Mastery through imitation

TNIA LISBOA
Royal College of Music

MASSIMO ZICARI HUBERT EIHOLZER

Conservatorio della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

Abstract
This study investigates musical modelling as a tool for learning music and creating novel interpretations of specific works. A target recording of the Adagio from the Sonata for Solo Violin in G minor (J. S. Bach) was chosen, and three violinists were asked to perform the piece on four occasions. For one of these, they were required to produce a perceptually indistinguishable copy of the recording (three additional violinists were recruited as a control group to perform the piece on two occasions; results from the control group performances will not be reported here). It was hypothesised that the attention to detail required by this imitation process would facilitate a thorough understanding of the piece, enabling the participants to consider carefully both global and local aspects of the musics structure, technical constraints and interpretive potential. Although the violinists were of conservatoire standard, the results show substantial individual differences in the extent to which they were able to imitate the target recording. Moreover, they also reveal a strong short-term impact of the imitation process on the musicians interpretation; however, in the long term, only select interpretive aspects gleaned from the imitative process were adopted. Nonetheless, their knowledge of the piece, according to interview data, was furthered by listening more carefully to their own playing and to the musical ideas offered by the performer in the target recording. Timing and dynamics data, extracted from three (of the four) digitally recorded performances, are explored and discussed.

Introduction
Musical performance is a domain that hinges upon unique artistic insight. Expert and eminent performers do not merely reproduce compositions for consumption by audiences but, rather, engage listeners in dynamic musical dialogues that draw upon novel interpretations of works being performed. But how do musicians develop the ability to access such insight and how might teachers best assist and guide their students in doing so? Juslin and Lukka (2000) point out that music teachers can use a number of cognitive tools to help students develop expressive aspects of music, amongst which are metaphors and musical modelling. This paper focuses on the latter of these, which has received relatively little systematic consideration within the scholarship. According to Sage (1987), performers in the so-called oral tradition learn their performance skills from listening to expert performers. Their teachers performances, for example, provide a notion of what is desired from the student, and the student is required to learn by more or less imitating the teachers behaviours. In fact, throughout music history prior to notation, music was passed between generations only through the use of such models (see Juslin & Laukka, 2000). Still, in terms of music education, this may be problematic, as it depends on both the teachers capacity to produce an exemplary musical model and the students capacity to grasp often without explicit acknowledgement the relevant aspects of the teachers model (Kohut, 1973). Nonetheless, the training of musicians, even those at advanced levels, often involves the consideration and subsequent imitation of their teachers musical ideas. Musical modelling may also be carried out by listening to recordings. When learning and rehearsing new works, performers may spend hours listening to recordings and live performances in search of solutions to various interpretive and technical problems. However, for some professional musicians, the notion of copying or imitating anothers interpretation of a piece is musically suspect and can even seem detrimental to artistic originality (i.e. limiting creativity).
Thus, the paradox arises that, while students are often taught through imitative strategies, not all professional musicians agree on the extent to which they are useful. This study confronts this (apparent) conflict by shedding light on the value of imitative learning strategies. It does so by asking the following questions: What can musicians learn by integrating information from acknowledged master interpretations of particular works into their practice and performance? To what extent are skilled musicians able to imitate designated models and to what extent does the imitative process influence performers interpretations? Indeed, making musicians aware of the possibilities of imitative learning strategies may help them define their own creative space.

Method
Participants

Six violinists were recruited for the study, three in an experimental group and three in a control group. They were selected based on their experience as players and as representing advanced students aiming to improve their musical skill. The experimental group consisted of one male and two females, and the control group of two males and one female. All of the participants were students at the Conservatorio della Svizzera Italiana (Lugano, Switzerland), had already begun working as professional musicians and taught in the Conservatoires Junior Department.

The Music The violin was selected specifically for its large repertoire of unaccompanied solo literature and several available recordings of those works. By contrast to previous investigations on imitation (e.g. Clarke & Baker-Short, 1987; Clarke, 1993), the present study focuses on musical modelling of a highly complex piece. The selected work was the Adagio from the Sonata for Solo Violin in G minor by J. S. Bach. It was chosen because (1) a solo work was considered necessary for investigating the participants own interpretations without direct interference by co-performers (e.g. an accompanist), (2) the piece was well situated within the standard violin repertoire and (3) the piece had been previously performed by all participants, assuring that all had the technical means for taking part in the study. For the purposes of the analyses presented below, the piece contains 88 beats and 415 notes, with 144 notes in the first eight bars.

