Psychology of Music 2005 Macdonald 395 417

8/10/2019 Psychology of Music 2005 Macdonald 395 417

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/psychology-of-music-2005-macdonald-395-417 1/24

http://pom.sagepub.com/ Psychology of Music

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0305735605056151 2005 33: 395Psychology of Music

Raymond Macdonald and Graeme Wilsoninvestigation

Musical identities of professional jazz musicians: a focus group

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at:Psychology of Music Additional services and information for

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 29, 2005Version of Record>>

at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on June 25, 2012pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pom.sagepub.com/





http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://www.sempre.org.uk/

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395.refs.html


http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


http://pom.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395.full.pdf





http://pom.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav



http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://www.sempre.org.uk/

http://www.sagepublications.com/





Musical identities of professional jazz musicians:a focus group investigation

395A R T I C L E

Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music

Copyright ©

Society for Education, Music

and Psychology Research

vol (): ‒ [-() :; ‒]

.⁄

www.sagepublications.com

R AY M O N D M A C D O N A L DG L AS G OW C AL E DO N IA N U N IV E RS I TY

G R A E M E W I L S O NG L AS G OW C AL E DO N IA N U N IV E RS I TY

A B S T R A C T Views about jazz, and being a jazz musician, were gathered from

current Scottish practitioners. Jazz is a uniquely interactive creative practice,

dependent on shared practices and meanings. These are inseparable from social

and cultural contexts; however, research on musicians’ views has been

concentrated on individuals in the USA. This study therefore uses focus group

interviewing to access group musical identities in the UK. Reflexive issues of the

research procedure are also addressed. Maintaining swing feel and a balance of

collective and individual practices emerged as important. Eclectic professional

practice created a demanding lifestyle; in this context, the group aspect of jazz is

integral to related musical identities. Diverse discourses highlighted the

constructed nature of these identities; focus groups are thus a useful method for

this field. Consideration of the interview circumstances suggests how these

function, and has implications for subsequent research.

K E Y W O R D S : creativity, identities, improvisation, jazz, personality

IntroductionAlthough improvisation is present in many forms of music, it is frequently

seen as central to jazz (Kernfeld, 1997). The particular psychological and

musical processes of this music have generated increasing academic interest

(Cooke and Horne, 2002). Yet research has only recently begun to ask musi-

cians themselves to reflect upon their experience of improvising (e.g. Sawyer,

1992; Berliner, 1994). Developments in the study of musical identities

(MacDonald et al., 2002) suggest that such approaches could be usefully

investigated in relation to the music’s constantly changing and expanding

cultural contexts (Miell et al., 2005). Further knowledge of how musiciansconceive of themselves and their music will elucidate the psychological

processes that lie at the heart of a unique creative process. The study reported

sempre :








here examines the perceptions of jazz improvisers through a qualitative

approach, using focus group interviews to frame the research in the under-

standings established by two groups of professional practitioners.

Background

In psychology, experimental studies of jazz have tended towards cognitive

modelling of perceptual or generative processes (Sloboda, 1985; Pressing,

1998). Music education research contains a well-developed literature upon

how to acquire the technical skills of improvisation (Dalzell, 2002). Wider lit-

erature, however, has also considered the cultural and social context of jazz

(Fischlin and Heble, 2004). Becker (2000), for example, has taken the

conventions surrounding ‘jam sessions’ as a demonstration of his theory of

art worlds. In particular, jazz has had particular importance within the studyof the experiences of African-Americans (e.g. Jones, 2001). Walser (1997),

examining the history of jazz commentary and published interviews with

famous musicians, identifies a general dichotomy between white critics’

understanding of jazz as instinctual or ‘interior’ and black jazz performers’

espousal of a coherent philosophy based in shared experience. Since the

music is realized in a social and professional context, practitioners may operate

different constructions of what is involved from those of observers, and

Walser argues that the complex social and individual implications of the

music cannot be separated. The ethnomusicological approach of Berliner(1994) and Monson (1996) has sought to establish how the practice of jazz

and improvisation is related to the social world and culture of its practitioners,

prioritizing the gathering of musicians’ own views. The work of these

two authors also highlights the different roles and experience of players of

different instruments in jazz.

Within psychology, research taking a more holistic approach to jazz and

improvisation is still relatively scarce; nevertheless, a few authors have asked

practitioners themselves to discuss and reflect upon the key components of

their own practice. Sawyer (1992) suggests that cognitive models miss out on

the broader musical goals and interaction that characterize improvisation.

He conducted a series of interviews with professional jazz musicians focusing

on the defining features for them of small ensemble improvisations. This

constructionist approach demonstrated the importance of several issues.

Interactional influences – characterized as ‘conversation’ using ‘language’ by

the interviewees – distinguished jazz as an essentially real-time activity.

Conscious and non-conscious processes were seen as uniquely simultaneous

in jazz improvisation, creating tension for the players between individual per-

formance and awareness of other musicians. Musical structure also had to be

constantly balanced with a perceived expectation of innovation in relation to

both existing jazz and personal capabilities; given this, ‘mistakes’ were high-

lighted as an important resource. Other writers have taken such an approach

396 Psychology of Music 33(4)








with a view to gaining a better understanding of the musicians and their

processes, rather than the music itself. Bastien and Hostager (1988) focus on

jazz as an activity where inventiveness is the expected mode; they define it as

a social process of coordinated innovation with a collective outcome. Their

interest is in the context of shared awareness among musicians with experi-ence in common, rather than the broader cultural implications. By analysing

a video of four ‘adroit professionals’ performing a concert without prior

collaboration and asking the participants to reflect upon both data and

analysis, they highlight the importance of known social practices in achieving

successful jazz improvisation. The patterns of innovation they identify show

the musicians adopting strategies based on non-verbal communications that

progressively limit the options for variation to key points of potential change,

at which times attention becomes highly focused on one band member.

Davidson and Good (2002) likewise suggest that many performance elementsemerge from shared sociocultural knowledge and social and musical skills,

enabling shared ideas to unfold in real time. Sharron’s (1985) interactionist

analysis of the rehearsal practices of a big band also shows how meanings

are established among band members to meet the needs of the majority and

allow the social group to operate.

Although there is an emergent psychological literature taking account of

the social and cultural milieus of jazz music and the attitudes, thoughts,

feelings and beliefs of jazz musicians, there is considerable scope for further

investigation. The studies discussed above have interviewed American musi-cians in relatively small numbers. Yet jazz now has a thoroughly international

diaspora (Johnson, 2002), and the music industry generates rapid transfor-

mations in contemporary music practice (Lewis, 2004). Jazz music could be

expected to have radically different implications for today’s practitioners in

other countries; Madiot (1996) has considered the social identities of French

jazz musicians, for instance, while Dalzell (2002) has demonstrated the

multiple routes to learning of many practitioners in Scotland. Such diversity

in musicians’ practice and experience must be better understood. Further-

more, although collective interaction has been hailed as characteristic of jazz,

the methods used in gaining the views of practitioners have relied exclusively

on one-to-one interviews.

