Although explicit instructions research has examined a wide array of domains, art and music are unexplored fields of study. This study of jazz improvisation found that explicit instructions enhanced creativity for jazz pianists and decreased aesthetic appeal, but this effect was highly dependent on one’s level of expertise. Explicit instructions appear to either not affect or even disrupt the cognitive processes of expert jazz musicians. Expert
musicians develop their improvisational abilities through training and experience, allowing them to optimally improvise via efficient, unconscious, implicit mechanisms. It is possible that explicit instructions interrupt these processes.
For less experienced musicians, instructions have a beneficial effect, allowing musicians to experiment and redirect their attention to the
creativity of their performance instead of other music features. Whether the creativity gains under instructions are due to the increased use of implicit, bottom-up systems or the explicit systems’ focus on creativity is unclear and should be examined in future work. Yet, the results show that explicit
instructions are an effective technique to facilitate creativity for novice improvisers.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. Ashby, F. G., & Isen, A. M. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive
affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106(3), 529. Baer, John. (2010). Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). The Cambridge
handbook of creativity. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, 489.
Baird, B., Smallwood, J., Mrazek, M. D., Kam, J. W., Franklin, M. S., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Inspired by distraction mind wandering facilitates creative incubation. Psychological Science,
0956797612446024.
Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J. A., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Reasoned connections: A dual-process perspective on creative thought. Thinking & Reasoning, 21(1), 1-15.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it
maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278.
Bates, D. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. URL http://lme4. r- forge. r-project. org/book.
Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., DeWall, C. N., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Is the conscious self a help, a hindrance, or an irrelevance to the creative process. Adv. Psychol. Res, 53, 137-52.
Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2012). Why do ideas get more creative across time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in
divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 309.
Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2013). Metaphorically speaking: cognitive abilities and the production of figurative language. Memory & Cognition, 41(2), 255-267.
Beaty, R. E., Smeekens, B. A., Silvia, P. J., Hodges, D. A., & Kane, M. J. (2013). A first look at the role of domain-general cognitive and creative abilities in jazz improvisation. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 23(4), 262.
Beaty R. E., Silvia P. J., Nusbaum E. C., Jauk E., Benedek M. (2014). The roles of associative and executive processes in creative
cognition. Memory and Cognition. 42, 1186–1197.
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F., & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas. NeuroImage, 88, 125- 133.
Berkowitz, A. L., & Ansari, D. (2010). Expertise-related deactivation of the right temporoparietal junction during musical improvisation.
NeuroImage, 49(1), 712-719.
Berliner, P. F. (1994). Thinking in jazz. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
Brinkman, D. J. (1999). Problem finding, creativity style and the musical compositions of high school students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 33(1), 62-68.
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14(6), 34-52.
Carsten., KW, De Dreu, C. K., Nijstad, B. A., Baas, M., Wolsink, I., & Roskes, M. (2012). Working memory benefits creative insight, musical
improvisation, and original ideation through maintained task-focused attention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 656-669. Cervone, D., Jiwani, N., & Wood, R. (1991). Goal setting and the differential
influence of self-regulatory processes on complex decision-making performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 257. Chaffin, R., Lemieux, A. F., & Chen, C. (2006). Spontaneity and creativity in
highly practiced performance. In I. Deliège & G. A. Wiggins (Eds.), Musical creativity: Multidisciplinary research in theory and practice.
London, England: Psychology Press, 200-218.
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 155- 162.
Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A., Dmitrieva, J., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2005). Effects of explicit instruction to “be creative” across domains and
cultures. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 89-110.
Chua, R.Y. J. & Iyengar, S. S. (2008). Creativity as a matter of choice: Prior experience and task instruction as boundary conditions for the positive effect of choice on creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(3), 164-180.
Cork, C. (1988). Harmony by LEGO bricks: A new approach to the use of harmony in jazz improvization. Leicester: Tadley.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual differences, 13(6), 653-665.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245-265.
Crossan, M., & Sorrenti, M. (1997). Making sense of improvisation. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 155-180.
Custodero, L. A. (2002). Seeking challenge, finding skill: Flow experience and music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103(3), 3-9.
Datta, L. E. (1963). Test instructions and identification of creative scientific talent. Psychological Reports, 13, 495–500.