The Recording The target recording was the EMI Classics recording of Bach Sonatas performed by Jascha Heifetz (collection References CDH 7644942). The criterion for choosing this recording was simply that Heifetzs interpretation was unique and presented a rather unconventional approach to Bach. Previous studies on imitation (Clarke, 1993; Repp, 2000) have demonstrated that imitation is more accurate when the target model is distinct from the imitators own interpretation and when expression relates directly to the grouping structure of music. From this point of view, the Heifetz recording seems an adequate choice.

Procedure The violinists were asked to prepare the chosen piece and invited to discuss individually with the researchers their views on how they felt it should be interpreted. They were then asked to perform the piece (Performance 1). The violinists in the experimental

group were subsequently requested to study the target recording, with the aim of producing a perceptually indistinguishable copy of it. Midway through this imitation process, which took on average two weeks, each violinist met with the researchers to document their respective learning strategies. At the end of the process, they were asked to perform their copy (Performance 2). Immediately following Performance 2, they were required to perform without trying to imitate (Performance 3), and approximately one month later, all participants were asked to perform the composition again, as they would normally in front of an audience (Performance 4). All performances were recorded on DAT and transferred to the hard disk of a Macintosh computer. Beat-by-beat as well as note-by-note information on timing and dynamics was extracted, representing two embedded hierarchical levels. This was done using Pro Tools, a digital sound editing software package. The onset of each beat (and each note) was measured and the timing was expressed according to the normalised interonset intervals [i.e. the raw interonset interval divided by each beats (or notes) metrical value]. Tempo, as in this paper, refers to the reciprocal of these timing data.

Summary of results
The Analyses This paper focuses on timing and dynamics data obtained from Performances 1, 2 and 4 (P1, P2, P4) of participants in the Experimental Group. Comparisons of timing and dynamic profiles were made (1) between the respective performances of each violinist (i.e. P1 vs. P2 vs. P4) and (2) between the three performances and the target recording. At the start of the investigation, all six violinists presented their individual interpretations of the piece prior to initiating the imitation process (including individual approaches to tempo, phrasing and speeds of vibrato). The results presented here refer to work in progress and, therefore, are not conclusive. Considering that music making at high levels demands an individual approach, it was not expected that the participants would necessarily be able to copy the target recording exactly, as no two performers share the exact same musical ideas and technical strengths. However, the extent to which they were able to produce an indistinguishable copy of the target performance is demonstrated through the detailed analyses of their performances, which are to be featured in the presentation.

Beat-by-Beat Analysis Figure 1 provides an example of the results to emerge from the derived tempo factor of the imitation performance (P2) of one violinist compared with that of the target recording. General analyses reveal a significant positive correlation (Pearson) between the two

performances in terms of tempo (r=0.80, p<0.01) and dynamics (r=0.38, p<0.01). Specifically, Figure 1 illustrates a beat-by-beat transcription of tempo in the first 8 bars of the piece. The displayed shaping of both the target recording and the participants performance suggests that the participant was able to copy timing elements of the target model, as for example, between beats 1 and 7; the graph shows that tempo increased during the first six beats in both performances and slowed on the seventh beat. The Figure also shows that the violinists performance imitated the target particularly well for beats 13 and 19.

16

14

12

10

Target Perf.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

BeatbyBeat(Bars1-8)

Figure 1. Beat-by-beat transcription of tempo for the target recording and P2 of the selected violinist and score for the first eight bars.