Given the literature discussed above, conceptions of jazz and improvisation

might be expected to play an integral role within the musical identities of jazz

musicians. The concept of identity or self is currently very topical through-

out academic research; Giddens (2001) states that ‘identity is the key concept

for late modernity’. There is an extensive and developing amount of research

focusing upon how individuals view themselves in relation to the worldaround them (Harter, 1999). Within a musical context, musical identities are

relevant in that individuals who are involved in any type of musical activity

(listening or playing) develop a personal identity that is in some way related

to these musical experiences (MacDonald et al., 2002). Thus, it can be said

MacDonald and Wilson: Musical identities of professional jazz musicians 397








that everybody has a musical identity (Hargreaves et al., 2002). This work

has shown both that music is important in identity, and that identities are

important in music; therefore, framing psychological research into jazz in

terms of musical identities can address interest in both the music and the

musicians.The study reported here addresses the research priorities identified; data

from two focus group interviews with professional jazz musicians in Scotland

are positioned within a general context of musical identities. Focus group

methodologies are increasingly common within applied social science

research and they have been successfully utilized in a number of recent

music education research studies (Byrne and MacDonald; 2002; MacDonald

and Byrne, 2002). A group approach is, however, novel and appropriate to

the study of interactive, performance-based music; and by examining how

Scottish musicians’ own conceptions of jazz interact with, and are shaped by,their conceptions of professional experience, the generalizability of other

ideas about jazz can be considered. It might be supposed that musical identities

should be strong among a group of Scottish professional jazz musicians; data

from focus groups should also promulgate theories on identity formation.

This article therefore aims to delineate constructions of jazz music and musi-

cians that are particularly relevant within the musical identity of a specific

group of practitioners, examining in what ways these ideas might interact

with their views of themselves and relate to the musical environment in

which they work. The research presented here adopts a social constructionistview of identity, within which identities are viewed as multiple, constantly

evolving and negotiated in the variety of social relations and influences

pertaining to everyday life (MacDonald and Miell, 2002). For a full discussion

of the social constructionist view of identities, see Wetherell (1996).

Method

Other studies have conducted individual interviews, tapping into personal

perceptions. However, if jazz is to be seen as a socially generated music, then

social understandings of it should be examined; if you create the music in a

group, it is worth asking a group about it. Focus group interviewing was

therefore adopted as methodology. Kitzinger and Barbour (2001) identify a

number of strengths of this technique for qualitative research. By providing a

group context, and allowing participants to direct the flow of conversation

amongst themselves, the active involvement of the interviewer/researcher

(and therefore the influence of their conceptions) can be minimized.

Furthermore, the conversational aspect causes individual formulations to be

negotiated in social interaction, making participants more likely to fore-

ground the meanings behind their accounts. What emerges from focus group

data, then, is a negotiated social construct rooted in the understanding of the

participants themselves.









In keeping with Kitzinger and Barbour’s methodology (2001), the agenda

and specific topics covered were to be at the discretion of participants as far as

possible. Interview materials were therefore kept to a minimum. An introduc-

tory statement was prepared to clarify what was expected of participants; a

newspaper article by a classical conductor on improvisation and composition(identified by the researchers) was quoted as a means of ‘kick starting’ con-

versation after this introduction. A range of issues had also been generated

through discussion between the researchers that were drafted as questions.

These were to be utilized as prompts to stimulate discussion only if the inter-

viewers/researchers felt the discussion was stalling or becoming protractedly

irrelevant. The study materials are presented in Appendix 1.

Focus groups, as an unstructured, qualitative interview technique, do not

require that those taking part are statistically representative of some larger

population; there should, however, be criteria for considering them to beamong those with whom the research is concerned. Following earlier studies

(Bastien and Hostager, 1988; Sawyer, 1992), interviewees were to be pro-

fessional jazz instrumentalists, in this case living in central Scotland.

Participants were therefore recruited from among those performing regularly

at established jazz venues in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those in full-time edu-

cation, and those whose main source of income was not playing music, were

discounted, as were singers. (The latter were considered to be involved in

qualitatively different psychological processes involving verbal language and

a less improvisatory musical role). Finally, given Monson’s (1996) argumentthat players of different instruments have different experiences of improvis-

ing in jazz, a mixture of rhythm section and ‘front line’ players was sought.

Using these criteria, the researchers identified a fairly limited population,

almost entirely male, and largely acquainted with each other. Most were also

well known to the researchers, one of whom contacted participants by tele-

phone inviting them to discuss jazz and improvisation with other musicians

at a university psychology department. They were told that they had been

contacted for this research as professional practitioners of the music. Once a

sufficient number of musicians had agreed to take part, two group interviews

were organized, with a mixture of instrumentalists in each. The first com-

prised five male participants: one drummer, one trumpeter, a guitarist, and

two bass players, ranging in age from early 20s to mid 60s. The second group

comprised six, again all male: two trumpeters, two saxophonists, a drummer

and a bass player, all in their mid-20s except for one musician of 37. Three

other musicians were contacted but could not attend at the arranged times;

another musician agreed to take part, but was not able to attend when

the time came. These numbers fall within Kitzinger and Barbour’s (2001)recommended limits. In keeping with qualitative methodology, the reflexive

influences of this recruitment strategy will be considered in the discussion.

The interviews took place on consecutive Monday afternoons in a room

used as a computer lab by the psychology department. Both focus groups









lasted one hour and were tape-recorded. The tapes were fully transcribed

using minimal phonetic conventions (Appendix 2). Coding followed the

guidelines offered by Frankland and Bloor (2001). Following repeated inspec-

tion of the transcripts, each of the two researchers coded these data under

individually developed categories representing emergent themes. Using the-matic analysis techniques (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998), these categorizations

were then compared and refined into a single system and checked for consist-

ency against the data from each focus group. The following section presents

the main themes identified through this procedure relating to the music (the

heading ‘Jazz is . . .’) and the musicians themselves (‘Jazz life is. . .’):

Jazz is . . .

● improvising and composing;

● swing;● collective processes;

● instrument differences.

Jazz life is . . .

● social context;

● professional context;

● being in a group;

● self and others.

Results

‘ JAZZ IS . . .’There was significant discussion at both groups regarding what features

distinguished jazz from other types of music.