Desmond, J. E., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Glover, G. H. (1998). Dissociation of frontal and cerebellar activity in a cognitive task: Evidence for a distinction between selection and search. Neuroimage, 7, 368–376. Dietrich, A. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of altered states of
consciousness: The transient hypofrontality hypothesis. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(2), 231-256.
Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 746-761.
Dietrich, A., & Stoll, O. (2010). Effortless attention, hypofrontality, and perfectionism. Effortless Attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action, 159-179.
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity
Research Journal, 16(1), 35-47.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218.
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current directions in psychological science, 11(1), 19-23.
Feist, G. J. (2010). Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). The function of personality in creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press, 113-130.
Fisher, C. M., & Amabile, T. M. (2009). Creativity, improvisation and organizations. The Routledge companion to creativity. London: Routledge, 13-24.
Fleiss, J. L. (1986). Reliability of measurement. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley, 1-32.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues.
Washington: American Psychological Association.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2005). The perils of perfectionism in sports and exercise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 14-18. Fox J (2003). Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. Journal of
Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14(1), 119-126.
Frost, R. O., & Marten, P. A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive Therapy and Research,14(6), 559-572.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive therapy and research, 14(5), 449-468.
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586-596. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for
universals in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 141-165.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26.
Green, A. E., Cohen, M. S., Kim, J. U., & Gray, J. R. (2012). An explicit cue improves creative analogical reasoning. Intelligence, 40(6), 598-603.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3-14.
Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores1. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434-454.
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile's consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children's musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234-244.
Hyman, R. (1960) Some experiments in creativity. New York: General Electric Co., Behavioral Research Service.
iReal b (v.2.8) [Computer Software]. New York, NY : Technimo. URL:
http://www.irealb.com
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271). New York: Springer-Verlag.
John, O.P., Donahue, E.M., & Kentle, R.L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2, 102-138.
Jones, R. G. (1968). A factored measure of Ellis' irrational belief systems with personality and maladjustment correlated (Doctoral Dissertation). Wichita, KS: Test Systems.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception, 19(3), 415-442.
Katz, A. N., & Poag, J. R. (1979). Sex differences in instructions to “be creative” on divergent and nondivergent test scores. Journal of Personality, 47(3), 518-530.
Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882-890.
Lau, H. C., Rogers, R. D., Ramnani, N., & Passingham, R. E. (2004). Willed action and attention to the selection of action. Neuroimage, 21(4), 1407- 1415.
Limb, C. J., & Braun, A. R. (2008). Neural substrates of spontaneous musical performance: an FMRI study of jazz improvisation. PLoS One, 3(2), e1679.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation On November 9th, 2011· In Business Models, Business Theories. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Logic 9(v.9.1.8) [Computer Software]. Cupertino, CA: Apple Inc.
Longuet-Higgins, H.C. (1962). Letter to a musical friend. The Music Review, 23, 244–248.
Longuet-Higgins, H.C. (1987). Mental processes: Studies in cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological methods, 1(1), 30.
Mirman D. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R: The R series. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall.
Montuori, A. (2003). The complexity of improvisation and the improvisation of complexity: Social science, art and creativity. Human
Relations, 56(2), 237-255.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698- 723.
Nathaniel-James, D. A., & Frith, C. D. (2002). The role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex: Evidence from the effects of contextual constraint in a sentence completion task. Neuroimage, 16, 1094–1102.
Nettl, B., & Russell, M. (1998). In the course of performance: Studies in the world of musical improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition, 1.
Nisenson, E. (2009). Ascension: John Coltrane and his quest. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
Norgaard, M. (2011). Descriptions of improvisational thinking by artist-level jazz musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 109- 127.
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different?: fluid intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence, 39(1), 36-45.
O'Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). It doesn't hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students' thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 197-210.
Pinho, A. L., de Manzano, Ö., Fransson, P., Eriksson, H., & Ullén, F. (2014). Connecting to Create: Expertise in Musical Improvisation Is
Associated with Increased Functional Connectivity between Premotor and Prefrontal Areas. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34(18), 6156-6163. Prabhakaran, R., Green, A. E., & Gray, J. R. (2013). Thin slices of creativity:
Using single-word utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior Research Methods, 1-19.
Pressing, J. (1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music (pp. 129–178). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pugatch, J. (2006). Acting is a Job: Real Life Lesson of the About the Acting Business. New York: Allworth Press.
