Identificación Tipo De Costeo Y Factor De Operación

One of the ways we can specify how music cognition is embodied is through the ‘imitation of musical sounds and of the physical exertions that produce them’ (Cox, 2016, p. 11), and this imitation can be both overtly and covertly demonstrated. The more evident overt imitation takes a “monkey see, monkey do” approach (Cox, 2016, p. 11) but of equal influence is covert imitation, which is not visible to an observer, but is present only in the mind of the participant or the observer. Imitation occurs when we pay attention to the way that others behave and this can occur in a variety of educational, artistic or social settings.25 _{Arnie Cox (2016, pp. 11 – 12) explains} that when we imitate (either overtly or covertly) we are seeking answers to the following implied questions ‘What’s it like to do that?’ and its twin question, ‘What’s it like to be that?’ This mirroring of perception and action is supported by recent

25 _{Pedagogically, the role of (overt) imitation – which can be conscious or subconscious – can be}

neuroscience research on mirror neurons – ‘a group of specialised neurons that “mirrors” the actions and behaviour of others’ (Rajmohan and Mohandas, 2007, p. 66). Lakoff explains that mirror neurons

are neural fibres connecting the pre-motor cortex (which “choreographs” complex actions) and the parietal cortex (which integrates perceptions). As a result, neurons in certain pre-motor areas fire whenever (i) we perform an action, or (ii) we perceive the same action being performed by someone else. These neurons link actions and perception. (2008, p. 284)

With regards to gesture, ‘each gesture is “choreographed” by pre-motor neurons and the same gesture by someone else can be recognized by the mirror neurons’

(Lakoff, 2008, p. 284).

Cox (2016) categorises overt mimetic behaviour as Mimetic Motor Action (MMA) and covert mimetic behaviour as Mimetic Motor Imagery (MMI), and these provide the foundation for the Mimetic Hypothesis (Cox, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016); the principles of which are as follows:

I. ‘Part of how we comprehend the behaviour of others is by imitating, covertly (MMI) or overtly (MMA), the observed actions of others.

II. Part of how we comprehend music is by imitating, covertly or overtly, the observed sound producing actions of performers.’ (Cox, 2016, p. 12)

This imitation can take place within one modality or across modalities and Cox

explains that ‘the strength of each form of mimetic participation varies from person to person’ (2006, p. 47). This determines the variable meanings which may be obtained from musical meaning and gesture. The variation in mimetic participation can occur

as a result of a variety of factors. For example, owing to direct experience, a pianist will have a greater understanding of the finger, arm and bodily movements needed to play the piano than would a guitarist, and an even greater understanding than would a non-musician. However, although the mimetic understanding can vary in quantity depending on personal experience, everybody will have some idea of the physical requirements of depressing the keys and moving their hands in a certain way to replicate a desired sound.

Through a process which starts with deliberate imitation, leading to considered practice, and culminating with the eventual ownership of the performed gesture, mimetic actions can be integrated into the body schema of the performer.26 _Cox (2016) explains that as the schema is formed, the awareness of imitation is

forgotten, and the movement becomes part of a catalogue which is attributed to that executor. This occurs not only with visual movements such as gesture, but also with audible timbral features of a particular instrumentalist (e.g. Liam Gallagher’s

identifiable guitar tone), or the vocal nuances which are characteristic of a specific performer (e.g. the nasal tone, breathlessness, and emotive ‘creak’ which is distinctive of Britney Spears; the native lilt attributed to Delores O’Riordan of The Cranberries; or the rounded, anglicised vowel sounds of Dan Smith from Bastille). The music itself can afford a mimetic invitation to which the individual may respond. These responses can be overt or covert, and will differ between individuals due to differing personalities and preferences. Cox explains that ‘composers most often create the mimetic invitation, or at least a schema for it’ (2016, p. 47). It is argued

26 _{This connects to The Conscious Competency Model of Assimilation; a pedagogical process, which}

here that this may not be the case in popular music, and it is a frequent occurrence within this genre that the composer (the songwriter) may also be the performer; something which rarely happens in classical music. Cox certainly acknowledges the importance of the performer to ‘realise, shape, and/or extend the mimetic invitation’ (2016, p. 47), but I suggest that the performer is chiefly responsible for making this happen. As individuals, we will each respond to the mimetic invitation a piece affords in different ways. Cox discusses that this is the listener’s contribution to a

performance and writes that, liking a particular version of a piece ‘is in part to like what it invites one to do’ (2016, p. 48). However, it is suggested in this thesis that this is just as relevant for the performers of a piece, as the personal preference of certain songs will afford different kinds of behaviour from the performer. This is an important consideration within pedagogical settings for popular music – students are often easily demotivated when working on a song which is not of their personal choosing or preference. Teaching students the importance of finding a way to engage mimetically engage with all music is vital. This will be discussed in greater length in Chapter Eight.

The mimetic participation that results from the mimetic invitation discussed above offers a consideration for the area of Musical Affect, which ‘includes what one feels in performing music and in response to musical stimuli’ (Cox, 2016, p. 177). Whilst Cox (2016) principally discusses the concept from the viewpoint of a mimetically engaged listener, the same concepts can apply if the performer is mimetically engrossed with their own performance. This includes the execution of the musical content, feelings of concentration in passages of difficulty, or the coordination of actions in ensemble playing. However, a mimetically engaged listener will respond

favourably to these executions because their focus is on establishing an understanding of what it is like to do that? This is one of the key tenets of the mimetic hypothesis. As an example, an improvised solo which is perceived as

intricate and technically virtuosic may receive applause from an audience who has a covert understanding of the difficulty needed to undertake the execution of the endeavour. The paradox to this is when the delivery of an element of perceived difficulty is not as problematic as it would appear, but the artist is aware that it is perceived by the audience to be so. This is discussed in Chapter Five.