Music and the Brain: From Mode to Emotion in Musical Communication

Reference:

Music and the Brain: From Mode to Emotion in Musical Communication

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhnxOu1p-W0&feature=PlayList&p=485B60074AC6BB7F&index=15

Summary:

This video is a lecture given by Steven Brown from McMaster University as part of the Library of Congress’ Music and the Brain lecture series. The video includes both Dr. Brown’s prepared lecture as well as the ensuing question and answer period. Dr. Brown’s lecture is entitled “From Mode to Emotion in Musical Communication” and addresses the topic of why we experience emotion when we listen to music, beginning with the psychology of emotion.

Emotions are about something; they are an appraisal or evaluation of a stimulus. It is this stimulus that differentiates emotions from moods, which are objectless. There are three dimensions of emotion; valence (positive or negative), intensity (amount of arousal), and focus (what the emotions are about).

Dr. Brown presents the theory of “basic emotions” and explains the problems he sees with this view. These problems include the idea that the view is one dimensional in that it ignores valence and intensity, that it underestimates the number of human emotions (focusing on 5-10 whereas emotion psychologists suggest there are hundreds), and that it places the greatest importance on facial expression, which among other issues, does not translate well to music whereas sound of voice creates a much better parallel. The final problem that Dr. Brown raises with this theory is that it does not consider the connection between emotion and cognition.

As an alternative to the “basic emotions” theory, Dr. Brown suggests the Clore/Ortony theory of emotion. This theory is based on the idea that there are three major objects of appraisal. The first object consists of outcomes of events and deals with whether or not goals are met. Dr. Brown identifies these as motivational or action emotions. The second object of appraisal consists of the aspects of objects, and addresses the perceiver’s likes or dislikes. According to this theory, these emotions are called aesthetic emotions. Finally, there are actions of agents, dealing with the approval or disapproval of the perceiver. These emotions are referred to as social or moral emotions.

In relating emotion to the arts, Dr. Brown poses the question, “To what extent do art works induce emotion in perceivers vs. do they simply represent emotion?” Induced emotions are true or real emotions which we experience, while represented emotions are not true emotions but rather the emotions the music expresses, and thus are cognitive representations of emotion.

Artworks express emotion which the perceiver must interpret in order to understand. Additionally, when artwork is appreciated, it elicits an aesthetic response in the perceiver (which corresponds to the “aspect of objects” category described earlier). By means of empathy, an artwork can also induce the same emotion in the perceiver as it expresses, but this is less common. Usually, the perceiver recognizes the emotion without actually experiencing the emotion. Finally, artworks can generate moral responses and thereby, emotions. The dominant emotion experienced by the perceiver, however, is the aesthetic emotion.

Music is more limited than other forms of art in the types of emotion it can express. Unlike other art forms which can express all three types of emotions mentioned (outcome, aesthetic, and moral), music is most effective in conveying outcome emotions, and perhaps to a lesser extent, aesthetic emotions (if one considers being beautiful as expressing beauty). By music’s ability to convey positive or negative emotions, and thus act as a pure valence marker, music is capable of representing a sense of either positivity or negativity with whatever it is associated with. As a result, we see music primarily in the role of serving non-musical entities as different as advertisements and religion.

When music is expressing emotion, it does so by two main, independent mechanisms, which Dr. Brown identifies as generalized arousal mechanisms (which signal emotional intensity) and contrastive scales (to signal valence), the latter being unique to music. The generalized arousal mechanisms are virtually identical between music and speech and similar to gesture, and employ the three qualities of register, tempo and volume.

In summary, the primary induced emotional response by music is an aesthetic response while the primary expressed or represented emotions are “outcome” emotions (happy/sad).

Reflection:

As performers, I feel that most of our efforts in learning music go into trying to identify what emotions are being expressed in the music and exploring how best we can express these emotions through our performance. Consequently, when I think of emotions in music, I think of the emotions being represented by the music. I found it quite interesting to listen to this lecture and hear the idea that the predominant emotions induced in the perceiver are aesthetic emotions, relating to the perceiver’s like or dislike of the music. It does make sense that in taking in a piece of music, our primary response would be aesthetic, but I feel that I sometimes overlook that basic response when thinking about emotions in music.