Note-by-Note Analysis

Although the timing and dynamics of P2 and the target performance are highly related on a beat-by-beat level for all participants, the note-by-note analysis does not show the same clear pattern of results. There is less correlation on a note-by-note level (e.g. timing, r=0.43, and dynamics, r=0.26, for the violinist mentioned above). This seems to appear as a common pattern amongst all participants, although correlations did vary. Thus, the results so far suggest that participants were able to imitate both the timing and the dynamic shaping of the target recording on a global level, but were less able to shape their performances at a more detailed, local level. This may be related to several factors: (1) the participants not having the same level of technical expertise; (2) the piece being highly complex; (3) the piece having been played previously and, therefore, knowledge of local detail preventing the adoption of new conceptions of the piece. This is consistent with Repps (1992) finding that lower hierarchical levels on performances show large variability. Comparisons of the participants first and last performances (P1 vs. P4) were also studied. The analyses show that elements of timing and dynamic shaping were incorporated into the participants final performances (as determined from the graphical transcription and significant, positive correlations between P2 and P4 for all participants). However, the musicians own interpretive conceptions seemed to prevail in the end. This is highlighted by the even higher significant correlations, both on a beat-by-beat and on a note-by-note level, between P1 and P4, compared with P2 and P4. It seems that even when asked to imitate or copy a model, the performers did not shed their initial interpretation. Further analysis is intended to compare the results with that of a control group, who did not go through the imitation process. Vibrato and articulation are two other aspects which will be further studied and analysed.

The Participants views During the interviews, some of the participants stated that the target recording would not have been their first choice had they been allowed to choose a recording. The Heifetz interpretation was described as being engaging but not in line with their particular understandings of Bach. The participants also described Heifetzs individualised style as aggressive with a speedy vibrato and much portamenti. Indeed, Heifetzs use of portamento is commonly identified as one of his unique playing features. Although the analysis of performances so far focused on only timing and dynamics, it has been possible to identify points where the participants applied portamenti in the same way as the model. In general terms, the participants did not succeed in imitating this aspect of the performance. The results show that only one participant imitated Heifetzs shifting in the imitation performance (P2), but this was not carried over to the final performance (P4). This was because this particular violinist was consciously trying not to play like the model in P4. His comments on the

performance illustrate this point: My interpretation is quite different. The portamenti that he uses are good and he can do it very well, but my imitation would be a sort of caricature.

Discussion
Although there are controversial views on the extent to which performers should adopt imitation when learning new pieces of music, imitative strategies are traditionally part of the learning processes in the creative arts. This study has so far shown that even when required to imitate, participants did not lose their own individual interpretations. Indeed, the process added new elements to their performances. The approach to imitation used in this study was admittedly exaggerated, demanding that participants consciously produce an exact imitation. However, for the recruited participants, it raised questions about different interpretations of Bach (historical versus modern interpretation), performance and interpretation techniques (tempi, shifting, dynamics), as well as stimulated them to consider carefully to their own interpretative ideas. The participants highlighted the fact that they already used such an imitative strategy in less-precise ways when listening to recordings (e.g. I already use this process sometimes; for me, its like having a maestro; this way, you discover many things). Further research in this area should involve the analysis of other aspects of performance that have not been examined here, such as articulation, vibrato and body movement. In sum, research on imitation in music is rather scarce but should be broadened, as imitative strategies are commonly used in teaching at all skill levels. Moreover, the ways in which such strategies may contribute to unique insights into specific works should be further explored and documented.

Address for correspondence: TANIA LISBOA Royal College of Music Prince Consort Road London SW7 2BS UK E-mail : tlisboa@rcm.ac.uk

References
Clarke, E. F. (1993). Imitating and evaluating real and transformed musical performances. Music Perception, 10, 317-341. Clarke, E. F., & Baker-Short, C. (1987). The imitation of perceived rubato: A preliminary study. Psychology of Music, 15, 58-75. Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2000). Improving emotional communication in music performance through cognitive feedback. Musicae Scientiae, 4, 151-183. Kohut, D. L. (1973). Instrumental Music Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Repp, B. H. (1992). Diversity and commonality in music performance: An analysis of timing microstructure in Schumanns Trumerei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, 2546-2568. Repp, B. H. (2000). Pattern typicality and dimensional interactions in pianists imitation of expressive timing and dynamics. Music Perception, 18, 173-211. Sang, R. C. (1987). A study of the relationship between instrumental music teachers modelling skills and pupil performance behaviors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 155-159.