Improvising and composing

Improvisation, as a much-vaunted attribute of jazz music and a creative

process of considerable interest, was purposely a subject of discussion. The

musicians talked about how improvisation operated in jazz; there was also

consideration of the balance of technical concerns with ‘intensity’ when

improvising, and its relationship in jazz music to composition.

Improvisation in jazz was seen at various points as a continuum of inter-

pretation of a tune:

What I used to do sometimes is just continue to try to find another tune to play

over the one that you’re playin’ and makin’ it fit as it’s an improvisation just

tryin’ to keep comin’ up with any other tune other than the one you’re doin’.(trumpeter)

Thus one drummer emphasized the internal tracking of a tune’s form as

central to his success in performance. However, it was also averred that the









‘greats’ would go beyond that to develop spontaneous riffs as ad hoc improvi-

sational structures during a performance.

maybe the bass player would take a solo and then bounce off the riff, he’d start

soloing maybe build another riff (.) Even maybe change the time. (guitarist)

Another participant described his appreciation of a much freer perform-

ance by a Norwegian band, whom he understood to be operating with

minimal ‘signposts’ to integrate a performance lacking any obvious tune. The

bass player in the second group suggested that a key aspect of jazz improvisa-

tion was in fact its cooperative division of creative labour:

And when you get something great happens in a jazz gig all of those things are

taking place. But it’s not just that one person has sat down with a pen and

written them all out. It’s by some, you know it’s quite astonishing really when

you think about it, that four or five or more people can (.) can TAKE CARE (.)t-can take care of all those details without actually planning it themselves.

(bass player)

Yet another of the musicians saw jazz as being distinguished by a greater

expectation of improvisation than other forms of music.

The second group frequently stressed improvisation as a learned skill, not

a ‘gift’. In particular, it was maintained that a combination of practice and

the accumulation of experience removed technical barriers to improvisation,

allowing you to ‘push yourself’ to play something you had not played before.

In this light, two types of improvisers were proposed – those who rely onrecycling ‘licks’ (favourite phrases from a personal repertoire), and those who

try to create anew every time. The latter practice was more highly valued, but

seen as rarer and harder to achieve. One trumpeter suggested that ‘when

you’re truly improvising you’re playing with this intensity’; the experience of

pushing yourself to play something new when improvising gave the perform-

ance ‘soul’. This led to discussions in the second group of whether ‘improvis-

ing a full solo of intense mistakes’ was justifiable in playing. Participants were

divided on this issue, with some valuing technically correct performances

over soulful ones with, for example, poor tone or tuning.

The first group, on the other hand, tended to discuss improvisation with

reference to composition, possibly in response to the introductory quote (see

Appendix 1). The real-time nature of improvisation was felt to distinguish it

from composition: it was ‘live’ and mistakes couldn’t be corrected:

I dunno, I mean composition you get to sit there going, what note will I

use next, but improvisation you’ve already used a’ the notes (1) too much.

(drummer)

In this respect, composition was seen as offering greater individualfreedom to create, while ‘more often than not’ with an improvisation, care is

required in order to improvise within the given stylistic conventions of an exist-

ing piece of music. In discussing composers who didn’t play an instrument, it









was suggested by one participant that they transmitted music as ‘heard in

their ear’. Improvisation, in contrast, was more strongly associated as a

creative practice with the playing of an instrument.

Improvisation, then, was seen as a stronger expectation in jazz than in

other forms of music, and was discussed both as the elaboration of a tune andas a looser form of collective creativity. Some participants described it as a

learned skill that allowed certain good improvisers to innovate in perform-

ance; but the intensity this could bring to a performance might also incur

technical errors unacceptable to some. The participants saw improvisation as

a form of creativity tied to instrumental practice, thus offering less individual

creative freedom than composing.

Swing

The participants, particularly those in the first group, also focused at manypoints on the importance of rhythmic pulse in jazz, referring to ‘swing’,

‘groove’ or the ‘feel’ of the music as a defining feature. The following extracts

highlight this:

their phrasing will be hinting at a swing feel. You know going to and from

because I think every (.) they want it to be there. You know they want it to feel

like that. (guitarist)

I still feel as if it’s a heavy swing, you know, cause it’s totally ingrained into the

player. (trumpeter)

As these extracts highlight, swing is described as corporeal; it is ‘felt’ first

and foremost. In fact, although the participants were in general agreement

that swing was important, it was often a somewhat nebulous concept for

them to articulate; it was ‘hard to nail it down’ and some present considered

that this shouldn’t be attempted.

You cannae talk aboot that stuff I don’t think, naebody’s gonnae put that one

down. (bass player)

Collective feel was also seen as a negotiation of individual senses of ‘swing’.

Nothing ever happens, it doesnae matter what presence it is, if the band’s no

the gither nothing ever happens that’s, you know. It’s got to be swinging and

the band totally the gither (.) and then a’ the rest improvises. (bass player)

‘Swing’ – the maintenance of a common and consistent pulse of a particu-

lar quality – was, then, widely seen as a central yet intangible quality in the

collaboration of musicians playing jazz.

Collective processes

The importance of creative interaction as an ensemble within jazz music was

a predominant theme:









I think that’s the first and foremost that should always come through in the

group as a unit, you know, actually working as a unit, and moving together as a

unit. (guitarist)

Successful creative interaction within an ensemble was voiced by many as

heightening the value of a performance, albeit somewhat mystically:

It’s a very fragile thing it could fall apart at any moment, but for that, even for a

moment everything just seems to suddenly come together. (drummer)

Conversation was repeatedly invoked by one participant as an apt metaphor

for this collective understanding of jazz improvisation.

Such a view was, however, often contrasted with the concept of individual

creativity in jazz. Participants described their own experience of the fulfil-

ment of self-expression through jazz improvisation, though reference was

also made to this as a questionable perception of the music:

I don’t know is there somethin’ aboot jazz music that has the status of the

individual as a soloist, ya know the Joe Bloggs quartet that has Joe Bloggs out

front showing off his fancy fingerwork that ya don’t necessarily get with, with,

with other types of music? (drummer)

Within jazz, the term ‘soloist’ customarily refers to a musician who is

improvising while the rest of the band fulfil an accompanying role. The

phrase ‘the status of the individual as a soloist’ in the above extract, then,

implies that improvisation is regarded as both a central feature of jazz andone tied to individual performance. However, the participant undercuts this

to indicate that he does not wholeheartedly support this view (‘out front

showing off his fancy fingerwork’).

A perceived tension between collective and individual creativity, such as

that identified by Sawyer, therefore emerged in the accounts presented at

these interviews. On balance, achieving the requisite collective interaction

was voiced as more important than individual goals of self-expression.

Different instrumentsSome participants also considered the implications of playing different

instruments in jazz, perceiving differences between musicians depending

upon their instrument.

