A few years ago I read an article about the Said Business School at the University of Oxford hosting a conference on music and business models. (A prize to anyone who can track down this article, by the way...) The major point of the demonstration was one that seems clear enough to most ensemble musicians: that when we work together in a community, we work differently than we do on our own, that the sum is bigger/better than the component parts, that dynamic unity is a result of a group that has some things in common and others not, and so on. I gave a bit of a laugh reading the articles the first time around: as if somehow a group of HR reps were calling upon the muses to breath human life into their Frankensteinian corporate behemoth... but if their corporate environments were so sterile as to need musicians to remind them that people like to work with other people, that bouncing ideas off other people can garner new ideas, or that people have personalities outside of their job descriptions, then I suppose the conference needed to be had.
All of that said, it's a message we all need to hear on occasion. And so, here are a few metaphors I've picked up lately from music.
I was reminded of the article today whilst working with BYU Singers on a setting of Psalm 116 for double choir, set by Tomas Luis de Victoria (1548-1611). The concept of the piece is reasonably clear: one choir usually splits itself in two and alternate phrases of the text and music, then sing together at the climax points. The musical effect is something like live stereo (which doesn't usually come off well in recordings, unfortunately). The technical requirements for the choir are a little more complicated: the singers divide into eight separate parts, rather than the more traditional four, which means each singer has double the responsibility to execute the notes, rhythms, phrasing, etc., and also how to align that part with seven others, all of which are moving at different times and in different directions. In some ways, this type of music is the poster-metaphor for an (ahem) harmonious confluence of individualism and collectivism - all the moving parts have individual integrity and creativity, and are all the while being mediated and bounded by - and mediating and binding - the other parts in the musical environment. The sonic effect is as interesting for its linear qualities - each lines presents its own melodies - as it is for its striking vertical sonorities - created by the multiple notes being presented simultaneously.
But of course it's not just musicians who are constantly expected to be doing many things at once: listening, thinking, producing sounds, matching those to the sounds around them. The situation is even greater with solo performers: an organist playing a Bach fugue, for example, has three or four or five lines to produce all at once, all through the control of ten fingers and two feet. and it seems that all of those notes need constant attention... how do they do it?
On the one hand, performing polyphonic music sounds a lot like multitasking: paying attention to multiple things happening at the same time. (We'll not mention the plethora of subconscious things that people do on a regular basis: breathing, maintaining a physical equilibrium, internal pH and body temperature, etc.)
But there's a fundamental difference in the mental/physical sensation of playing an instrument and, say reading text messages whilst watching a movie, or applying make-up whilst driving and eating breakfast. The sensation of playing a piece well is one of intense concentration, and even if I am concentrating on one line over the others, which is often the case, my concentration on that one element enhances the performance of the others. But effect of other 'multitasking' operations I perform has quite the opposite effect: my oatmeal is decidedly less tasty when I eat it while driving to school. And I'm pretty sure my driving isn't any better, either.
The headline Stanford research on media multitasking observes that the latter effect is more common: people who multitask aren't actually better at anything, especially on concentrating or remembering things. Here's the short review of their research that hit the news in 2009:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html
And the longer one:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/21/0903620106.full.pdf+html
Here's my long post-short conclusion: our brains do not necessarily function in a linear fashion, we aren't doing ourselves any favors by toggling between information sources in an attempt to take more in. The better way to take in more information, fire more synapses, and draw more conclusions, is to focus on one task for a longer period of time, and let our brains do the rest of the remembering and processing in the background whilst we direct our attentions to the one at hand.
All of that said, it's a message we all need to hear on occasion. And so, here are a few metaphors I've picked up lately from music.
I was reminded of the article today whilst working with BYU Singers on a setting of Psalm 116 for double choir, set by Tomas Luis de Victoria (1548-1611). The concept of the piece is reasonably clear: one choir usually splits itself in two and alternate phrases of the text and music, then sing together at the climax points. The musical effect is something like live stereo (which doesn't usually come off well in recordings, unfortunately). The technical requirements for the choir are a little more complicated: the singers divide into eight separate parts, rather than the more traditional four, which means each singer has double the responsibility to execute the notes, rhythms, phrasing, etc., and also how to align that part with seven others, all of which are moving at different times and in different directions. In some ways, this type of music is the poster-metaphor for an (ahem) harmonious confluence of individualism and collectivism - all the moving parts have individual integrity and creativity, and are all the while being mediated and bounded by - and mediating and binding - the other parts in the musical environment. The sonic effect is as interesting for its linear qualities - each lines presents its own melodies - as it is for its striking vertical sonorities - created by the multiple notes being presented simultaneously.
But of course it's not just musicians who are constantly expected to be doing many things at once: listening, thinking, producing sounds, matching those to the sounds around them. The situation is even greater with solo performers: an organist playing a Bach fugue, for example, has three or four or five lines to produce all at once, all through the control of ten fingers and two feet. and it seems that all of those notes need constant attention... how do they do it?
On the one hand, performing polyphonic music sounds a lot like multitasking: paying attention to multiple things happening at the same time. (We'll not mention the plethora of subconscious things that people do on a regular basis: breathing, maintaining a physical equilibrium, internal pH and body temperature, etc.)
But there's a fundamental difference in the mental/physical sensation of playing an instrument and, say reading text messages whilst watching a movie, or applying make-up whilst driving and eating breakfast. The sensation of playing a piece well is one of intense concentration, and even if I am concentrating on one line over the others, which is often the case, my concentration on that one element enhances the performance of the others. But effect of other 'multitasking' operations I perform has quite the opposite effect: my oatmeal is decidedly less tasty when I eat it while driving to school. And I'm pretty sure my driving isn't any better, either.
The headline Stanford research on media multitasking observes that the latter effect is more common: people who multitask aren't actually better at anything, especially on concentrating or remembering things. Here's the short review of their research that hit the news in 2009:
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html
And the longer one:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/21/0903620106.full.pdf+html
Here's my long post-short conclusion: our brains do not necessarily function in a linear fashion, we aren't doing ourselves any favors by toggling between information sources in an attempt to take more in. The better way to take in more information, fire more synapses, and draw more conclusions, is to focus on one task for a longer period of time, and let our brains do the rest of the remembering and processing in the background whilst we direct our attentions to the one at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment