A xxl C AnCM

C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
ASSESSING MUSICAL CREATIVITY: MATERIAL, PROCEDURAL AND
CONTEXTUAL DIMENSIONS
Damian Keller (UFAC)
akeller(at)ccrma.stanfora.eau
Maria Helena de Lima (UFRGS)
eu.helena.l(at)gmail.com
Marcelo Soares Pimenta (UFRGS)
mpimenta(at)inf.ufrgs.br
Marcelo Queiroz (USP)
mq:(at)ime.usp.br
Abstract: We review eight models of creativity in music and discuss how they are related to three creativity dimensions:
materials, procedures and context. Through a structural analysis of the models, we identify two methodological short-
comings in their application: early restriction of material domain and lack of material and social grounding. We also
point to a convergence between a theoretical construct labeled compositional paradigm shift and recent developments in
compositional practices. We provide guidelines on the experimental procedures to be employed to test the validity of the
models discussed.
Keywords: musical creativity, creativity dimensions, creative product profle.
Avaliao da Criatividade Musical: Materiais, Procedimentos e Contexto
Resumo: Neste artigo discutimos oito modelos de criatividade musical e a sua relao com trs dimenses de criatividade:
materiais, procedimentos e contexto. Atravs da analise estrutural dos modelos identifcamos duas lacunas metodologicas:
restrio do domnio material e falta de contextualizao social e material. O construto mudana de paradigma
composicional apontado como uma contribuio desses modelos e fornecemos descries dos mtodos experimentais para
estudar a validade das propostas tericas analisadas.
Palavras-chave: criatividade musical, dimenses da criatividade, perfl do produto criativo.
1. Material, procedural and contextual dimensions
Models of creativity in music can be grouped according to their emphasis on intrinsic and
extrinsic Iactors. These Iactors determine the methodology adopted when applying the model in the feld, so
an understanding of the theoretical background should throw light onto the relationships between the model
and its applications. Three dimensions can be extracted from the eight models that we will be discussing:
material (what), procedural (how) and contextual (where / when).
The material and procedural dimensions have already been thoroughly covered in the literature.
Collins (2005) following Shahs lead (Shah et al. 2002) suggests that creativity models are either product
based or process based. Product-based models focus on the evaluation of compositional results, thus avoiding
questions regarding how those results were obtained. He proposes the adoption of process-based models in
order to study the strategies used by composers during the act of composition. For Collins, these studies should
be longitudinal and as little invasive as possible.
The third dimension of musical creativity models the context encompasses the external factors
that infuence the compositional processes, including material and social Iactors. Material (or physical) Iactors
can be related to two variables: time and place. It is interesting to observe that most of the models treated in
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
this paper live in abstract spacetime. Material context is usually included as an ad hoc factor. For example,
Webster`s (2003) enabling conditions` encompass context, task, peer infuence and past experience. But
these factors are linked to convergent thinking. Thus, they are only relevant for thought processes. Hickeys
(2003) model accounts for social factors, such as peers, family and teacher support (social environment).
According to the topology of this model, these factors are only relevant to task motivation, implying that the
environment only infuences the creative act through the cognitive Iactors that drive task identifcation` and
response generation. Despite some limitations such as the secondary role of the physical environment this
model provides an initial drive toward the inclusion of context as a relevant dimension in music creativity. We
will discuss in more detail how the structural aspects of the model could be adapted to provide more consistent
support for contextual factors.
2. Creativity models in music
Creativity models in music have been heavily infuenced by an early model oI creativity. Back in
1926, Wallas proposed that creative processes occur in four stages: preparation, incubation, illumination and
validation. For Wallas, the cognitive dimension is at the core of creation. Incubation involves time spent away
of the creative activity and illumination or insight is the mental process through which ideas coalesce. As
we will see, both the sequential-stage topology and the overdue stress on cognition have left their imprint on
several current models.
Bennett`s model (1976) modifes Wallas`s stage structure by separating sketching, elaboration
plus refnement, and revision as independent stages (see Bennett 1976 Ior illustration). The material dimension
is featured as a key aspect of the model. Compositional activity is triggered by a germinal idea. This idea is
expanded into a frst draIt oI the work. At this point oI the compositional process, Bennett suggests that an
iterative cycle is established in which the composer revises the initial idea, produces a new sketch and modifes
the frst draIt. The next stage combines elaboration and refnement oI materials leading toward the fnal draIt
oI the work. AIter the fnal draIt is produced, revisions may still be undertaken.