I wonder how this increased awareness of the dominance of aesthetic emotions could positively impact how I perform music. I toyed with the idea of focusing my attention on trying to make the music “likeable.” It initially seemed like an artificial and also superficial aim that was bound to fail. The way we perceive things varies tremendously between individuals as do our likes and dislikes.

Ultimately though, I believe that most often, what we are doing when we learn music is trying to find a way to make people like the music, beginning with ourselves, and then often extending to our teachers or coaches. I believe that liking music is not the same as enjoying it, as music representing tremendous pain may prove to be difficult and not particularly enjoyable to listen to, though we like it for this very fact. What we are usually striving for, in trying to find the best way of expressing the emotions represented in the music, or showing certain elements of form, is to create a product that the audience can relate to and understand, and because of this, like.

I watched this lecture a number of weeks before attending Dr. David Huron’s lecture on major and minor scales and their psychological impacts. In taking in Dr. Huron’s lecture, I was frequently reminded of ideas raised by Dr. Brown and wished there was a sequel to Dr. Brown’s lecture in which he could explore the neuroscience behind some of these shared ideas.

Will playing in orchestra damage our hearing?

Reference:
Emmerich, Edeltraut, Lars Rudel, and Frank Richter. “Is the audiologic status of professional musicians a reflection of the noise exposure in classical music?” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 265 (2008): 753-758.

Summary:
The authors of this article wished to explore whether there is a link between hearing loss and exposure to the sounds produced in the orchestra by examining the hearing status of professional musicians at various stages in their careers. The subjects for the study were 109 professional musicians, ranging in age from 30-69, from three major German orchestras and 110 students of an academy of music, 11-19 years. Data was collected through various hearing tests and questionnaires completed by the subjects. The authors also tested noise emissions at the performance venues (pit, stage, and rehearsal rooms) during rehearsals and performances for both the entire orchestra and single instruments/groups of instruments. Very few of the subjects used hearing protection regularly and none of the musicians participated in noisy activities in their leisure time. The results demonstrated that over 50% of the musicians had noticeable hearing impairment, highest losses within the strings and brass. A musician’s location within the orchestra also had some effect on the amount of hearing loss. Hearing acuity declined the longer a musician had worked in an orchestra. The young musicians in training already showed evidence of hearing loss, with no loud hobbies in their leisure time. The authors of this article suggest that hearing protection is of great importance to professional musicians, that hearing function should be assessed on a regular basis, and that hearing loss in musicians should be acknowledged as an occupational disease.

Reflection:
Since I began playing in orchestras, I have often found myself wondering about this very topic: whether exposure to the sounds of the orchestra could be affecting my hearing. As a harpist, I have been placed in all sorts of different locations in various orchestras. Frequently I have been in close proximity to the piccolo, or beside the brass, I have even been in a very tiny pit right beside the percussionist’s drum set up (although they did kindly erect sound barriers). The article mentioned the fact that the sound peaks were particularly high in front of the piccolos; this could be a little concerning for neighbouring instrumentalists.

The first time I saw a fellow harpist pack up her harp for a rehearsal and put a pair of ear plugs into her gig bag I was quite mystified. I had never before considered the fact that exposure to the sound created within the orchestra could actually be detrimental to my hearing. I now have a pair of ear plugs that live permanently in my gig bag and come to every event. I must say that I have rarely used them, but am ready when necessary.

This topic also brings up for me the question of whether my instrument itself could cause damage to my hearing. When most people think of the harp, they imagine very gentle quiet sounds, but often orchestral works involve the high pitched shrill strings being played very loudly (to cut across the sound of the orchestra) and of course, all these sounds are being created specifically at the right side of my body. I would be curious to discover whether harpists after a long and successful career demonstrate any right side hearing loss.

The authors of this article state that “the sound in classical orchestral music is louder than noise emissions allowed by national rules in industry”. They are of course talking of German law; I would be very interested to know how the levels of allowable noise emissions in industry compare around the world.