T1: Is it hard for you to listen to [Miles Davis] because you’re a trumpet player d’you

think?

T2: Yeah, oh yeah. If I wasn’t a trumpet player I’d probably think it was fantastic

like, ehm, I could probably listen to someone playin’ the drums who wasn’t

quite on it and not notice the flaws, the fluctuations in time and things that, if

he was doin’ stuff that wasn’t quite on it, where you [drummer] would instantlyrecognize that.

(2 trumpeters)

In particular, a different functional role for rhythm section players was seen









as giving them a different experience of playing jazz, and therefore different

sensibilities and priorities:

I mean if you play in the rhythm section you’re constantly interactive with a

whole tune anyway, if you’re the frontline player you have to play the head and

sound and then, och whatever, you’re not playing the whole tune so it’s kind of you’re put in a different place performance-wise. (guitarist)

In such extracts, rhythm section players (drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.)

suggest that they are more concerned with a constant level of musical inter-

action whereas ‘front line’ players (saxophonists, trumpeters, trombonists,

etc.) will be more focused upon their own solo section, or perhaps in playing a

theme. However, one musician felt that the distinction between soloing and

accompaniment was common to all instrumentalists in analogous aspects of

their respective roles:Em, cause in, when you play a solo (.) you switch from being eh a subsidiary

voice to principal voice (.) In the same way that if you were a horn player and

you were playing backing figures you’re not playing the same, well you’re, even

if you were improvising backing figures. You wouldn’t do it in the same way as

when you were playing a solo. (bass player)

Participants felt, then, that the process of playing jazz would be qualified

by the role of the instrument they played, such that players may be more

focused either on collective interaction or individual improvisation.

‘ JAZZ LIFE IS . . .’As well as discussing what defined jazz, the participants discussed what

comprised the life of a jazz musician, positioning themselves in relation to

these emergent identities.

Social context

A general stereotype of jazz musicians receiving little financial reward for

their endeavours in comparison to other musicians was attested to. The

second group agreed with one participant that classical musicians, for

example, enjoy a higher status in terms of getting paid and are better looked

after while performing:

Absolutely. Ye- Look at classical musicians, it’s like a different (.) world. You get

(.) I, did a couple of classical gigs there. It’s just amazing. How different it is. If

you’re out after midnight you get paid more, you get a proper meal at the gig, if

you’re out after midnight somebody pays for a taxi take you home, turn up

somebody’s put your music’s on the stand in order, if you play a guitar or some-

thing like that there’s an amp, a lead, everything sitting there for you. Turn up

at a jazz gig and . . . saxophonist)

If jazz musicians were seen as poor, the musical satisfaction in playing the

music could be offset against this. There was more of a challenge and more

recognition of musicianship in jazz:









I got into jazz cause it was a musical challenge. Like I’d been playin’ in rock

bands for about five years before I started playing jazz and I hated the whole

rock and pop scene where you just got a record contract and the singer drove a

Ferrari while you had a Robin Reliant you know . . . (drummer)

Problems that were raised included fatigue, hectic schedules and financialdemands keeping one from practising and playing the music you wanted to.

Although there were jokes about drinking, the second group established the

view that this was not appropriate when ‘working’. It was discussed as a

characteristic of an earlier generation of jazz musicians, seen as a failing and

associated with lesser musical ability. When the stereotype of a debilitative

‘jazz life’ (problems of addiction and poor health, cf. Spence 2001; Wills,

2003) was raised by one facilitator in the second group, this was roundly

rejected, and seen as more typical of other genres. The first group did not

discuss problems other than money. Some members seemed more at easewith the idea of jazz taking place within a (male) culture of drinking and

socializing, undermining the idea of jazz as a rarefied activity separate from

their everyday life:

T: Cause certainly I know if I’m doing, if I’m improvising I’m playing a solo, I am

not thinking of anything.

D: Just the 30 quid at the end of the night. [lots of laughter] And that lassie’s tits.

(trumpeter and drummer)

The social life of a jazz musician, then, was at various times seen as one of relative poverty and hard work; attitudes to the association of playing jazz

with drinking ranged from acceptance to disapproval.

Professional context

Being a professional required a jazz musician to switch between many genres

with facility. Proficiency in this was a source of pride:

[Another participant] said something about ‘You didn’t sound like a bunch of

jazzers playing that kind of music, you sounded like people who kind of were

good at playing that kind of music’. (drummer)

But maintaining professionalism could also be stifling; the demands of

switching styles could be inhibitory:

I’ve done gigs when I just can’t play, I’ve been doing panto for two months or

something then I get a jazz gig and I’m like (.) what do I do here! (drummer)

Jazz was cast as an improvised music centred on live performance. One

participant, for example, realized that, although recording formed an impor-

tant strand of work, he was rarely asked to record jazz, instead retaking andoverdubbing to create note-perfect snatches in other musical genres. Another

equated gigs for money with playing the same way every time. Playing unful-

filling gigs you didn’t want to was acknowledged by this participant as ‘part

of being a musician’, rather than something specific to jazz. But for these jazz









musicians, this usually involved playing music other than jazz, or lacking the

qualities they ascribed to jazz (rather than just playing tired material, or

playing to uninterested audiences). The same participant found that taking a

pride in playing other music well justified the effort and expenditure, and

offset the adversity.However, it was felt that the circumstances of many jazz gigs also imposed

constraints. Playing in pubs, for example, meant accepting that the audience

was there to drink. Lack of support for rehearsing meant that many gigs

relied on rigid structures and either reading from lead sheets or the calling of

overworked tunes. One participant, who had played with many visiting

artists, saw this as laziness bred through familiarity. He described the stimula-

tion and heightened level of improvisation arising from working with a

visiting ‘great’ on this basis:

B1: Well, no I find it different when visitors come in and take charge ae a band, then

they start I mean, ye dinnae get that ‘play the tune, trumpet, tenor, piano,

drums’ you know and a’ that. Wi’ fours, and that makes it (.) It happens mair

spasmodically and it’s a’ changed a’ the time. Every tune is different. It keeps

you on your toes.

B2: Is that cause it gives you a bit more inspiration?

D: I think, I think we’re aw capable of doing that as well, it’s just we don’t.

B1: That’s what I’m saying // that’s what I’m saying.

D: You know we turn up to a gig and we’re // like that, ‘och fuck it’.

B1: That’s what I’m saying we don’t do it.

D: ‘It’s [local venue] again let’s just play “So What”. You take the first solo’.

(2 bass players and drummer)

The practices of relying on known conventions and material have been

argued elsewhere as allowing improvisation to function (Bastien and

Hostager, 1988); but there was some argument in the excerpt above that this

led to excessively formulaic approaches (‘head, solos, head’) among musicians

who played together regularly, on the same ‘scene’.

