJ · 03-30-2002, 04:18 AM

Awsome!!

(Note I refrained from saying 'Dude'.) I knew there was a reason I came to this forum! Anyway, thanx Kim for putting such effort into starting this thread( as well as your excellent summary of points thus far). And welcome Dostf, and other's who might subsequently join the discussion. Also, Kim, please don't be so humble. You indicate you lack of 'academic' knowledge so to speak, but I find your articulation of our 'problem', known as conscious-ness creativity, to be quite good!

Anyway, part of the ball is in my court. And I would like to explore this topic as much as it can be explored. But I have to go to rehersal this morning, (and wanted to check in). So I will surely report back when I get the time.

Thank you so much for starting this thread!

Walrus

(A boy in a man's body...no, a girl in a boy's body....baby in a man's body....argh!!!)

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

WJ · 03-30-2002, 04:23 AM

All!

Oops, btw, one item I would like to explore (if not this weekend but next week) is whether we are being 'tricked' into believing/percieving this feeling 'of getting lost' is simply a 'runner's high' of sorts via the chemicals in the brain known as endorphines?

Walrus

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle · 03-30-2002, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
All!

Oops, btw, one item I would like to explore (if not this weekend but next week) is whether we are being 'tricked' into believing/percieving this feeling 'of getting lost' is simply a 'runner's high' of sorts via the chemicals in the brain known as endorphines?

Walrus

I tend to think that if the experience is replicable and common to many people, then it is valid, regardless of where it comes from, or what causes it. If it's a trick, then so is every other perception we have ever had.

Having said that, though, it can be useful to speculate about where this perception comes from -- what materially causes it. We won't be able to come up with any scientifically valid conclusion (which would involve properly constructed psychological experiments), but we can, at least, explore the ground.

Personally, and from my own experience, I think the adrenalin rush you get from going up on stage in front of people is a factor. The fear of completely stuffing it up -- which, I think, is always in the back of my mind -- certainly helps me to concentrate.

The last time I was up there, we were playing a song we hadn't really had enough time to rehearse properly, and the guitar player left out the entire last verse. I just went along with him. I think I covered it. I don't think anyone noticed.

jpbrooks · 03-30-2002, 05:34 PM

Hello, all

This is a very interesting topic. I'm not a musician myself, but I grew up in a family of musicians.

One question that could be asked is, is the number of possible combinations of compositions or arrangements of progressions, solos, etc., in a particular genre of music, finite or infinite in number? If they are finite number, the creativity that is involved in improvisation may be able to be expressed completely in computational terms. That is, it would be, in principle, possible to program a digital computer to generate improvisations just as well as any human could.

Another related question is, are the mental processes (subconscious and conscious) that are involved in creativity in music exactly the same set of mental processes that are involved in other types of creativity such as, for example, coming up with a novel mathematical proof or a new worldview? If so, then again, creativity (in general) may be able, in principle, to be "mechanized".

It seems more likely,however that the creativity involved in improvisation is not exactly like that involved in coming up with a new worldview because improvisation involves simply putting old already learned things (in this case, chord sequences) together in new ways; not coming up with things that never before existed. I would compare the kind of creativity that is involved in coming up with new worldviews with coming up with a whole new genre of music (such as jazz or R & B); not with coming up with new improvisations within a genre.

[ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]

Kachana · 03-30-2002, 06:57 PM

Great topic. I very much agree with you Kim. I believe that getting 'lost' in music can largely be put down to a type of memory called 'procedural' memory. This is memory for motor control, and is distinct from other types of memory such as autobiographical and episodic memory. For instance, you can get anterograde amnesia, not remember any of your past or even your name, but still be able to play the piano and ride a bike perfectly.

When you have learnt a sequence of actions well enough, this memory allows you to perform them with negligible conscious effort (the same as the scripts you mention), indeed, they can even become automatic given an environmental stimulus. An example of this in a more prosaic situation would be going downstairs to the kitchen to get a glass of water and finding yourself standing nonplussed staring into the fridge wondering what the hell you are doing. The stimulus of the fridge subconsciously triggers the series of motor actions of opening the fridge.

Being lost in a song is I think, like you say, a result of our learnt automatic actions allowing room for our thoughts to concentrate on our emotions rather than our finger movements.

Knowing a song too well can also be problematic however since you can suddeny find yourself concentrating on the notes you should be playing rather than letting it happen automatically (especially if you are nervous) at which point you realise that your episodic memory of the notes to play has degraded and you end up messing up.

Kachana · 03-30-2002, 07:08 PM

[QUOTE]
One question that could be asked is, is the number of possible combinations of compositions or arrangements of progressions, solos, etc., in a particular genre of music, finite or infinite in number? If they are finite number, the creativity that is involved in improvisation may be able to be expressed completely in computational terms. That is, it would be, in principle, possible to program a digital computer to generate improvisations just as well as any human could.[quote]

There's a program called <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/requiem.jsp" target="_blank"> EMI</a> that composes music based on analysis of existing compositions. It has a massive lexicon of decision rules based on the styles of different composers from which it creates new pieces, some of which are apparently very good.

jpbrooks · 03-30-2002, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kachana:
[QB]

There's a program called EMI that composes music based on analysis of existing compositions. It has a massive lexicon of decision rules based on the styles of different composers from which it creates new pieces, some of which are apparently very good.

