A. How do these exercises answer my research question?
As established in the introduction, creativity can be practiced. Because writing a composition is creating something new, according to Walia’s definition synthesis, it therefore requires creativity (Walia 2019). This is supported by researchers Zembylas and Niederauer’s statement that “we may speak of composing as a creative process, since composers have as a rule acquired domain-specific abilities” (Zembylas 2018). Furthermore, creative parts of composition can be practiced, much the way theoretical components of composition can be. In my search for methods, I looked for exercises that gave instructions on how to begin a project or initiate a specific approach or process. Each of the six methods I chose explores the idea of practicing creativity, but they come from different artistic mediums. An examination of literature on creativity from the perspectives of writing, choreography, and visual art, allowed me to select various exercises and adapt them for (jazz) composition. I put jazz in parenthesis because nothing in the methods themselves will dictate a genre to write in but, I consider my own writing to be within the larger jazz genre.
B. How did I choose these exercises?
C. How did I test the methods?
Artistic research “is done inside the practice, by doing acts that are a part of the practice” (Hannula 2014). Consequently, experimentation is a frequent and integral part of artistic research. Over the course of this research, I implemented these methods into my day-to-day composition practice, using personal experimentation as a large part of my methodology.
Because of the personal nature of my research, extensive documentation was critical to represent my process outwardly and for analysis afterward. Before starting this research, my typical practice included composing at the piano and making notations on physical paper. I also typically took audio samples of ideas that I wanted to work on further. My process of documentation throughout the research expanded and codified this. Throughout testing the methods, I documented something from every writing session, ensuring that I had documentation of the compositions at each stage of development from conception to completion. This documentation was captured via audio clips and musical notation/written text and then organized by method and date. I also recorded what edits/adjustments I made to each composition which is written out in narrative form in the respective sections of the exposition. At the end of each method in this exposition, a “final” version of each composition from a live performance, studio recording, or demo can be found.
Additionally, I kept a reflective journal where I documented my experiences trying out the various methods and compared them along the way, another new addition to my typical practice. This quote from Research Issues in Art Design and Media summarizes the purpose of my research journal, “the research diary provides a form through which the interaction of subjective and objective aspects of doing research can be openly acknowledged and brought into a productive relationship” (Newbury 2001). I used this space to record my thoughts as I was testing and as a space for reflection and comparison between methods in real time. The formatting inside my journal is something I created, something that allowed for an efficient and authentic collection space for my ideas. I reference some excerpts from this journal in each section.
As stated in Artistic Research Methodology, “Reading, seeing, feeling and talking with and within one’s own peer group is ridiculously underrated and must be rescued and returned to the core of any research action and activity” (Hannula 2014). To further my methodology, I wanted to allow for an avenue for feedback and discussion on these methods from other perspectives. Therefore, I gave three chosen methods to ten composition colleagues in my network. Given the timeline and understanding that each composer is a professional musician with many obligations, I opted to give my colleagues three out of the six methods to experiment with more thoroughly. I narrowed down the methods to select the three that I found the most successful for my practice based on the compositions created and my reflections on the process. To deliver the methods, I created a reflection/composition journal containing the exercises along with additional space for writing and blank staff paper. I asked my colleagues to test the methods themselves, record their thoughts on the process, and then come together for a group discussion at the conclusion of the trial period. The discussion was open-ended to allow for evaluation and ideas regarding the concepts and process. A transcription can be found in Appendix 3. In this exposition, I compare their experiences with my own in the Animal, Haiku, and Improvisation Methods.
D. Structure
Method 1: “Daily Method” adapted from writer Julia Cameron.
Method 2: “Animal Method” adapted from writer Ted Hughes.
Method 3: “Haiku Method” adapted from writers Linda Anderson and Derek Neale.
Method 4: “Improvisation Method” adapted from choreographer Twyla Tharp.
Method 5: “Habit Method” adapted from choreographer Jonathan Burrows.
Method 6: “Modeling Method” adapted from visual artist Austin Kleon.
E. Criteria for Self-Evaluation of Musical Results
Since the evaluation of music is already subjective, I leaned into this subjectivity and created my own criteria for evaluation. I felt this would be most helpful for the future use of these compositions as I will be the one presenting them if they reach my standards. Although there is some literature outlining a replicable rubric for the assessment of jazz composition (Hickey 1999), I found that some typically included assessment points such as “aesthetic appeal” and “creativity” difficult to judge myself with in this context. Whereas other criteria regarding form, rhythm and melody were so narrow that they could not be applied to all the compositions resulting from the research. There is also the problem of rubrics in general as pointed out in the Music Educators Journal, “the reductionism of the rubric, with its panoply of indicators, gives the illusion of subjectivity, but there is always a subject element in aesthetic evaluation that cannot be explained away” continuing that “verbal or written narrative communication” is often more appropriate to deliver feedback (Deutsch 2016). I left my rubric open-ended and verbally wrote out my evaluations to mitigate this.
These are criteria that I value and I use in a general way to reflect on my music. Outside of my research, I keep these things in mind for choosing which songs I bring to my band and perform. If they meet these criteria, then I will perform and release them.
Lyrics: In my lyrics, I look for each composition to tell some sort of story (emotional or otherwise) and for development through the lyrics.
Balance: I interpret this as having a balance of melodic shape between any of the following: ascending/descending, tension/release of harmony, diatonic/chromatic and repetition/development within the composition.
Form: The form including the order of sections, number of measures in a section, number of sections, repetitions etc. do not just exist without purpose but they come together to support the melodic content and the delivery of the lyrics.
Performance: I add the finished composition to my repertoire and when I do, I enjoy performing it because of the composition itself or because it challenges my artistry.
F. Additional Notes
As the topic can be very broad, I chose three different artistic disciplines, writing, choreography, and visual art to select exercises from. There are countless further methods, exercises, and genres of art to choose from but, as this research is limited in scope, I chose to take a more in-depth look at six exercises.
Is adaptation a limitation?
The methods I am researching are specific in varying degrees to the art form from which they are derived. Some of them need to be adapted to apply to music due to medium-specific language, most often with verbs like “write” instead of “compose”. Additionally, I made some of the instructions more concise and streamlined the formatting as some were originally found in an extended narrative format. I tried to adapt these methods carefully keeping in mind the original intent, application, and context. All of the sources I used were from larger texts, aiding in my search for understanding of the Authors’ intentions.
On the other hand, part of what makes this research process exciting is applying previously constructed concepts in new situations. By adapting these ideas, I am forming my own personal methods and approaches based on the artists referenced in the research.
The main challenge that I encountered in terms of adaptation of the methods was actually in sourcing them. I found an abundance of materials about the creative process and instructions for creation but there were challenges of the language being explicitly medium-specific. For example, exercises relying solely on experimentation with color in visual art or movement for choreography. Although this could have been adapted as well to musical concepts like tone color of instruments or rhythmic density, I wanted to have the least intervention as possible. I thought changing these exercises would likely change the character and in many sources I reviewed, the intention of the author was not stated, making it even more difficult to adapt in these situations. Instead, I opted to choose exercises that better matched my criteria outlined above in Section B.