An interesting feature of the Bennett model is that back-tracking is considered an integral part of
music creation. The iteration between the frst three stages and the possibility oI introducing revisions aIter
the work is fnished point to two possible organizational mechanisms at work: (1) convergence: the composer
applies successive refnements to the same musical materials; (2) divergence: the composer produces new
materials which are incorporated as part of the compositional paradigm. Nevertheless, a third possibility the
breakdown of the existing organizational paradigm demanding a switch to a different set of materials and
structural relationships is not contemplated by this model.
Back-tracking and iteration are structurally featured in Dingwalls model (2008) (see Dingwall
2008 for illustration). The model deals almost exclusively with the material dimension. Cognitive aspects are
included through the factors inspirations and parameters. The compositional process itself is summarized by
three interconnected stages: generation, development (of materials), and putting (the piece) together. The result
of the process is a completed composition.
Webster (2003), Chen (2006) and Collins (2005) emphasize the cognitive dimensions of music
composing. Chen lays out a three-stage model that resembles Wallass proposal (see Chen 2006 for illustration).
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
Exploration encompasses activities such as recording, playing and listening to materials. Application involves
synchronous musical decisions improvising and asynchronous evaluation of materials (evaluating). The
last stage refection` gathers diverse activities such as editing`, problem-solving` and revising.` Chen
also includes publishing` as part oI the refection` stage.
In Websters model, the material dimension is represented by the results of the compositional
activity: the creative products (see Webster 2003 for illustration). These include scores and recordings of
composed music, recorded performances, recorded improvisations, and written analyses. Webster also
mentions the mental representation of the music heard as a type of creative product but given that this is a
construct that can only be observed indirectly, it might be better placed within the cognitive dimensions of the
model, i.e., the thinking process.
The compositional process initiates by defning a product intention.` This Iactor encompasses
fve possible activities, thereIore this part oI Webster`s model deals with procedural aspects oI the creative
process. The composer may choose to compose, perform music of others, listen repeatedly, listen once, or
improvise`. These fve intentions have Iour corresponding outcomes the creative products mentioned beIore
plus the mental representation.
The core of Websters model deals with the cognitive dimension the thinking process. Three
oI the Iour stages oI the model Iollow Wallas`s proposal: preparation`, verifcation` and incubation`. In
Websters model incubation becomes time away and a new stage is added, working through. Working
through involves forming, editing and revising ideas, thus what were three separate stages in Bennetts model
have been compacted into one. The topology indicates an iterative cycle between the four stages with the
possibility of going from preparation to working through without passing through the intermediate time
away` or verifcation` stages. The Iour Iactors that drive the cognitive dimension are: enabling skills, enabling
conditions, convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Enabling skills are characteristics of the individual
and enabling conditions encompass both personal and socio-cultural factors. It is not clear why social aspects
were included as part of the cognitive dimension instead of being a separate category, such as context. In any
case, Ior Webster the infuence oI the enabling conditions on the creative process is only indirect: social and
personal factors foster convergent and divergent thinking which, in turn, shape the creative act.
Collins (2005) suggests that composing is a form of problem-solving activity (see Figure 1).
Therefore, composing takes place as a sequence of solution spaces which are driven by four cognitive
activities: problem proliIeration`, fnding solutions`, deIerring solutions`, and restructuring` oI the problem
space. The material dimension is represented by general ideas / themes / motives following closely Bennetts
germinal ideas` which are carried into the solution space` by defning a subgoal.` Within each solution
space, the cognitive dimension is represented by three sequential processes: postulating broad aims (this
leads to new motiIs / ideas`), small-scale editing` (it produces general or specifc solutions), and sees the
broader picture (this conducts to a restructuring of the problem space). After each iteration, the outcome
may consist oI general or specifc solutions. II no solution was Iound, the material is simply taken to the
next iteration: the solution is deferred. Finding a solution drives the cognitive process toward a new subgoal
which may consist of combined solutions (and) or alternative solutions (or). Although back-tracking is not
explicitly specifed in Collins`s model topology, it is implied that previous solutions may be revisited or that
they may be incorporated within the context of new solution spaces.
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu

Figure 1. Collinss (2005) creativity model.
