Discussion and limitations
Discussion
The results suggest that both conventional and music-related meditations have a positive influence on the ability to cope with brass musicians’ mental challenges. Participants in both the control and experimental groups noticed improvements in focus, self-perception, and their ability to deal with MPA. Furthermore, despite initial concerns (based on Macleod's (2023) research) that meditation might interfere with one’s technical ability to play a brass instrument, none of the participants noticed a negative correlation between playing a brass instrument and meditation. Moreover, some participants observed a positive effect on their sound and breathing.
Focus
Control and experimental groups demonstrated different extents to which they improved. Regarding the focus aspect, even though the results of both groups showed improvement, the degree of improvement differed when measured. For example, despite the fact that the majority of participants in the interviews mentioned that they noticed an improved quality of their focus in various ways, such as general improvement in their focus, reduced distractibility, and an eased return to a focused state of mind after being distracted, it was also observed that a significantly higher percentage of the experimental group felt deeper engagement during practice sessions. Furthermore, the experimental group showed a greater improvement in attention span during their practice time. On the other hand, the control group showed a greater decrease in prematurely ended practice sessions, and in the case that the personal circumstances of the experimental group are taken into account, the improvement of both groups could be concluded to be the same. In both groups a similar number of participants noticed improved focus during performances and felt more aware in their private practice sessions. A noticeably bigger part of the control group in comparison to the experimental one observed an improvement in focus during the lessons. Nonetheless, a major factor to consider is that the majority of participants with no improvement had already stated in the pre-intervention interview that they had no problems focusing during the lessons.
Similar tendencies regarding focus were noticed in the weekly questionnaire. Just like during interviews, each group had facets of focus in which a certain group improved more than the other, but the difference in improvement between both groups was the smallest regarding the focus facet.
In the FFMQ, the focus facet could be illustrated by observing. Such statements as “When I take a shower or a bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my body” could also show increased awareness of physical aspects, and this is one of the subjects brass players frequently focus on. Furthermore, acting with awareness (by evaluating such statements as “I am easily distracted”) is another facet which could illustrate focus in FFMQ. Even though the control group demonstrated a slight decrease in the observing facet, their improvement in the acting with awareness facet is much bigger than that of the experimental group, thus further supporting the conclusions drawn by analyzing interview and weekly questionnaire data.
In the MfM questionnaire, the focus aspect is supported by the same facets: observing (“When I am practicing, I pay close attention to how things physically feel or sound as I am playing”) and acting with awareness (“In instrumental lessons, I always pay attention and never daydream or get distracted”). Both groups demonstrated an insignificant increase in both facets, with the control group improving more in observing and the experimental group demonstrating a slightly bigger improvement in acting with awareness, thus supporting the findings of the analyzed data from the interview, questionnaire, and FFMQ, which state that both groups have experienced similar amounts of improvement regarding focus.
Furthermore, my self-experimentation log suggests that both conventional and music-related meditations are useful tools in improving one’s focus, which was supported by all the earlier mentioned data-collecting measures. However, focus was noticed to increase more significantly after music-focused meditations in a way that I felt more deeply engaged and connected to my instrument, as well as feeling that the transition between meditating and playing felt more natural.
MPA
According to the interviews, both groups have experienced similar extent of improvement in the educational setting. Two people in the control group have experienced a negative development in this regard; however, it was mentioned that it is caused by external factors rather than the intervention. Among the positive developments, the following were mentioned: feeling more secure and confident, decreased negative correlation between MPA and MPQ, and experiencing less MPA in general. In the performing settings, a bigger percentage of people in the control group noticed a positive change rather than in the experimental one. Among the positive changes, such were mentioned: eased letting go of negative thoughts, decreased correlation between MPA and MPQ, general decrease in MPA.
However, the weekly questionnaire suggests a different outlook regarding MPA. According to the data, experimental group has been noticed to demonstrate much bigger improvement (by 2.09 points) compared to control one (by 0.26 points). Furthermore, in three MPA related questions a decrease was noticed regarding control group while in the experimental group results of only one MPA related question decreased and in two questions they were noticed to increase significantly.