Professional life, then, required jazz musicians to remain proficient and

adaptive in playing a range of musical genres; such work often representedan economic necessity, and could be seen as an obstacle to jazz commitments.

Engagements that were available for jazz were also frequently unsatisfactory.

Such constraints may lead to over-reliance on ‘jam session’ practices.

Being in a group

Under the heading ‘Jazz is . . .’ (above), it was seen that individual and collec-

tive creativity were often viewed as existing in balance with each other in

jazz. There was some indication that ‘really improvising’, though rare, was a

heightened form of self-expression, that it ‘pushed boundaries’ from ‘a per-sonal point of view’. Yet this was also characterized as a collective creativity.

Social interaction therefore becomes extremely important in its execution:









D: Well (.) what, what would make it a difference between a g- a good gig and a bad

gig?

S1: Who’s on drums!

(drummer and saxophonist)

As mentioned previously, conversation was repeatedly evoked as an analogyby one participant, leading another to suggest that in improvising jazz one

‘tends to work with people that you might like to talk to’. Such people were

more likely to ‘latch onto what it is that you are trying to do’:

I’ve been doing gigs with the same people for a while, I think it certainly does,

make the gig much more enjoyable. You get into it more (.) get to know each

other’s playing and therefore, that kind of musical conversation that you were

talking about becomes a bit easier. (trumpeter)

Participants in the second group in particular spoke of having to learn tosuppress their individuating impulses:

it’s not just like ‘oh well I feel like playin’ this’ ya know cause you have to take

into account that everyone else is there. (bass player)

I think you’re right about the ego thing. I mean I certainly was, when I was

younger (.) I probably had a bigger ego than I do now. So it’s kinda taken me (.)

age and maturity to realize that it’s music I’m playin’ and not showin’ off, d’ya

know what I mean? (trumpeter)

Similarly, distaste was expressed for musicians who followed their own

impulses at the expense of the ensemble. A band, it was felt, needs to feel

‘safe’ for proper improvising to take place.

The emphasis identified earlier on the collective aspect of jazz creativity

has an analogue in the awareness of these participants that they must

behave as part of an ensemble to be a jazz musician, or learn to do so.

Self and others

I mean oh, I, I count myself as, I’ve got a bit of a background in classical music

but I would call myself a jazz musician. (trumpeter)

Participants occasionally asked each other, possibly rhetorically, whether

they saw themselves as jazz musicians, or simply musicians, or practitioners

of a particular instrument.

D: I see it more as being a (.) a musician.

T1: Yeah so, very true. I’d rather, I don’t want to be (.) I don’t want to be a jazz

musician.

(drummer and trumpeter)

In fact, there was some repositioning of themselves depending on what wasbeing talked about. The trumpeter’s assertion above was later questioned by

another participant:









T1: Tell them to give us, all the jazz musicians all the money.

T2: You’re not a jazz musician though.

T1: I know. [general laughter]

(trumpeter from previous quote and another trumpeter)

Aside from exchanges over whether the participants should classify them-selves as ‘jazz musicians’, there was, however, very little discussion by partici-

pants of their personal experiences and abilities, particularly within the

second group. Conversation was more focused on ‘jazz musicians’ as an

abstract type, drawing on theories of music or received wisdom (‘Wynton

Marsalis has said . . .’ etc.).

There were, however, frequent occasions when the views of ‘others’ were

discussed – musicians from other genres, audiences and other jazz musicians:

everyone in the band’s like a classical musician and they say, ‘oh this is really

jazzy, you’ll like this, you’ll really enjoy it’, you get (.) the bass part’s like ‘bom

bom bom bom bom bom’ ya know and you, like, I don’t really think that’s jazz

at all. (bass player).

These exchanges frequently distanced, somewhat clannishly, jazz musicians

from these others – ‘the lassie I was with’, the ‘punters’, ‘classical musicians’, etc.:

the thing is that, eh, only one point one percent of them, eh, of people that are

non-musicians can tell the difference between a jazz musician who’s doing it

properly and a jazz musician who’s not doing it properly. (trumpeter)

What emerged was a process of constant negotiation by which individual and

group identities were constructed. Other musicians were seen by the first

group as subscribing to popular stereotypes of jazz and jazz musicians being

‘confusing and austere’. The ‘angst’ of many classical musicians at ‘how they

can’t improvise’ was the subject of some scorn or bewilderment:

Classical musicians don’t understand what it’s like to be musicians. (drummer)

Musicians in weekend tribute bands, on the other hand, were seen as lacking

the harmonic knowledge necessary for their improvisation to be creative. Yet a

double standard emerged to some extent, in that the attempts of non-jazz players

at the music were also derided for lacking the necessary stylistic awareness:

you get a classical opera singer and let them go and record some Gershwin

tunes with a nice rhythm section and eh I think it always just sucks so badly it,

it just doesn’t work. (trumpeter)

This may reflect tensions between the attitudes of different group members.

It was variously propounded that one should play to one’s strengths, or stick

to what one knew:

be honest maybe wi’ yersel’ as well you know and think ‘maybe that tune’s not

quite right for what I’m doin’ and ma style of playing’. You know ‘maybe I

shouldn’t touch that’. (guitarist)









Or, that a jazz musician should play all styles of music. Thus, one drummer

averred that he would only hire musicians for a band who were appropriate

to that genre, while he would happily perform whatever the gig required:

There’s definitely players I would hire for a swing gig and other players I would

for a funk. Ye know. I wouldnae expect any player to be able to play any of thosestyles (.) well. They could, they could do it competently, like in a theatre band or

something like that. Play a bit o’ swing, a bit of funk. (drummer)

This double standard was subsequently acknowledged through humour:

Sometimes players get upset about things like that but it’s the real world you

know, naebody can dae everythin’ (.) Except me. [laughter] And [trumpeter

present]. (drummer)

At various times, then, jazz was seen as an arcane stylistic vocabulary only

accessible to jazz musicians; yet these jazz musicians could and should applythemselves to many other forms of music. While classical music was often

seen as ‘other’, all musicians interviewed described playing in some genre of

music other than jazz.

Attitudes towards the audiences and listeners ranged from antipathy to

unconcern. Two musicians made frequent sarcastic asides about audiences at

pub gigs:

D: Oh, they’re not intelligent enough to understand.

S1: Well they’re not, we all hate them. (drummer and saxophonist)

They were perceived with some exasperation as wanting to hear only the

replication of familiar music, or as not wanting to listen, only to drink:

S1: You want your music to be received and it doesn’t (.) they don’t even need to like

it. It just needs to (.) a-as-as a musician it’s . . .

T2: At least just, fuckin’ listen to it.

S1: Yeh!