I actually came across quite a few articles on the topic of hearing loss in orchestral musicians; it has clearly been explored in some depth. From reading different studies, it is obvious that playing in an orchestra carries some risk of decline in hearing acuity. However, there is nothing more satisfying than the experience of contributing to the orchestral texture of a beautiful piece of music. Wearing adequate hearing protection when warranted, having rest periods with no noise between rehearsals and performances, and increasing the education that we receive about this issue seem to be some of our best options for reducing our risk of this condition.

The Case of a Left-Handed Pianist and a Reversed Keyboard!

Reference:

The case of a left-handed pianist playing a reversed keyboard: A challenge for the neuroscience of music
Lutz Jäncke, Ph.D.

Summary:
My interest was piqued from the moment I read “left-handed pianist” and “reversed piano” in the article’s subject line. To begin with, I am a left-handed pianist, and furthermore, I had never heard of reversed piano! A brief article summary is in order.

Being left-handed is to be a “rarity”, the author acknowledges. Though I had not thought of myself as such, the statistics presented demonstrate this, especially with respect to earlier generations. Though the causes of handedness are rather unknown and unclear, there are a few accepted solutions; these are genetic factors, and random effects. Handedness is cortically represented with a specific organization of the hand motor areas in the brain; these areas are enlarged contra-lateral to the dominant hand. In musicians, however, the volume of both hemispheres (dominant and non) is larger than in non-musicians, and the size of the hand motor areas is inversely related to the age musical training began. There seems to be a high degree of plasticity in the skill of the subdominant hand, and in the size of the subdominant motor area in young musicians as well.

The article also addresses consequences of being left-handed, specifically, living in a world designed for right-handed individuals (think of power tools and doorknobs). However, the skill of the sub-dominant hand can be further enhanced; in playing instruments, this can be a useful advantage.

The third part of the article examines the challenge of a left-handed musician’s playing a right-handed instrument, namely, the piano, on a professional basis. Initially, a reversed piano would seem as an obvious choice for a left-handed pianist. But that means all current and past left-handed performers would have been performing sub-optimally: Glenn Gould and the adjective sub-par simply cannot be linked! Only left-handed pianists received any benefit at all from the reversed piano; however, many did not prefer this keyboard, especially if they had practised on a “regular” one for years.

Based on the asymmetry of psychological functions, there are several explanations for this preference (or non). Briefly, since lateralization of one function (for example, motor, or language) does not necessarily mean that the other function is relegated to the other hemisphere; often, in fact, many functions are lateralized to one side. To continue with this thought, all the necessary piano-playing functions of playing piano (motor, memory, etc.) could be lateralized to one hemisphere. In the case of the pianist preferring a reversed piano, this would be the right. A reversed-keyboard piano would be highly beneficial for left-handed pianists with right-sided lateralization. The situation would vary depending on one’s degree of hemispheric specialization though.

Reflection:
The idea of playing reversed keyboard, as a pianist, would definitely intrigue me more than seriously interest me. There are very obvious drawbacks. Besides the obvious factor, that is, relearning how to play one’s instrument, there would be practical factors – in competitions and recitals, there is not going to be a separate piano provided! There could be preconceived misconceptions about such an instrument as well, among judges, or even an audience. It could possibly turn a performance more into a “show” than music-making simply because of the novelty.

I think many left-handed pianists, even if in theory they “should” prefer a reversed instrument, would be turned off by the prospect simply because it would seem strange. Having played on a “regular” piano all my life, it would probably present many challenges which I would not want to encounter.

Further, the article alluded to the fact that not all left-handers demonstrate complete right hemispheric specialization. One would need to determine, preferably before investing much time and energy, whether it would be truly beneficial in the long run.
However, this article does present a very interesting case and raises many issues. I know a cellist who is left-handed, and plays the cello “backwards”. He has always done so, and when asked why or how, he states simply that he has always done so and that it is completely natural for him. But I also know left-handed cellists who are quite happy playing the cello in the "standard" way.

Of course, this raises the question - what about pianists (Glenn Gould is foremost in my mind) who were left-handed and yet played a "normal" piano? Would he have been even more successful had his piano had a reversed keyboard? We will likely never know.
I would have liked had the article talked more about the actual pianist for whom this reversed keyboard was so successful. Who was he? is he still alive today? I would be interested in going to such a concert!