R-Studio (v.0.98.953) [Computer Software]. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. Rosen D., Schmidt, E., & Kim, Y.E. (2013). Utilizing Music Technology as a
Model for Creativity Development in K-12 Education. Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition: Interactions & Intersections. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
RStudio (2012). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 0.96.122) [Computer software]. Boston, MA. Retrieved May 20,
2012. Available from http://www.rstudio.org/
Runco, M.A. (1986). Predicting children's creative performance. Psychological Reports, 59(3), 1247-1254.
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 137-148. Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1991). The instructional enhancement of the
flexibility and originality scores of divergent thinking tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(5), 435-441.
Schooler J.W., Melcher J (1995) The ineffability of insight. In: Smith SM, Ward TB, Finke RA, (Eds.). The Creative cognition approach. Cambridge: MIT Press, 97–133.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(2), 179.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483-503.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological bulletin, 86(2), 420.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of product, person, and process
perspectives. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 475.
SPSS 22(v.22.0.0) [Computer Software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Steedman, M. J. (1982). A generative grammar for jazz chord sequences. Music Perception, 2, 52–77.
Stöeber, J. (1998). The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale revisited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(4), 481-491.
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism:
Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 295-319.
Szwed, John. So What: The Life of Miles Davis. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
Ulrich, J. W. (1977). The analysis and synthesis of jazz by computer. In Proceedings Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ward, T. B., & Kolomyts, Y. (2010). Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). Cognition and creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Presss, 93-112.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),1063.
Webster, P. R. (1988). Creative thinking and music education. Design for Arts in Education, 89(5), 33-37.
Wiley, J., & Jarosz, A. F. (2012). Working memory capacity, attentional focus, and problem solving. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 21(4), 258- 262.
Zumel., N. & Mount, J. (2014). Practical data science with R. Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications Co.
APPENDIX A: Partial Model Analyses
Scale-Type x Instructions (within scale-type)
In MLR, complex predictive models with multiple interactions make it difficult to run significance tests and further analyses for varying levels of a given factor. To further explore the data, we simplify the model to contain only a single interaction, as well as the other significant mixed effects (independent of other interactions). For example, to test for significant differences between explicit and standard instructions for CR, TP, and AA (Scale-Type x Instructions), we take the full model and remove the Expertise x Instructions term, keeping the random effects structure maximal:
Full Model:
Rating = Instr. + Scale + Instr. * Scale + Expertise + Instr. x Expertise + CM + (Scale + Take + Instr. | Subject)
Partial Model:
Rating = Instr. + Scale + Instr. * Scale + Expertise + CM + (Scale + Take + Instr. | Subject)
Table A.1
MLR Estimates for the Impact of Explicit Instructions on Scale (CR, TP, AA)
Scale x Instructions Estimate Std. Error t-value Pr(>|z|) CR (Explicit) vs. CR (Standard) 0.33 0.16 2.15 0.03* TP (Explicit) vs. TP (Standard) 0.10 0.17 0.62 0.54 AA (Explicit) vs. AA (Standard) -0.24 0.16 -1.48 0.14
Table A.1. Notes: Significance codes: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p< .001. All values were obtained from the partial model shown above. Only creativity (CR) scores significantly increased with explicit instructions.
The initial significant interaction between Scale-Type and Instructions indicated that instructions had a differential effect on scale-type, enhancing creativity and reducing aesthetic appeal. Table 2 displays the contrasts within each scale and reveals that only creativity ratings were significantly impacted by explicit instructions, increasing creativity. One would expect a 0.33 increase in creativity score on a 7-point Likert scale when a musician is given explicit instructions.
Expertise x Instructions (CR, TP, AA)
Next, we used a similar model reduction method to examine the interaction of expertise and instructions for each scale-type. We subset the data by scale-type and simplify the model accordingly. Notice, here that scale is completely removed from the model since we will subset the data to CR, TP, and AA, respectively:
Full Model:
Rating = Instr. + Scale + Instr. * Scale + Expertise + Instr. x Expertise + CM + (Scale + Take + Instr. | Subject)
Partial Model:
Rating = Instr.+ Expertise * Instr. + Expertise + CM + (Take + Instr. | Subject)
The previous results combined all improvisation ratings, regardless of scale- type, revealing that experts and novices respond differently to explicit instructions. The 3-way interaction between scale-type, expertise, and
instructions was not significant, indicating that the pattern of the interaction effect was similar across scales. We present three figures below, displaying the impact of Expertise x Instructions on the ratings of each scale-type. Upon visual inspection, the bottom half of our sample, in terms of experience, received higher scores for creativity. There also appears to be a trend for the least experienced players to show gains in technical proficiency with explicit instructions.