In the FFMQ, MPA aspect is illustrated by nonreactivity. For example, such statement as “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go” could be related to MPA as being able to feel something but not be affected by it, as a reflection of the relationship of MPA and MPQ. Furthermore, nonjudging is also a considerable facet regarding MPA because it evaluates such statements as “I think some of my emotions are bad or inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them” and thus could be considered as an illustration of fighting with MPA and directing focus on that instead of music itself. Both groups improved in both facets, and while the control group showed bigger improvement in the nonreactivity facet, the experimental group improved more in the nonjudging facet.
The same facets will illustrate MPA in the MfM as ones which did in FFMQ. In both facets, the experimental group showed a bigger improvement, even though regarding the nonreactivity facet, it is completely insignificant. As for nonjudging, the experimental group showed an improvement, while the results of the control group decreased a bit.
According to my self-experimentation log, I was feeling the same amounts of MPA after both types of meditation; however, the relationship between MPA and MPQ was affected to my benefit. However, there wasn’t significant difference between the effects of different types of meditation.
Taking into account all the analyzed data, there could be no conclusive results regarding which meditation type is more effective while dealing with MPA, as the weekly questionnaire and MfM suggest that music-related meditations have higher effectivity, while FFMQ, self-experimentation log, and interviews suggest that both methods are of similar effectivity.
Self-perception
A significantly higher percentage of the experimental group has noticed that their mood, self–perception, and self–esteem recover quicker after an unfortunate event such as a bad practice session, unsatisfactory lesson, or poor performance. Furthermore, it was noticed that the damage experienced after such an event was significantly lower. General self-perception improved equally in both groups, and it manifested itself in such ways: not comparing themselves to other musicians as much, increased trust in their ability to improve, being more neutral about their shortcomings, and feeling more optimistic about their career prospects. Similar parts of participants in both groups have also noticed that their self–perception in the educational setting improved. Both groups stated that they criticized themselves less during the lessons, weren’t taking teachers’ feedback as personally, and based their self–esteem on teacher’s approval less.
A significantly bigger improvement regarding self–perception was noticed in the experimental group (1.51 points compared to 1.05). In addition to that, in the control group, a significant increase was noticed in one self–perception related question and a decrease in two, while in the experimental group, three self–perception questions decreased insignificantly and four questions increased significantly.
Regarding the FFMQ, nonjudging (for example, evaluating such statements as “I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions”) and nonreacting (for example, evaluating such statements as “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I feel calm soon after”) were chosen to illustrate the self–perception facet. Both groups showed improvement in both facets, and while the control group improved more in the nonreactivity facet, the experimental group showed bigger improvement in the nonjudging facet.
In the MfM, the same facets were chosen to illustrate self–perception. In both of the facets, the experimental group improved more, even though regarding the nonreactivity facet, the improvement in comparison to the control group is completely insignificant. As for nonjudging, the experimental group has been noticed to demonstrate increased results, while the results of the control group decreased a bit.
During the self–experimentation intervention, it was also noticed that my self-perception and mood regulation improved quite a lot. Furthermore, music-related meditation was shown to affect this facet a little bit more, especially in the educational setting.
To conclude, four out of five chosen data collection methods point out that music–related meditation can improve one’s self–perception more than conventional one, and the one which doesn’t is a mindfulness questionnaire that is not music-related.
Meditation and Technique
No participant in either group has noticed a negative development in their technical aspect of playing. A significantly bigger part of experimental group participants has noticed improvements in their breathing technique as well as sound.
Contextualization
Regarding focus, the findings of both interventions are supported by various research. For example,Czajkowski et al. (2015) has found that meditation improves focus during private practice sessions. Furthermore, a study conducted by Brown (2020) has also found that meditation has improved participants’ ability to resist distractions and come back to a focused state of mind more easily, as well as increase their focus span and decrease the amount of prematurely ended practice sessions.
Findings of this study regarding MPA were also discovered to be of a similar nature as the conclusions of the other research. For example, in this research, it was found that meditation might decrease MPA and break the negative correlation between MPA and MPQ, which was also proven in the studies of Czajkowski et al. (2022), Shorey (2020), and Farnsworth-Grodd (2012).
