Many artists undertake improvisation, which utilises acoustic/traditional instrumental playing while simultaneously interaction with some form of technology but the originality in my research is it’s focus on how cognitive load is distributed between those two activities and what implications that has for the creative output. Being mindful and cognisant of this phenomenon during performance and engaging in critical reflection afterwards has been instrumental in driving my theoretical enquiry in this area. This I believe to be unique and not currently reflected in the literature.

A large body of work exists, that explores cognition and embodiment as it is manifest in the areas of music making using traditional instruments and electronic/digital technology (Mendoza & Thompson, 2017; Malloch & Wanderley, 2017; NIJS, L, 2017). These areas tend to be theorised as distinct musical undertakings and often without attention being paid to the nuances of improvised and non-improvised performance. The focus for much of this work is the causation of the sound, as perceived by the audience, and the mechanics of the interactions with the sound source that generates the musical gesture (Leman, 2007). The originality in the practice-based research I am undertaking stems from the fact that very little, attention has been paid in the literature to performance practices that offer the simultaneous combination of both an unmodified traditional instrument and some form of technological mediation, specifically in terms of improvisatory performance practices and with the focus being the experience of the performer. This is not about hybrid instruments or novel interfaces, it’s an exploration of how the executive management of these different types of cognitive process impacts on the experience of an improvising musician. In reflecting on my practice I am applying theoretical frames from academic work relating to dual and multi-tasking (Aagaard, 2019), which provides interesting tools with which to analyse the types of dual task I undertake when I’m performing improvised music, and provides an opportunity to create new knowledge in this area.

In common usage the term multitasking is blithely employed to refer to a wide range of human behaviours in a multitude of situations, ranging from the execution of tasks where the difference is subtle and nuanced to those that are disparate and unrelated. It is routinely employed in discussions about ‘difference’ around gender, personality type, health and safely and generational sub-groups. Once a group of tasks can be coordinated and undertaken with little conscious scrutiny, they become perceived as a single task. Driving comprises many constituent tasks but this is generally regarded as a single task with a unified goal state. Texting while driving however would generally be classified as multi-tasking. Even within the literature, conceptual methods and taxonomies for cohering and deconstructing tasks and sub-tasks are contentious (Strobach, 2018). It is therefore necessary to situate the type of practice I’m engaged in, within a wider taxonomy of goal focused human behaviour to clearly identify how interacting with technology and playing a traditional instrument differ in terms of the cognitive load associated with their various sub-tasks (Aagaard, 2019). Various theories are well documented in the literature but, reflecting on the implications for spontaneous creativity of undertaking an activity which traverses both behaviours could inform new approaches to this type of music making.

So, what are the implications for cognition in simultaneously improvising with technology and a traditional musical instrument? The current state of my research suggests that the consideration of the cognitive overhead in different types of technological configuration in a performance context, and it’s relationship to the embodied knowledge and functionality of an instrumental performer, presents both an opportunity for positive enhancement in creative potential, as well as the potential for negative impact. The cognitive demands on a performer, of a performance configuration, in which the sub-tasks are disaggregated from the overall creative goal of the performance, could lead to an experience of cognitive overload, in which accurate execution of the sub-tasks is diminished. For many performers this would be to the detriment of the performance and result in an unsatisfactory outcome for them and their audience. However, this is conceptually an interesting area to exploit creatively, if the construction of a multitasking environment and it’s cognitive implications, is done in alignment with the creative aims of the performance. I am not espousing an approach that employs these considerations to ‘play safe’ within the cognitive comfort zone of the performer. On the contrary, I think for an improvising musician, simultaneously attending to a traditional instrument while interacting with technological devices, offers great creative potential for working at or beyond their cognitive capacity.

“A lot of improvisers find improvisation worthwhile. I think, because of the possibilities. Things that can happen but perhaps rarely do. One of those things is that you are ‘taken out of yourself’. Something happens which so disorientates you that for a time, which might only last for a second or two, your reactions and responses are not what they normally would be. You can do something you didn’t realise you were capable of or you don’t appear to be fully responsible for what you are doing”

Derek Bailey

References

AAGAARD, J. (2019) Multitasking as distraction: A conceptual analysis of media multitasking research’ Theory & Psychology, 29(1), pp. 87–99.

BAILEY, D. 1993. Improvisation: Its Nature and Practice in Music. New York: Da Capo Press.

LEMAN, A. (2007). Embodied music cognition and mediation technology. Cambridge, Mass, MIT.

MALLOCH, J., & WANDERLEY, M. M. (2017). Embodied cognition and digital musical instruments: design and performance. Routledge Companion to Embodied Music Interaction. 438-456.

MATYJA JR. (2016). Embodied Music Cognition: Trouble Ahead, Trouble Behind. Frontiers in Psychology. 7 pp 1891

MENDOZA, J. I., & THOMPSON, M. R. (2017). Gestural agency in human-machine musical interaction. Routledge Companion to Embodied Music Interaction. 412-419.

NIJS, L. (2017). The merging of musician and musical instrument: incorporation, presence, and levels of embodiment. Routledge Companion to Embodied Music Interaction. 49-58.

STROBACH, T., WENDT, M., & JANCZKY, M. (2018). Multitasking: Executive Functioning in Dual-Task and Task Switching Situations. Frontiers Media SA.