Headphone music and Spatial manipulation

“The Composition of Auditory Space: Recent Developments in Headphone Music”
Author: Durand R. Begault

Source: Leonardo, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1990), pp. 45-52

Published by: The MIT Press

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578456

Summary: In this article, Durand R. Begault discusses the potential for composition of spatial music, meaning music that is written to occupy specific space, as opposed to music that is performed under any context, regardless of the space the sound occupies. Durand writes, “The composition manipulation of the spatial aspect of music was as inevitable as the manipulation of pitch, timbre or duration...”. Using psychoacoustically-based digital signal-processing techniques, composers of today are able to create music that is based on spatial hearing in the composition of music for headphones. Musical-spatial intentions can be conveyed through the use of headphones, and can create various effects including the illusion of distance and manipulation of the environmental context of the sounds.

Begault writes about “four so-called separable musical elements (with their corresponding psychological descriptions); frequency (pitch), spectral content (timbre), intensity (loudness) and duration (perceived duration)”. These categories are restricting, according to Begault, so he has added a fifth element of musical sound- space. It is a problem, according to Begault, when an undesired perceptual mismatch occurs between the composer’s intent and the listener’s perception. This translates to a source-medium-receptor (SMR) model, the source being the composer’s spatial conception for a sound, the medium involves the effects of loudspeakers and room acoustics (which can have a huge impact on the sound before it arrives at the listener), and the receptor is the listener who experiences these sound waves in some manner. The receptor experiences what Begault calls “immediate perceptual recognition” of the spatial aspects of the sound, as given by cues based on non-aural and binaural differences in intensity, spectra and time-delay, and the higher-level cognition of spatial manipulation experienced by the listener”. What Begault claims is an advantage of headphone music is the elimination of the “medium” and the freedom of the composer to control the auditory space in which the listener experiences the music. Signals sent to each ear can be predicted and controlled very carefully. There are several types of headphone presentations, diotic, dichotic and binaural. Diotic headphone presentation involves a single signal being sent to both ears. A dichotic presentation involves two different signals being fed differently to each ear, and a binaural presentation essentially involves a dichotic presentation in which the content of one of the two signals is to some degree present in the other. These signals can be used simultaneously. When done, music can sound as though it is coming from above, behind, in front or to the side of a person wearing the headphones. The perceptual experience is altered significantly. Begault has designed a digital signal-processing algorithm called REFL which is used for creating spatialized versions of a digital sound file according to an arbitrary model. The algorithm allows compositional specification of a model that includes the position of the listener and of the sound source within a variable environmental context. These filters create spatial-listening cues by “modifying an input sound in the same way that the outer ears (or pinnae) and the head would modify a sound in an actual environmental context”. The filtering effect is altered as a function of the angle of incidence of the sound source. Listeners would interpret what is happening as changes in the spatial position of the sound source. Begault has used these techniques in many of his own compositions for headphones, and is continually expanding his work and his research as an innovative and creative composer with fascinating techniques. He ends his article with the anticipation, that “We should expect our mind’s ‘aural eye’ to be surprised and challenged in the future.”

Reflection: This field is entirely new to me, and fascinating as I have never considered the possibilities for creating music that caters specifically to the manipulation of auditory space. The notion of auditory space itself has only ever come up for me when considering acoustics of a performance venue or the effect of a room’s acoustics on an instrument on a smaller scale. The manipulation of auditory space leads me to think about what else we as listeners might be lacking by experiencing music through the filter Begault calls the “medium”, be it concert hall space, loudspeakers, etc. Is our experience lessened because of the filters through which the music has to travel? Do these filters take away from what is intrinsically enjoyable about music (whatever that may be)? Could we someday manipulate our concert halls to cater to each individual listener in the way that headphones cater to the individual listener?