(saxophonist and trumpeter)

This led the second group to reach a consensus that the absence of any listeners

could lead to a heightened musical experience:

to me the best playing experiences I’ve had have been away from audiences

because then any of that stuff (.) goes out the window, and you-you’re only

playing (.) for the sake of the music. Be-because you really want to play the

music. (drummer)

While participants tended not to discuss their individual self-identities,

then, a strong in-group identification emerged at both groups in relation to

other musicians and the public at large. Jazz emerges here as a music for initi-ates, with the musicians identifying with each other and against ‘others’. In

this, it was acknowledged that the ideas at these groups were a construction

of this particular configuration of people:









I’m just saying certain musicians. See they prioritize different things in the

music for themselves (.) I would agree the swing thing kind of is a defining

element but that’s me and whoever’s here. You know. There are certain musi-

cians that we widnae work wi’. Who’ve got probably different ideas. I mean

everybody’s got a different idea of what jazz is. (drummer)

Discussion

Various features of ‘jazz’ were drawn from the accounts of participants in

these focus groups. Improvisation, on a spectrum from variation to sponta-

neous innovation, was more expected in jazz. While this was to be achieved

through dedicated acquisition of musical skill, technical facility may be

compromised by the ‘intensity’ of innovation; the centrality of playing con-

strained individual creativity. Creating ‘swing’ as an ensemble was affirmed

as central, nonetheless, and successful collective interaction was generally

perceived as a greater priority than individual musical processes in perform-

ance. Instrumental roles were, however, expected to influence musicians’

priorities on the interaction/individuation dimension. Similarly, a number

of perspectives on being a jazz musician emerged. Popular stereotypes of

dissipation were countered with professional ideals of versatility and graft to

earn sufficiently, while maintaining commitment to the music against

demands on time and lack of opportunity. Being able to engage in social and

musical processes as part of a band or the wider jazz community (or learningto do so) was essential; in-group identity as a jazz musician was negotiated in

these interviews through strong contrasts to other musicians and audiences,

rather than through self-reflection.

The accounts of these Scottish musicians, then, share a number of fea-

tures with the understandings of jazz in other literature exploring the views

of musicians themselves. Like Sawyer’s (1992) interviewees, participants in

this study talked of the importance of collective interaction within a real-

time framework, showed ambivalent dispositions towards the interactional

influence of the audience and positioned the music variously betweeninternal and interpersonal creative awareness. The importance of shared

understandings and practices in musical, social and cultural terms is concor-

dant with the findings of Sharron (1985), Bastien and Hostager (1988) and

Davidson and Good (2002). Also, various attributions of the music (the

primacy of maintaining a ‘swing’ feel, instrumental differences and the anal-

ogy of conversation) and the lifestyle (the emphasis on hard work, dedication

and a sense of community) echo Monson’s (1996) findings. However, while

ethnomusicological work has used qualitative methods to establish the

personal meanings of practitioners, contextual issues relating to the produc-tion of these discourses are rarely addressed. For instance, while Monson

acknowledges that her interviewees are known to each other and herself (as

colleague or student) and are predominantly male, the influence of such









factors on how the understandings of the music emerge is not explored.

Thus, a non-sexist explanation of the title ‘A Drum Is a Woman’ is accepted as

authentic, rather than as possibly a version least likely to offend a female

pupil (1996: 64). Furthermore, asking one musician on his own to reflect on

music previously recorded by his ensemble must inevitably elicit a partialunderstanding, for instance in the attribution of blame when a band has ‘lost

the form’ of a tune (1996: 96). Psychological theory emphasizes that such

understandings are a function of the circumstances under which the inter-

view takes place (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). The use of group rather than

individual interviews in the present study allows these issues to be addressed.

Differences observed between the understandings of jazz and jazz musicians

put forward by the two groups highlight their constructed nature. These are

outlined below, and explored by considering reflexive aspects of how the

interviews came about.Group 1 were more concerned with stylistic considerations within jazz,

defined improvisation in relation to composition and tended to characterize

collective interaction with reference to the kind of musicians responsible for

its failure. Group 2, in contrast, emphasized the dedicated learning of instru-

mental skills and harmonic knowledge, were concerned with innovation and

‘mistakes’, invoked more ‘great names’ and tended to describe collective

interaction as something whose importance they had come to appreciate.

Furthermore, while members of both groups attested to ineffable qualities of

successful performance, these were related to establishing swing feel by thefirst group but to achieving intensity in individual improvisation by the

second. These differences may be explained by contrasts in age, instrumental

roles, or experience between the two groups. Group 1 were generally older,

had more diverse musical backgrounds, and all but one were ‘rhythm section’

players. Group 2, on the other hand, were in general younger musicians with

more similar backgrounds, and contained a majority of ‘frontline’ players.

But importantly, these differences highlight constructive processes taking

place – the group discourses depend on the individual perspectives negotiated.

It is important that this constructive aspect of musicians’ views gathered

through unstructured interviewing is recognized – the definitions of jazz and

the ‘jazz life’ provided in these findings must be understood in relation to how

they were arrived at.

A number of reflexive issues are pertinent to these results. The study

sought to establish the views of some professional jazz musicians; however

the recruitment criteria for that approach will inevitably have shaped the

definitions reached. Most notably, all the participants were male, with a pre-

ponderance of musicians in their 20s. Almost all knew and worked with eachother and were acquainted with the researchers; relations therefore existed

between those present shaped by previous social and professional experience.

Many of them wanted to know in advance who would be attending. The

circumstances of the interview – meeting up in a psychology department in









the middle of the day to have their discussions recorded – were somewhat out

of the ordinary for them. Thus there was some uncertainty, manifested for

instance in their reluctance to name other musicians they talked about, or

stopping short after swearing. Finally, the introductory material used meant

the discussions emanated from a particular frame of reference: the statedresearch interests, and the comment of a classical conductor.

These aspects of the interviews can enrich the understanding of the

results presented above. While hardship was reported, men may be more likely

to express dissatisfaction with a lack of financial reward, and Scottish jazz

musicians earning more may spend more time playing outside the ‘Central

Belt’, and be less ‘on the scene’. Uncertainty over the destination of the

research findings may even have caused participants to overstate disadvan-

tage – one participant suggested the researchers should ‘send this to the Arts

Council’. The approbation of playing different genres of music may havereflected a perception that the researchers had eclectic tastes, or that those

present had different backgrounds. It may also have been motivated by a

desire to avoid being pigeonholed – participants were told at the start that

they had been recruited as professional musicians who played jazz. Also, the

emergence of consensus on various issues, particularly the importance of

‘blending’ with your fellow musicians, must to some degree reflect that those

present anticipated working together again. The participants would be likely,

given this, to moderate their views to those they perceive in their colleagues.