Figure 2. Burnards and Younkers (2004) creativity model.
Hickey`s model (2003) encompasses fve ordered stages which can be reiterated (see Figure 3).
The procedural dimension includes task identifcation`, preparation`, response generation`, and response
validation`. The fnal stage is the outcome` which Ieatures a decision Iork: the composer fnishes the creative
process (saves or throws the composition away) or returns to one of the previous stages (revise the work).
Cognitive factors are clearly depicted as separate from the creative procedures. Previous creativity research is
accounted for by identifying task motivation, domain-relevant skills and creativity-relevant processes as
independent constructs. The material dimension is fused with the procedural dimension through references
to musical ideas and composition within the stages preparation, response generation, and outcome. In
contrast with Bennetts model, Hickey indicates the possibility of a change in compositional paradigm by
linking task motivation with creativity-relevant processes through set-breaking.
Context is brought into Hickeys model through a factor labeled social environment, featuring
peers, family and teacher support. Complementarily, among the activities that Hickey lists in response
generation, search the environment suggests an active engagement with the material context. And the
activity seek feedback within the response validation stage implies interaction with the social context. So
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
we could conclude that although the model`s topology does not give a signifcant position to context, this is a
dimension that plays a relevant role in Hickeys musical creativity model.
Of the models discussed in this paper, Burnards and Younkers (2004) is the most streamlined
(Figure 2). The authors propose an iterative cyclical in their terms topology comprising four activities:
fnd, Iocus, fx and time away. Thus, the model is strictly procedural. Arrows indicate that activities are not
rigidly ordered. All activities may lead to time away` and vice-versa. Find, Iocus and fx may Iollow any
sequential order.
Figure 3. Hickeys (2003) creativity model.
3. Dimensions and assessment
What are the methodological implications of adopting one of these models and how can we decide
whether one theory should prevail over another theory? Overall, these eight music creativity models feature
two key differences. Their topology is shaped by two structural characteristics: staged and iterative. And they
vary in the degree of emphasis they give to material, procedural and contextual dimensions. Given the space
constrain we will discuss the aspects related to materials, processes and context only.
Models that emphasize the material dimension provide the most direct window to experimental
observation. Two of the three interrelated stages suggested by Dingwall (2008) the generation stage and the
development stage can easily be assessed by measuring the quantity of material produced. Putting the piece
together may involve selection, grouping and disposal of materials ( focusing, in Burnards and Younkers
terms), therefore subjective qualitative assessment may be necessary. This type of assessment can be done
through Amabiles (1996) Consensual Assessment Technique - CAT. Regarding materials, Bennetts model
suggests that compositional processes start from a single germinal idea. Collins also adopts this view but allows
for several musical ideas (themes, motifs) at the initial stage. Contrastingly, Hickey, Burnard and Younker,
Chen and Dingwall suggest that exploratory activities precede the selection of materials. The methodological
diIfculty resides in the task choice Ior creativity assessment experiments. II the materials are given by the
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
experimenter or if the working environment predetermines what materials are made available to the subject-
composer, then it will not be possible to draw any conclusions. We can label this problem as early restriction
oI material domain`. We defne domain as the access to resources available to the composer. In this case, we
are dealing with sound sources or tools used to generate musical products. Thus the connection to materials
is direct. The underlying hypothesis as suggested by Hickey, Burnard and Younker, Chen and Dingwall
models is that restricting the access to materials is part of the compositional process. Therefore, by selecting
materials or tools the experimenter is taking the place of the composer and the resulting data cannot be used
to determine whether the compositional activity begins by exploratory actions or by a given set of materials.
Procedural dimensions present a harder problem for experimental design. Given that most
compositional approaches particularly those in the mainstream of musical research have focused on musical
products rather than processes, creative activities are usually not thoroughly documented by composers.
Contrastingly, Collins (2005) adopted a single-subject, extensive procedure to track compositional activities
spanning a three-year period. Collinss study points to an iterative cycle in which the composer alternates
between Iocusing on specifc compositional problems and general (or Iunctional) issues. This parallels
Burnard`s and Younker`s proposal oI an iterative cycle between exploratory activity (fnd) and refning activity
(focus). But Collins introduces a structural feature not present in the other models. Each iteration may lead to
three possible outcomes: a compositional outcome, deferring the outcome or restructuring the compositional
paradigm. This last option means that the compositional process not only affects the material dimension, it
also modifes the procedural dimension. Thus, composing not only changes WHAT is being composed but
also HOW it is done. This proposal goes against the grain of most compositional theories that have dominated
the musical scene during the twentieth century and comes closer to recent compositional developments. A
suitable label for this hypothesis is compositional paradigm shift.