Although there may be elements of music lacking when auditory space is not controlled, the opposite may also be true. The negative effects of eliminating the medium must be considered. What is offered through the medium that provides us as listeners with something unique? For example, to take away the concert hall essentially takes away the social aspect of music. In many cases, headphone listening is usually a secluded activity which allows for the listener to block out her or his environment. When we cater to this style of listening to and experiencing music, are we in fact cutting ourselves off from a very important aspect of music? By eliminating the social aspect of the musical experience, we eliminate the energy brought to us by other people and we don’t have an opportunity to consciously offer our own energy to the people around us, like the effect of a high-energy rock concert. By eliminating the social experience, music may become an introverted activity. This is not to say that seclusion and introversion are bad when it comes to music; this is to point out the combination of elements that make up a musical experience, and how by eliminating one (in this case, the social aspect) many other facets are necessarily altered.

Despite whatever drawbacks headphone music may have in terms of music’s social aspect, the exciting part of this work is how much manipulation can be done in terms of finite details and sound wave altering. Clearly, there is so much more to music than meets the ear.

Multi-sensory sound: Evelyn Glennie's talk on ted.com

Dame Evelyn Glennie shows how to listen from www.ted.com

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/evelyn_glennie_shows_how_to_listen.html

Filmed February 2003; posted April 2007

Summary: In this ted.com talk, renowned percussionist Evelyn Glennie discusses and demonstrates what it means to listen with more than your ears, and to be engaged in listening beyond the process of sound waves hitting your eardrums. Evelyn Glennie is a Scottish percussionist and composer who lost almost all of her hearing by the age of 12, yet went on to become an internationally acclaimed musician. Her music and her lectures challenge her listeners to ask where music comes from. According to Glennie, her hearing loss brought her a deeper, richer understanding of and connection to the music she loves.

Being a successful musician involves more than reading the notes on the page. Evelyn describes feeling music through one’s feet, legs, stomach, arms, etc. One example she gives is how to hold a snare drum stick very lightly, in order to let the vibration resonate through one’s body. She describes why it is important to understand music in more than just an auditory capacity by drawing an analogy to understanding human beings. At first glance, we take in visual information as we see someone and we can perhaps infer details about who they are, where they are from and perhaps what they do for a living, however we cannot go much deeper than that. Only when we spend time with the person and are more thoughtfully engaged in their presence can we come to a greater understanding of who they are. The same goes for music, Glennie says. Engaging with more than just our ears can bring us to a greater understanding of what music is and what it means. This topic is the basis of her section on “rote versus feeling”. It is one thing to listen to and play music by rote (taking in the music via one sense only) and an entirely different thing to listen to and play music by feeling (with more than one sense). She goes on to describe listening with every sense, a huge paradigm shift for me (and I imagine many other musicians).

“Music is our daily medicine; I say music but actually I mean sound”, says Glennie, who describes a young man who is struggling with several physical and mental challenges, who can take in the vibrations of the marimba by sitting by it or underneath it while it is being played. This, Glennie says, is an experience for this young man that is entirely different from that of the experience of the performer. Being above, below, beside, far away from or close to the instrument all provide very different experiences, and not just auditory. Glennie says that whatever the eye sees, the body associates and imagines a sound with it (e.g. a tree blowing in the breeze; we might imagine the sound of leaves rustling). Glennie looks at music as not just a type of therapy, but as a way of engaging ourselves physically and mentally, no matter what our capacity (e.g. a deaf person, a blind person etc). Interestingly, she talks about how acousticians are often in constant communication with people who are hearing impaired because it is just as, if not more important for understanding how sound hits the audience.

To conclude, Glennie discusses her struggle in university when asked to use method books. She describes how she craves a connection and relation to the instrument she is playing, and how necessary it is in order to appreciate the “life of sound”, and the “journey of sound”.

Reflection: I found this lecture fascinating on many levels. As a pianist, I have worked to understand the various effects of how sound is created through the pads of my fingers, but I have never been so acutely aware of the way I experience sound as more than just an auditory sensation as I am now after hearing Glennie speak. I consider the piano to be a percussion instrument, so Glennie’s ideas resonate with me in terms of touch, but less so in terms of vibration and resonance. Her ideas have, however, helped me to experience the piano as more than a percussion instrument. I am more aware of the resonance through my feet, through the pedal, through my arms, etc.