Finally, the discussions inevitably present a masculine point of view (‘theguys are the gither’, ‘they have to have the balls to say you’re gonnae listen to

me’, etc.) within which the team-like aspect of collective creativity may be a

more accessible discourse. It seems likely that, had there been any women

present, the conversations would have proceeded in quite different ways.

Nevertheless, the composition of these groups still (unfortunately) reflects

the majority of professional circumstances in jazz. A useful direction for

future research would be to explore the gendered nature of the ‘jazz life’,

gaining access to the views of female musicians.

The emergence of group constructions of identity and the lack of intro-

spective statements, then, could be seen as an outcome of the participants

exploring why they had been chosen. Asserting a group stance on issues may

have seemed safer, given participants’ likely uncertainty, than overtly describ-

ing individual experience. The partial nature of these constructions can be

seen in the differences between the two groups. But if the group identities

that they established do reflect the context of the interviews, they should

demonstrate how identities are established in the social and professional

contexts of being a jazz musician. It is also apparent from these data thatbeing a jazz musician is one of a number of possible musical identities for

these musicians, one that allows them to perceive themselves as a group.

Given the arguments of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), it might also be

expected that the limited opportunities for jazz in Scotland described by the









participants would create a need for a collective musical identity strongly

perceived as positive with regard to ‘others’.

This research has implications for jazz education. If the ability to access

and operate within the perspectives of a local ‘jazz community’ are essential

to functioning as a jazz musician, then it becomes important for aspiringmusicians to be able to position themselves and their musical practice in rela-

tion to available discourses and the expectations of others. Tradition, for

example, emerged as an important vehicle for reinforcing group identity; but

dedication to this had to be balanced with the professional demands of play-

ing in multiple genres. There are also important concerns raised here for any

research into the perceptions of practitioners of jazz. While their views are

vital to our understanding of the music and its psychological processes, they

must be understood as constructions fulfilling a function in the context of an

interview. A subsequent work will examine further the discursive implica-tions of the data in this study. Other research priorities in the light of this

study are to elucidate differences between individual and group constructions

of jazz, the influence of age, gender and instrument played on those con-

structions, and the gathering of perspectives from practitioners throughout

the jazz diaspora (Johnson, 2002). Instead of looking to musicians to supply

us with an ‘authentic’ description of jazz, then, we should perhaps look at

how they use the ideas of ‘jazz’ or the ‘jazz life’ to frame what they do. A

recently completed project involves interviews with six male and four female

professional jazz musicians based in London (MacDonald and Wilson, inpress; Wilson and MacDonald, in press).

Conclusions

This study has identified the perceptions of two focus groups of Scottish jazz

professionals on jazz music and lifestyle. Jazz was seen as a collaborative, real-

time music dependent on the establishment of swing feel, with a tension

between individual and collective creativity. This heightened the need for

musicians to identify and operate as part of an ensemble and a wider jazz

community. The qualitative approach adopted has produced findings consis-

tent with the views of practitioners identified elsewhere in the literature. The

definitions provided were part of ‘being a jazz musician’, one of multiple

identities for these musicians. While this identity is important to continuing

and participating in the music, it is negotiated (rather than shared) in the

group context in relation to individual musical identities and the perceived

dispositions of others.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This research was supported by British Academy Research grants – reference

numbers SG - 38698 and SG - 36827.









R E F E R E N C E S

Bastien, D.T. and Hostager, T.J. (1988) ‘Jazz as a Process of Organizational

Innovation’, Communication Research 15(5): 582–602.

Becker, H. (2000) ‘The Etiquette of Improvisation’, Mind, Culture, and Activity 7(3):

171–6.Berliner, P. (1994) Thinking In Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Byrne, C. and MacDonald, R.A.R. (2002). ‘The Use of Information and

Communication Technology (I&CT) in the Scottish Music Curriculum: A Focus

Group Investigation of Themes and Issues’, Music Education Research 4(2): 263–75.

Cooke, M. and Horne, D. (2002) The Cambridge Companion to Jazz. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Dalzell, T. (2002) ‘Jazz in the Scottish Secondary Music Curriculum’, paper presented

at Researching Creativity in Music Education (SEMPRE), Glasgow, October.

Davidson, J.W. and Good, J.M.M. (2002) ‘Social and Musical Co-ordination betweenMembers of a String Quartet: An Exploratory Study’, Psychology of Music 30:

186–201.

Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.

London: Sage

Fischlin, D. and Heble, A. (2004) The Other Side of Nowhere: Jazz Improvisation and

Communities in Dialogue. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.

Frankland, J. and Bloor, M. (2001) ‘Some Issues Arising in the Systematic Analysis of

Focus Group Materials’, in R.S. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus

Group Research, pp. 144–55. London: Sage.

Giddens, A. (2001) Modernity and Self Identity. Cambridge: Polity.Hargreaves, D., MacDonald, R.A.R., and Miell, D. (2002) ‘What Are Music Identities’,

in R.A.R. MacDonald, D. Miell, and D. Hargreaves (eds) Musical Identities,

pp. 1–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harter, S. (1999) The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. New York:

Guilford Press.

Johnson, B. (2002) ‘The Jazz Diaspora’, in M. Cooke and D. Horne (eds) The Cambridge

Companion to Jazz, pp. 33–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, F. (2001) ‘Jazz and the Resilience of African Americans’, in F. Jones and A.C.

Jones (eds) The Triumph of the Soul: Cultural and Psychological Aspects of African

American Music, pp. 127–51. Westport, CT: Praeger.Kernfeld, B. (1997) What to Listen for in Jazz. New York: Yale University Press.

Kitzinger, J. and Barbour, R.S. (2001) ‘The Challenge and Promise of Focus Groups’,

in R.S. Barbour and J. Kitzinger (eds) Developing Focus Group Research, pp. 1–20.

London: Sage.

Lewis, G.E. (2004) ‘Improvised Music after 1950: Afrological and Eurological

Perspectives’, in D. Fischlin, and A. Heble, The Other Side of Nowhere: Jazz

Improvisation and Communities in Dialogue, pp. 131 – 63. Connecticut: Wesleyan

University Press.

MacDonald, R.A.R. and Byrne, C. (2002) ‘Teaching Strategies in the Music

Classroom: The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies’, MusicEducation International 1: 44–56.

MacDonald, R.A.R. and Miell, D.E. (2002) ‘Music for Individuals With Special Needs:

A Catalyst for Developments in Identity, Communication and Musical Ability’, in

R.A.R. MacDonald, D.J. Hargreaves and D.E. Miell (eds) Musical Identities,

pp. 163–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.









MacDonald, R.A.R. and Wilson, G.B. (in press) ‘Constructions of Jazz: How Jazz

Musicians Present Their Collaborative Musical Practice’, Musicae Scientiae.

