Objectification and Contrasting Cases
All sound that is generated with the body as an integral art of the acoustic system causes the listener to receive sound stimuli through two different channels. Normal air transmission functions for the player just as it does for the audience. The second mode of transmission, bone conduction, is unique to the player. Management of the mixture of these two modalities is what all players must deal with if they are to ever obtain clarity in their communication with the audience. It is necessary to provide continual support for the readjustment of the player’s cognitive interpretation of their perceptions. The first of two invaluable techniques for this perceptual readjustment is simple objectification.
Objectification is nothing more than recording the student so that they can hear their performances as a quasi-pure listener. Usually, the task is to play, listen, generate the ideas, tune, control rhythmic pulse, and listen with some objectivity to their performance. It is necessary to reinterpret the sounds in the two auditory modalities to understand what the audience is hearing. When we record a musical example, the student and the teacher are able to listen in the same way (air transmission) and discuss their observations, impressions and reactions. Without the use of a recording, the teacher and student are listening in completely different perceptual states. In fact, the player should only minimally be listening to themselves. The player should have most of their attention on the generation of musical content.
The second technique of teaching and learning is contrast training. A recording is a weak form of contrast training since the player can use it to compare their impressions of their playing with the objective record. As valuable as this objective contrast is, it is not yet the most efficient way to work. The best way is when this objectivity is combined immediate contrast. The reason for this lies in the way we process auditory information. Contrast training, this technique of taking two slightly different things and juxtaposing them to reveal their differences, does not require a detailed analytical exploration of what the differences actually are, but seems to tap into our ability to notice when things are different, even subtly.
When I was first trying to understand this idea of contrasting cases I went to talk to Dr. Daniel Schwartz, at the time a cognitive psychologist at Vanderbilt University. His explanation remains the best I have encountered. He explained:
Suppose you wanted to learn about wine tasting. I would be hard pressed to explain to a novice the concept of a wine which has a “smooth finish,” but If I can find two wines which are essentially the same in every way except that one had a smooth finish and one does not- then the answer becomes obvious to even the novice since the only difference between the two wines is essentially a definition of the concept of a “smooth finish.”
Although several factors are involved, the most important is the function of memory. There are (generally) two sorts of memory that humans use. Short-term memory stores a small quantity of information in its entirety, but it can only store information (without degradation) for a few seconds. We can only store about seven seconds of information in this short-term memory and that fact alone determines for us how we should construct contrasting comparisons in the classroom. If this memory is required for a longer period, it is then transformed into a compressed or perhaps condensed form. This longer term memory can be seen as a form of what audio engineers call “lossy” compression.
The usual form of contrast has the student play then the teacher. Then, often, the teacher plays for the student. Rarely would the played passage be less than ten seconds in length and rarely would this type of comparison be recorded and then examined in a more objective playback condition.
Imagine a better way. For contrast comparisons the recording devise is started and one player plays a passage for five to seven seconds followed immediately by the teacher or model playing exactly the same thing. There should be little or no delay between the performances and no talking or extraneous sound. On playback both the listeners are able to compare the results with stunning sensitivity since the two playing samples are juxtaposed and only a few seconds in length! The gains that can be made by this method are stunning and immediate. What was once hard to understand becomes obvious.
A variation on this teaching technique is also of great use. In this variant, a student plays a passage (short, once again) and then the recording is stopped. The teacher and student then work together toward whatever goal is desired. After the teaching/learning intervention the student plays the same passage again. Now, a before-and-after comparison can be made in an objective listening environment. In this way we can utilizes the unique advantages of both objectification and contrast.
Within this method of presenting contrasts lies a danger. The student and the teacher are going to hear an objective truth. The students will hear themselves as the rest of the world hears them. This can be very difficult for them to accept. Moreover, when compared to an expert teacher, the gap between teacher and student may seem an unbridgeable gulf. The second danger exists for both teacher and student. Here the teacher must make sure that there has been a clearly perceptible change because of the teacher/learning intervention. If there is little change in the student’s before-and-after sonic picture then it might be better not to objectively contrast them. Little is gained by 30 minutes of hard work only to experience little or no obvious change.
This type of objective contrast training can be made even more effective by the introduction of visual resources. The visual form of digitally recorded data is available as standard software with most computer sound cards. Utilizing this software the student can not only can hear but also see a representation of their playing. Many types of manipulations can then be made but there is a huge benefit to be had from the introduction from additional sensory channels. Of these the most important is leaning from what our vision can tell us about our playing.
Video cameras can be used to record the student in close-up while playing. If students are unaware of how they sound to an audience, they are also usually unaware of their physical selves. Many of the clues I use to diagnose playing problems are subtle physical gestures and movements that betray the inner workings of both body and mind. Students are usually oblivious to their own gestures, both gross and subtle. It is very useful to be able show a student their level of tension increase as they approach the moment of playing. It will often shake them awake and cause them to have a greater sense of self-awareness.
A personal cautionary note is appropriate here. I do not videotape a great deal as I feel it is too easy to waste precious lesson time. Occasional use of video is enough.
I have found that for teaching the technical details of slide technique, there is no better tool than slow motion video with sound “at pitch”. Unfortunately, most consumer video equipment is not capable of this function at this time. It is, however, possible to capture an image into a non-linear video editor and, once captured, play it back with image and sound. The disadvantage is that it can waste too much time in a lesson unless captured directly to the computer. Sound alone is almost as good for this purpose and some teachers have long used analog tape recorders to allow playback at ½ speed. A disadvantage is that the pitch is lowered an octave. It is truly humbling to hear how imperfectly we play when we are given the luxury of time to really hear all of the details. In my studio, custom programs and tools provide students with the ability to hear performance clips back at a variety of speeds while still “at pitch”. “Slow play” has been used for a long time and is very effective. It changes the level of perceptual detail that the student is able to recognize by doubling (or more!) the time available to attend to those details. Once there is a clear understanding of the detail to be attended to, it is quite perceptible at normal speed.
The techniques of objectification and contrasting cases are not startling or new. They have been used in learning for a very long time. Somehow, teachers of music (especially applied) have not made good or consistent use of these tools.
A sound illustration is often invaluable when an analytical description and explanation is useless. The key to having that sound illustration bring immediate understanding is dependant on understanding how we remember and learn. If a recording/ playback system is used and appropriately constructed contrasts are presented then the student will learn more quickly and with deeper understanding. If not, then the road to understanding is longer and deep cognitive understanding is essentially precluded. We must construct and present contrasts with great care if we hope to allow ourselves (and our students) to hear the compared results objectively and within the strict time limits enforced by the design of the human perceptual system. The bottom line, as always, is to learn to teach in ways that are guided by the ways which we have evolved to learn.