On a scientific level, Glennie’s work got me thinking about simple harmonic motion, and the science of physics. Simple harmonic motion descibes how an object that is pushed out of place feels a correcting force that tries to restore it. To cause simple harmonic motion, the correcting force always opposes the object’s motion and scales with the distance it is moved, so as an object pulls further away, it feels a stronger force pushing it back. An example of this is a swing or a pendulum. More complex vibrations can be described by taking simple harmonic motion as a starting point and adding extra forces. A violin string can be made to vibrate by bowing it, and the longer it is bowed, the longer it vibrates for. A driving force such as bowing can be timed to reinforce the main oscillations. These principles of harmonic motion, oscillation and vibration are the underpinnings of music itself; I regularly take them for granted, until they are pointed out to me. I believe that these underpinnings are also the basis of what Evelyn Glennie is conveying. What we do as musicians goes far beyond sound waves as they hit our eardrums. I believe that the scientific underpinnings of music and Evelyn Glennie’s ideas are very closely connected. Once we as lovers and players of music can tap into the harmonic motion, oscillation and vibration of sound, I think we can come much closer to Glennie’s notion of listening to music as more than sound. There is resonance and vibration in much of what we do as human beings. Our voices resonate, our movements oscillate. Perhaps music is more a part of our everyday existence than we realize. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why music can affect us in such a profound way; it’s foundations are so closely related to the foundations of our movement within ourselves and through our world.

We often assume limitations and restrictions when it comes to people who deal with deafness, blindness, physical and mental health problems and so on. There is often an assumption that people who deal with these things cannot experience music in the same all-encompassing way that “fully-functional” people can. For example, would it not be fair to assume that someone lacking a sense would inevitably miss out on the breadth of a musical experience? No. In fact, it’s often been said (and has been shown to be the case) that when you loose one sense, your other senses are heightened. Perhaps people with fully functional senses are missing out on the opportunity to experience music in a richer way. This is not necessarily to say that people who are blind or deaf experience music in a better way; this is to say that it is so important to be aware of how multi-layered and connected our senses are. This awareness can serve to heighten our experience of music, and Glennie does an outstanding job of demonstrating it.

Music Therapy for Dummies (or, in this case, my fellow percussionists)

Music and Brain Blog #3
Brian Graiser

Kuester, Stephanie. Rhythm of the Soul: Music Therapy for Percussionists, Percussive Notes, Vol. 46, No. 2, April 2008, pgs. 16-17.

Synopsis: Most musicians take for granted the vague sense of the “power of music,” understanding at some base level that music somehow produces a general feeling of satisfaction and well-being. However, within the realm of music therapy, the “power of music” is viewed as a more quantifiable and definite source of benefits for physical and mental health. Generally, the field of music therapy encompasses the “treatment of the total individual” (developing motor, communication, memory, and other skills, and not simply trying to learn a piece of music), “planned personal interaction” (providing a clear structure in a social setting to build social skills, instead of simply fostering healthy self-confidence through successful individual practice), and “continuous manipulation of the musical environment” (meeting the dynamic and changing needs of a patient). Thanks to their “intimate understanding of rhythm,” percussionists are excellent candidates to pursue careers in music therapy, thanks to the well-established importance of rhythm in almost all forms of music therapy treatments. Many established therapists maintain that there are many benefits to be found in rhythm and percussion, noting the strengths of inherent structure and organization.

One example of music therapy in action can be found in the activities of “Doing Anger Differently” (DAD), which focus on channeling the energy of overly-angry and aggressive teenage boys into hand drumming exercises. One such activity is “Mapping Anger,” wherein the patients express the rise and fall of their anger reactions through a rise and fall of drum activity in a group setting; this provides all of the benefits discussed above. Another example is the process of Rhythmic Auditory Stimulation (RAS) executed by Michael Thaut, professor at Colorado State University. In RAS, patients are people who have brain damage due to injury or illness, and their physical rehabilitation activity is keyed to a “click tone” to facilitate inherently-rhythmic motions, such as walking.