MacDonald, R.A.R., Miell, D.E. and Hargreaves, D.J. (2002) Musical Identities. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Madiot, B. (1996) ‘Identité Sociale et Positionnement dans le Champ Professionel: Le

Cas des Musiciens de Jazz’, Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale 32:33–53.

Miell, D.E., MacDonald R.A.R, and Hargreaves D.J. (2005) Musical Communication.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Monson, I. (1996) Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes

and Behaviour. London: Sage.

Pressing, J. (1998) ‘Psychological Constraints on Improvisational Expertise and

Communication’, in B. Nettl and M. Russell (eds) In the Course of Performance:

Studies in the World of Musical Improvisation, Chicago Studies in Ethnomusicology,pp. 47–68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sawyer, K. (1992) ‘Improvisational Creativity: An Analysis of Jazz Performance’,

Creativity Research Journal 5(3): 253–63.

Sharron, A. (1985) ‘The Mainstream of Consciousness: An Interactionist Analysis of

a Phenomenological Concept’, Symbolic Interaction 8(1): 47–62.

Sloboda, J. A. (1985) The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Spence S.A. (2001) ‘Dementia Praecox and the Birth of Jazz’, paper presented at the

Royal College of Psychiatrists Summer Meeting, August, London.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Walser, R. (1997) ‘Deep Jazz: Notes on Interiority, Race and Criticism’, in J. Pfister and

N. Schnog (eds) Inventing the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional

Life in America, pp. 271–96. London: Yale University Press.

Wetherell, M. (1996) Identities, Groups and Social Issues. London: Sage.

Wills, G.I. (2003) ‘Forty Lives in the Bebop Business: Mental Health in a Group of

Eminent Jazz Musicians’, The British Journal of Psychiatry 183: 255–9.

Wilson,G.B., and MacDonald R.A.R. (in press) ‘The Meaning of the Blues: Musical

Identities in Talk About Jazz’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4).

Appendix 1: focus group materials

INTRODUCTION PROTOCOL

These notes were used to brief the participants at the start of the interviews:

Initial study into how a range of practising jazz musicians view themselves as impro-

visers, and how they explain to other people what they do. Not much been done on

this before, and there should, since it’s a unique form of music.

Looked for professional jazz improvisers as best placed to understand the process; and

a range of different instrumentalists. Obviously all play other forms of music. Butyou’re all fairly busy as jazz musicians – have all spent a lot of time improvising in that

genre with other musicians.

This is a focus group; ideally, we’d just like you all to talk to each other about being jazz

improvisers, and how you improvise. To try and get your views of what’s important









and not ours, we want to take as little part in this as possible; should also emphasize

that we’re not testing you, to see if you give ‘right’ or ‘wrong answers. We have some

broad questions we can ask to get the ball rolling or steer things back on course if the

discussion goes too far off track. You can say as much or as little as you want; we

might try and come in on the conversation if it seems that someone isn’t getting a

chance to chip in. Other than that, leave you to it for about an hour; though if some orall of you want to run on a bit, that’s fine.

The conversation’s being tape-recorded for us to transcribe and look at later. One of us

will be taking notes; this is just to make it easier to know who’s talking when we’re

listening back. However, it’s only us that will ever hear the tape, and nobody will be

named on the transcript.

We’ll be writing up what we find to be published as an article/ presented at a confer-

ence; again,nobody would be named in that. Will let you know what comes out if you

like. Also try and go on to more work on the basis of what you tell us.

Do you have any questions? You can always get back to us later.

INIT IAL Q UO TE

The following quote, from an interview with the conductor Michael Tilson Thomas

published in the Guardian newspaper, was read out to start the discussion:

Composing takes more than simply enjoying the feel of the notes and the

fingers that gifted improvisers share with us.

POSSIBLE PROMPTS

The following list of questions were generated in discussions between the two

researchers for potential use as prompts during the focus group interviews discussedin this study. In practice, the researchers intervened on very few occasions; most of

these questions were therefore never put directly to the participants.

What is jazz?What makes jazz different from (similar to?) other forms of music?

How are different formats of band different to play in (trio, big band, etc.)?

What are the important features of playing jazz?

What’s the current state of jazz? What are the trends?

How does rehearsing compare to performing, and to recording?

What difference does it make where you’re playing?

How do you think about jazz and improvisation outwith [outside of] playing time?

What is it like to improvise in forms of music other than jazz?

What do you practise to improvise?

What is it important to know?

What’s good improvising/bad improvising?

What’s the difference between when you’re soloing and when someone else is?

How easy is it to live as a jazz musician?

What distinguishes you from other musicians?

What’s a typical/good/bad day?

What’s it like being a jazz musician here? What would it be like elsewhere?

How would you describe yourself? [How much detail?]

What’s particular about the instrument you play?

What goes through your head on a gig?

What do you have to take into account when playing?









Can you describe the first time you improvised, or your early experience of

improvising? What’s changed for you since then?

Why did you choose or come to be an improviser? Why do you stick with it?

Where do you see yourself going?

What’s a good gig?

What do you see as your repertoire? Given your own gig, what would you play?What standards do you set yourself? What’s difficult/easy?

What’s it like the first time you improvise with another musician?

What difference can it make who’s in the band?

How do other people/musicians view you as improvisers?

Why do other people book you for their bands?

What do you look for in sidemen/leaders/rhythm sections/horn players?

Who are you playing for?

How do you play together? Who and what do you listen out for?

Appendix 2: transcription key

(.) = pause

(1) = pause of one second or longer

// = overlap; next line starts here

Emphasis in original speech indicated by underlining

LOUDER speech written in uppercase

Where necessary, explanations of material are included within square brackets [ ]

Initials to indicate speaker in dialogic excerpts refer to speaker’s instrument, e.g. T1

indicates first trumpeter.

R AY M O ND M AC D O NA L D is Reader in Psychology at Glasgow Caledonian University.

He is an associate editor of Psychology of Music and conference secretary for

SEMPRE. He has also been Artistic Director for a music production company, Sounds

of Progress, working with individuals who have special needs. He is an experienced

saxophonist and is currently director of the Glasgow Improvisers Orchestra.

Address: Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens

Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. [email: [email protected]]

G R AE M E W I LS O N is currently research assistant at Glasgow Caledonian University. He

gained a PhD in Psychology from the University of Glasgow, investigating separated

fathers and their co-parental role. His previous work includes investigating children’s

collaboration on musical composition, and the musical identities of musicians with

special needs. He has worked in Scotland for many years as a saxophonist.

Address: Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens

Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. [email: [email protected].


Documents

Psychology of Music 2005 Macdonald 395 417