Of the eight models discussed in this paper, Hickeys is the only one featuring the contextual
dimension as a prominent Iactor. But how could contextual infuence be measured in experimental settings?
Consensual Assessment Technique does not seem to be the best choice. CAT utilizes musically experienced
evaluators. So unless the evaluators themselves are the experimental subjects, the social context of the judges will
be different from the social environment of the composers. Since CAT measures the products creativity levels,
inferences about the physical context can only be made through the analysis of the products characteristics.
For compositional techniques that keep materials and context closely related such as traditional Soundscape
approaches this type oI analysis may suIfce. But Ior abstraction-oriented compositions, it may be very hard
to determine the context just from studying the product.
An alternative to the CAT approach the Creative Product Profle has been used by our
research group in a recent study (Barbosa et al. 2010). Instead of focusing on whether a musical product is
more or less creative than another product, we change the experimental question to how a group of listeners
evaluates a single product along a set of given creativity dimensions. In line with Amabiles (1996) proposal,
the dimensions are determined by experienced musicians i.e., the experimenters. But in contrast to CAT,
what is being measured is not the creativity of the product but the subjects creativity assessment. What we
are trying to observe is whether there are specifc individual characteristics that predict how subjects evaluate
the piece. The underlying hypothesis is that the product will be rated according to the profle oI the listener.
Thus, experienced musicians the typical judges of CAT experiments would provide quantitative creativity
profles that do not necessarily match naive listeners` ratings.
A xxl C AnCM
C M0SlCA L ln1L8lACLS
Menu
This experimental question becomes particularly relevant if the contextual dimension is taken as
a variable to be assessed. If we are trying to study the creative qualities of a compositional product, isolating
that product from its context does not seem to be the best strategy to adopt. The social and the physical context
in ecocompositional terms, the ecological niche may determine the function and the dynamic of the
creative processes involved. Whats creative for naive listeners may not be creative for experienced listeners.
Whats creative for children may be annoying for adults. What fosters creativity during exploratory activities
may hinder attaining results when refning and Iocusing are necessary. In short, context matters.
Acknowledgements:
Research supported by CNPq (301982/2008-2, 478092/2008-3, 571443/2008-7) and CAPES.
References:
AMABILE, T. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
BARBOSA, R. B., LIMA, M. H., QUEIROZ, M., PIMENTA, M. S. & KELLER, D. Validao de Procedimentos
Composicionais: Estudo Exploratrio. In: Encontro de Msica e Mdia, 6, 2010, So Paulo, SP.
BENNETT, S. The process of musical creation: Interview with eight composers. Journal of Research in Music
Eaucation, 24, 3-13, 1976.
BURNARD, P. & YOUNKER, B. A. Problem-solving and creativity: insights from students individual
composing pathways. International Journal of Music Education, 22, 59-76, 2004.
CHEN, C. W. The creative process of computer-assisted composition and multimedia composition: Visual
images and music. Melbourne, 2006. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
COLLINS, D. A synthesis process model of creative thinking in music composition. Psychology of Music,
33(2), 193-216, 2005.
DINGWALL, C. Rational and intuitive approaches to music composition: The impact of individual differences
in thinking/learning styles on compositional processes. Sidney, 2008. Bachelor of Music Dissertation.
University of Sydney.
HICKEY, M. Creative thinking in the context of music composition. In: HICKEY, M. (Ed.), Why and how to
teach music composition: A new horizon for music education. Reston, VA: MENC, The National Association
for Music Education, 2003, 31-53.
SHAH, J. J., VARGAS-HERNANDEZ, N., & SMITH, S. M. Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness.
Design Studies, 24, 111134, 2003.
WALLAS, G. The Art of Thought. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and World, 1926.
WEBSTER, P. Asking music students to refect on their creative work: Encouraging the revision process. In:
YIP, L. C. R., LEUNG, C. C. Leung & LAU, W. T. (Eds.), Curriculum Innovation in Music. Hong Kong: The
Hong Kong Institute of Education, 2003, 16-27.