Figure A-1
$ Figure A-1. Expertise x Instructions on Creativity Ratings. When examining creativity only, we see a consistent pattern for explicit instructions (red) facilitating creativity for less experienced jazz pianists. For experts (right side of the x-axis), instructions appear to have no effect on their creativity scores.
3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Jazz Gigs (log)
Creativity Rating (fit) w/ 95% C.I.
Instructions Explicit.
Figure A-2
$ Figure A-2. Expertise x Instructions on Aesthetic Appeal Ratings. When examining aesthetic appeal ratings, there are not significant differences between levels of expertise and explicit instructions. Thus, explicit creativity instructions didn’t alter the aesthetic appeal ratings of improvisation. We can clearly see this by the large overlap of the 95% confidence intervals (gray ribbon) across all levels of expertise for standard (blue) and explicit (red) instructions.
2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Jazz Gigs (log)
Creativity Rating (fit) w/ 95% C.I.
Instructions Explicit.
Figure A-3
$ Figure A-3. Expertise x Instructions on Technical Proficiency Ratings. After sub-setting the data to only technical proficiency scores, there appears to be a trend for less experienced improvisers (left side of x-axis) to receive higher ratings under explicit instructions (red). Meanwhile experts (right side of the x-axis) appear to be mildly stifled in their degree of technical proficiency when given explicit instructions compared to improvising as they normally would, standard instructions (blue).
3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Jazz Gigs (log)
Creativity Rating (fit) w/ 95% C.I.
Instructions Explicit.
APPENDIX B: Demographic Questions & Musician Interviews
(pre-performance) 1. Gender:
2. Age:
3. # of Years of Music Training:
4. # of Years of Jazz Training/Performance:
5. About how many times have you improvised in a gig/live setting? 6. Who do you consider to be your greatest musical influence? 7. What genre of music do you play/perform most often?
(post-performance)
7. How familiar were you with the chord changes in this experiment? 1---2---3---4---5
not at all somewhat very familiar
8. This chord sequence is commonly referred to as: ________________________. 9. On a scale of 1-5, how comfortable are you improvising in a jazz setting?
1---2---3---4---5
not at all somewhat very comfortable 10. On a scale of 1-5, how difficult was this task?
1---2---3---4---5 easy somewhat very difficult
11. On a scale of 1-5, how similar was this task to improvising in a live jazz setting?
1---2---3---4---5
Interview Questions for Musicians:
1a. When asked to improvise more creatively, what strategies did you use to try to enhance your creative performance?
1b. How were these strategies different from improvising with standard instructions?
2. What musical features do you believe contribute to the creativity of jazz improvisation? Feel free to include specific examples.
3. When you hear the word “creative”, what does that mean to you?
4. During your performances, did you experience any moments of insight or highly creative moments? (You may listen back). If so, can you describe why you believe these moment are highly creative?
5. Was there any difference of focus or mind-set between being asked to
improvise, and then, being asked to improvise “more creatively”. If so, what changes did you notice? (What types of thoughts were you consciously aware of while [performing?)
6. When you normally practice your instrument/music, what types of practice activities would you normally engage in (estimate a 2-hour practice
APPENDIX C: Judging Instruction, Forms, and Questions
Jazz Judging Form: Instructions:
Please use your jazz expertise to rate the creativity, technical proficiency, and aesthetic appeal (liking) of the following performances.
Please rate the performances in relation to one another. You may go back and re-listen to improvisations if you wish; however, payment will be based on the length of the playlist for each session (.mp3 files + "break").
Make sure that you are listening on high-quality headphones or speakers (not laptop speakers). Listening in the same environment for all judging sessions is highly desirable.
Make sure that you are attentive and listening closely to each performance. In the middle of this rating session, there will be 5 minutes set aside for a listening break. Please you use this time in order to remain focused and attentive for all performances.
Upon completing this form, please delete the music files from your computer. Thank you.
* Required
Judge I.D. Eta Judging Block "Block 1." Track A *
1
(Low) 2 3 4 (Medium) 5 6 7 (High) Creativity
Aesthetic Appeal Technical Proficiency
Judge Essay Questions:
1. If you had to define what makes a jazz improvisation creative, how