Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T20:53:58.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Failure, Neuroscience and Success: Differentiating the pedagogies of music technology from electroacoustic composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2013

Christopher J. Keyes
Christopher J. Keyes*
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Hong Kong Baptist University, 224 Waterloo Road, HONG KONG E-mail: ckeyes@hkbu.edu.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the pedagogy of music technology more closely resembles that of other academic subjects, the teaching of electroacoustic composition involves a significant degree of creativity, and thus relies on different creativity-specific parts of the brain and memory systems (Lehmann 2007). This paper reviews recent neuroscientific research that may assist differentiation between effective pedagogical approaches of these two subjects where knowledge is stored in separate, discrete and sometimes competing long-term memory locations (Cotterill 2001). It argues that, because of these differences, the learning of music technology and electroacoustic composition is best kept separate, at least in the beginning stages. These points are underscored by an example of a demonstrably failed pedagogical model for teaching electroacoustic composition contrasted with a subsequent highly successful model employed in the same university music programme; an experience that may translate well to other learning environments.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 18 , Special Issue 2: Best Practices in the Pedagogy of Electroacoustic Music and its Technology , August 2013 , pp. 190 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolles, E.B. 1988. Remembering and Forgetting: Inquiries into the Nature of Memory. New York: Walker & Company.Google Scholar
Cotterill, R.M.J. 2001. Cooperation of the Basal Ganglia, Cerebellum, Sensory Cerebrum and Hippocampus: Possible Implications for Cognition, Consciousness, Intelligence and Creativity. Progress in Neurobiology 64: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delazer, M., Ischebeck, A., Domahs, F., Zamarian, L., Koppelstaetter, F., Siedentopf, C.M., Kaufmann, L., Benke, T., Felber, S. 2005. Learning by Strategies and Learning by Drill: Evidence from an fMRI Study. Neuroimage 25(3): 838–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietrich, A., Kanso, R. 2010. A Review of EEG, ERP, and Neuroimaging Studies of Creativity and Insight. Psychological Bulletin 136(5): 822–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmerson, S. 1989. Composing Strategies and Pedagogy. Contemporary Music Review 3: 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-Römer, C. 1993. The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review 100: 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, A. 2007. Psychology for Musicians: Understanding and Acquiring the Skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitin, D.J. 2006. This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Morgane, P.J., Galler, J.R., Mokler, D.J. 2005. A Review of Systems and Networks of the Limbic Forebrain/Limbic Midbrain. Progress in Neurobiology 75: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Packard, M.G., Hirsh, R., White, N.M. 1989. Differential Effects of Fornix and Caudate Nucleus Lesions on Two Radial Maze Tasks: Evidence for Multiple Memory Systems. Journal of Neuroscience 9(5): 1465–1472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poldrack, R.A., Packard, M.G. 2003. Competition Among Multiple Memory Systems: Converging Evidence from Animal and Human Brain Studies. Nature 414: 546–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redondo, R.L., Morris, R.G. 2011. Making Memories Last: The Synaptic Tagging and Capture Hypothesis. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 12: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Restak, R.M. 2003. The New Brain: How the Modern Age is Rewiring your Mind. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.Google Scholar
Runco, M. 2006. Creativity, Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R.K. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schoenberg, A. 1967. Fundamentals of Musical Composition, ed. Gerald Strang, London: Faber.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1986. Spectromorphology and Structuring Processes. In S. Emmerson (ed.) The Language of Electroacoustic Music. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smalley, D. 1997. Spectromorphology: Explaining Sound Shapes. Organised Sound 2(2): 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, L. 2004. Memory Systems of the Brain: A Brief History and Current Perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, L., Zola-Morgan, S. 1996. Structure and Function of Declarative and Nondeclarative Memory Systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93: 13515–13522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thoresen, L. 2007. Spectromorphological Analysis of Sound Objects: An adaptation of Pierre Schaeffer's Typomorphology. Organised Sound 12: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wishart, T., Emmerson, S. 2002. On Sonic Art. London: Routledge.Google Scholar