Reflection: The purpose of this article, as explicitly stated by Ms. Kuester, is “to introduce the profession of music therapy and, more specifically, to show how percussion can be used within its context.” Therefore, we can forgive her for only skimming the surface of this topic, since the article is aimed at introducing music therapy to percussionists who may not know anything about the field. Still, I was particularly intrigued by the first example she gave (DAD). Here, Kuester mentions attempts to express the inherent superiority of drums over other instruments when used as a treatment of anger. While I certainly don’t mind the percussion ego boost (as I’m sure all subscribers of Percussive Notes would agree), I actually have to admit from first-hand experience that hand drums aren’t necessarily the only way to physically express anger in a therapeutic, and not simply musical, fashion.

Every day in high school, I would come home and spend anywhere from ten minutes to three hours or more pounding away on our old out-of-tune standup piano. I wasn’t even aware of this habit at the time; only looking back do I realize that this was actually a regular occurrence, and not something I simply felt like doing every now and then. The act of physically working myself up and pounding out all those notes on the piano helped me to get rid of loads of excess ADHD energy, and helped me to focus on the moment and not dwell on whatever may have troubled me that day during school. Eventually, I started spending more time at the marimba or vibraphone after school and less on the piano at home, but the effect was the same; after each of these unconscious “therapy sessions,” I felt calmer and unburdened by the stress of high school’s many trials and tribulations, social or otherwise. Nowadays, I still indulge in this sort of activity when I feel the inclination, and even now I much prefer the piano or keyboard percussion instruments to simple hand drums. For me, part of the therapy comes from being able to express the source of my stress to myself as accurately as possible, and I simply find it easier to do so with an array of pitches and techniques at my disposal, rather than the relatively limited voice of a conga or djembe. Mind you, I don’t view this as an overly musical experience; I am in agreement with Kuester in that this kind of exercise is solely therapeutic, rather than building my technique or expressivity as a trained musician.

Wieser, Heinz Gregor, and Roland Walter. “Untroubled musical judgement of a performing organist during early epileptic seizure of the right temporal lobe.” Neuropsychologia 35 (1996): 45-51.

Summary:
This article described the case of a professional organist with right temporal lobe epilepsy who experienced a seizure in the middle of performing an organ recital. He habitually recorded his own performances, and so the resultant tape was compared to both the original score and his own other presentations of the same work. The analysis of the section affected by the seizure showed that early in the event, the right hand continued playing as normal while the left began to deviate from the notated rhythm. As the seizure continued, the material played by both hands increasingly departed from the score but the right hand managed to improvise and cover the errors in the left in a musical way. The tempo remained steady throughout. Once the seizure progressed to a certain point, the organist stopped playing and was unresponsive for 5 minutes but then recovered and continued the performance.

Reflection:
I was absolutely astounded to read this article. This particular case illustrates for me just how resilient the human brain can be and how impressive are its adaptive capabilities. That the organist managed to continue to perform while experiencing the early part of a seizure is incredible. Not only did he carry on, but his brain went a step beyond and improvised solutions to the errors so that his playing remained musically meaningful.

The authors of this article presented a section of the score of the original piece along with a notated copy of the version played during the seizure. It was fascinating to compare the two and see exactly where and how they differed. I must admit, I would have liked to have the opportunity to hear the taped performance, to get a sense of the details that can not be described through notation.

I feel that this case is very useful for its demonstration that musicians can still continue to perform even while suffering with very serious conditions. It seems like it could offer some measure of hope. The clinical history section of the article included the information that the musician, although he had to undergo several surgeries, continued working as an organist and conductor.

This case also points to one important aspect of our musical training, the ability to continue playing no matter what occurs. Even through errors, we must keep our minds moving forward rather than dwelling on what has just happened. My musical education began in a children’s choir where we were taught about the “performance situation”. Our conductor could simply say those words and we knew to stand up straight, smile, and perform with no stopping. It is true that the organist in this situation did eventually end up interrupting the piece, but he clearly continued as far as he possibly could.

It could be said that a great part of his success in playing through the seizure was due to his skill at improvisation. I believe that organists tend to receive a fair amount of this type of training. It makes me wonder whether he would have been as successful in continuing a musically meaningful performance without this degree of knowledge. Would a musician with little experience of improvisation be able to do as well? I assume a non-musicians’ brain would be similarly able to continue doing the activity it was programmed to do through years of training?