EMI certainly is interesting. One point that was emphasized in the article was that qualities like emotion and the ability to select samples of music based on it, are qualities that are important in the composition of music, but must be supplied by humans. Perhaps this is an insurmountable limitation of such computer programs. But this program does seem to indicate that some aspect(s) of the creative process may be "mechanical".

03-30-2002, 04:18 AM	#4
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Awsome!! (Note I refrained from saying 'Dude'.) I knew there was a reason I came to this forum! Anyway, thanx Kim for putting such effort into starting this thread( as well as your excellent summary of points thus far). And welcome Dostf, and other's who might subsequently join the discussion. Also, Kim, please don't be so humble. You indicate you lack of 'academic' knowledge so to speak, but I find your articulation of our 'problem', known as conscious-ness creativity, to be quite good! Anyway, part of the ball is in my court. And I would like to explore this topic as much as it can be explored. But I have to go to rehersal this morning, (and wanted to check in). So I will surely report back when I get the time. Thank you so much for starting this thread! Walrus (A boy in a man's body...no, a girl in a boy's body....baby in a man's body....argh!!!) [ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

03-30-2002, 05:34 PM	#7
jpbrooks Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chicago Posts: 774	Hello, all This is a very interesting topic. I'm not a musician myself, but I grew up in a family of musicians. One question that could be asked is, is the number of possible combinations of compositions or arrangements of progressions, solos, etc., in a particular genre of music, finite or infinite in number? If they are finite number, the creativity that is involved in improvisation may be able to be expressed completely in computational terms. That is, it would be, in principle, possible to program a digital computer to generate improvisations just as well as any human could. Another related question is, are the mental processes (subconscious and conscious) that are involved in creativity in music exactly the same set of mental processes that are involved in other types of creativity such as, for example, coming up with a novel mathematical proof or a new worldview? If so, then again, creativity (in general) may be able, in principle, to be "mechanized". It seems more likely,however that the creativity involved in improvisation is not exactly like that involved in coming up with a new worldview because improvisation involves simply putting old already learned things (in this case, chord sequences) together in new ways; not coming up with things that never before existed. I would compare the kind of creativity that is involved in coming up with new worldviews with coming up with a whole new genre of music (such as jazz or R & B); not with coming up with new improvisations within a genre. [ March 30, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2002, 07:01 PM	#2
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	Kim: Enjoyed you post! As a musician myself(although still part time dammit) i look forward to reading it. I would generally agree with what you have stated so far. It seems thought that although leaving out steps b and c. only eliminates the "thinking" stage as you have stated. I am not sure it produces that feeling of "getting Lost" we all to one degree or another have experienced. It is still based on "what we know". It's more when we play what "we don't know" correctly that it goes to a different level.??? -just a thought.

03-30-2002, 04:23 AM	#5
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	All! Oops, btw, one item I would like to explore (if not this weekend but next week) is whether we are being 'tricked' into believing/percieving this feeling 'of getting lost' is simply a 'runner's high' of sorts via the chemicals in the brain known as endorphines? Walrus

03-30-2002, 06:57 PM	#8
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	Great topic. I very much agree with you Kim. I believe that getting 'lost' in music can largely be put down to a type of memory called 'procedural' memory. This is memory for motor control, and is distinct from other types of memory such as autobiographical and episodic memory. For instance, you can get anterograde amnesia, not remember any of your past or even your name, but still be able to play the piano and ride a bike perfectly. When you have learnt a sequence of actions well enough, this memory allows you to perform them with negligible conscious effort (the same as the scripts you mention), indeed, they can even become automatic given an environmental stimulus. An example of this in a more prosaic situation would be going downstairs to the kitchen to get a glass of water and finding yourself standing nonplussed staring into the fridge wondering what the hell you are doing. The stimulus of the fridge subconsciously triggers the series of motor actions of opening the fridge. Being lost in a song is I think, like you say, a result of our learnt automatic actions allowing room for our thoughts to concentrate on our emotions rather than our finger movements. Knowing a song too well can also be problematic however since you can suddeny find yourself concentrating on the notes you should be playing rather than letting it happen automatically (especially if you are nervous) at which point you realise that your episodic memory of the notes to play has degraded and you end up messing up.

03-30-2002, 07:08 PM	#9
Kachana Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 279	[QUOTE] One question that could be asked is, is the number of possible combinations of compositions or arrangements of progressions, solos, etc., in a particular genre of music, finite or infinite in number? If they are finite number, the creativity that is involved in improvisation may be able to be expressed completely in computational terms. That is, it would be, in principle, possible to program a digital computer to generate improvisations just as well as any human could.[quote] There's a program called <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/ai/requiem.jsp" target="_blank"> EMI</a> that composes music based on analysis of existing compositions. It has a massive lexicon of decision rules based on the styles of different composers from which it creates new pieces, some of which are apparently very good.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.