The findings of this research regarding self–perception are also blending in well within the context of other research. The decrease of self–criticism, self-esteem’s dependence on teacher’s approval, and increase in confidence were also found in Czajkowski's (2015) study. Meditation’s effect on self-acceptance and neutrality towards personal and musical shortcomings were noticed by Smith (2018) and (Brown 2020).
Even though many of the findings regarding the connection of meditation and music are overlapping with ones described in other research, there was no research found which would compare conventional and music–focused meditations. In this sense, some of the findings discovered in this research might be new. For example, even though the focus aspect was observed to improve mostly in a similar way regardless of meditation type and the results of MPA are inconclusive, findings show that music–related meditation provides a more helpful approach towards one’s self–perception. For instance, deepened engagement during practice sessions and improved focus span by the experimental group could be a consequence of a deeper connection with the instrument, which was a product of meditating with it, and it would also explain why the concentration of both groups improved similarly in the lessons as the whole concept of the lesson is equally focused on playing as it is on listening to the feedback. Furthermore, smoother transition between meditation and playing might have influenced the ability to transfer meditative mindset to playing, thus explaining bigger improvement of the experimental group regarding self–perception.
Furthermore, initially, when conducting the literature review, a valuable concern was raised by Macleod (2023). During his research, it was noticed that meditation–based practices might interfere with brass playing in multiple ways. For example, in his research, a concern was raised that concentrating on the wrong subject might worsen the problem instead of helping it (for instance, concentrating on easing tensions might make them even more prevalent), thus in the meditations of this research, it was avoided to ask to concentrate on any problematic aspect. Furthermore, in the aforementioned research, it was noticed that concentrating on relaxing the breathing instead of activating it might cause a loss of the intensity of the sound. Having these concerns, the purpose to explore how brass musicians can benefit from meditation mentally while not losing their technical proficiency was raised. The data of this research suggests that not only meditation does not interfere with technical aspects of playing a brass instrument, but also improves them, especially regarding breathing technique and sound. Furthermore, the evidence of this research suggests that music–related meditations are also more efficient in this particular aspect.
Limitations
First and foremost, a small number of participants severely affects conclusiveness of this research in various ways. The control and experimental groups, each respectively including ten and six participants, consisted of too few people in order to check the normality of quantitative data, thus leaving the researcher with limited measures to evaluate the significance of the changes. Furthermore, as the research was conducted not in an isolated environment, having few participants in each group meant that any external circumstance would have a major effect on the average results of the group.
The second limitation is the human factor. Originally, 22 participants were supposed to participate in the research. As they were being assigned to their groups, the balance of instruments in each group was taken highly into account, thus making each group contain 4 trumpet players, 4 French horn players, 2–3 trombone players, 1 euphonium player, and 1–2 tuba players. As some of the participants didn’t complete the experiment, the final groups looked quite differently, with 4 trumpet players, 1 French horn player, 3 trombone players, 1 euphonium player, and 1 tuba player in the control group, and 1 trumpet player, 2 French horn players, 2 trombone players, and 1 tuba player in the experimental group. The difference between the intended and actual groups of participants caused imbalance both in instrumental (especially comparing trumpet sample sizes in both groups) and general senses. Furthermore, one participant confessed to faking the data, thus making it all invalid, and 2 other participants admitted doing the intervention according to their own wishes rather than using the material provided. Moreover, some participants logged not practicing meditation each day they practiced, instead doing it close to 50% of the time required, while others practiced meditation almost every day with great diligence. Last but not least, the self-experimentation log and data interpretation were conducted by a partial person, so the results and their interpretation might be affected by researcher bias.
Furthermore, as unvalidated measures, MfM and the weekly questionnaire present another limitation that should be taken into consideration while evaluating the validity of results. In addition to the interview format, which left more than enough space for interpretation (for example, participants not agreeing with the interviewer on the definition of MPA as well as paradoxes of participant statements showing improvement, but them stating that they don’t feel it), the aforementioned weaknesses of gathering the data ought to be considered.
Go to the previous page
Go to the next page