Advertisement

The Creative Process in Lead Sheet Composition

  • Daniel Martín
  • François Pachet
  • Benjamin Frantz
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

Popular songs have arguably a huge impact on society. It is therefore legitimate to investigate the nature of the creative act underlying popular song composition. Ethnographic experiments in song composition are difficult to conduct. This chapter describes an experiment addressing the role of feedback in the lead sheet composition process. To what extent can peer feedback affect the quality of a music composition? How does musical experience influence the quality of feedback during the song composition process? Participants compose short songs using an online lead sheet editor, and are given the possibility to provide feedback on other participants’ songs. Feedback can either be accepted or rejected in a later step. Quantitative data were collected from this experiment that can be used to estimate the relation between the intrinsic quality of songs (estimated by peer evaluation) and the nature of feedback. Results show that peer feedback can indeed improve both the quality of a song composition and the composer’s satisfaction about it. Also, composers tend to prefer compositions from other musicians with similar musical experience levels.

Keywords

Music composition Creative process Peer feedback Composition quality Lead sheet Online lead sheet editor Song 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted within the Flow-Machines project funded by the ERC under the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013)/ERC Grant Agreement n. 291156, and by the Praise project (EU FP7 number 388770), a collaborative project funded by the European Commission under program FP7-ICT-2011-8.

References

  1. Ahren, T. (2015, 10). Versions, variants, and the performatives of the score: Traces of performances in the texts of Anton Webern’s music. Retrieved from http://medias.ircam.fr/xc1449e.
  2. Barbot, B., & Lubart, T. (2012). Creative thinking in music: Its nature and assessment through musical exploratory behaviors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(3), 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigand, E., & Poulin-Charronnat, B. (2006). Are we “experienced listeners”? A review of the musical capacities that do not depend on formal musical training. Cognition, 100(1), 100–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2005). Towards supporting evocation processes in creative design: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4), 422–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, D. (2012). The act of musical composition: Studies in the creative process. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Dominic, M., & Francis, S. (2013). An assessment of popular e-learning systems via Felder-Silverman model and a comprehensive-learning system using the tools on web 2.0. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(11), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donin, N. (2016). Domesticating gesture: The collaborative creative process of Florence Baschet’s StreicherKreis for ‘augmented’ string quartet (2006–2008). In E. Clarke & M. Doffman (Eds.), Creativity, improvisation and collaboration: Perspectives on the performance of contemporary music. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of making suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1139–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Martín, D., Neullas, T., & Pachet, F. (2015). Leadsheetjs: A javascript library for online lead sheet editing. In First International Conference on Technologies for Music Notation and Representation (Tenor). Paris, France.Google Scholar
  12. Miell, D., & MacDonald, R. (2000). Children’s creative collaborations: The importance of friendship when working together on a musical composition. Social Development, 9(3), 348–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014). The musicality of non-musicians: An index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population. PLoS One, 9(2), e89642. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pachet, F. (2011). Hit song science. In Tao, Tzanetakis, & Ogihara (Eds.), Music data mining (pp. 305–326). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press. Google Scholar
  15. Pachet, F., & Diran, C. (2014). Marie-claire. http://www.cdbaby.com/AlbumDetails.aspx?AlbumID=marieclaire.
  16. Pachet, F., & d’Inverno, M. (2014). Count on it. http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/markdinvernoquintet?SourceCode=widgetbaby.
  17. Pachet, F., Suzda, J., & Martín, D. (2013, November). A comprehensive online database of machine-readable lead sheets for jazz standards. In ISMIR (pp. 275–280). Curitiba (Brazil). Google Scholar
  18. Peretz, I., Gaudreau, D., & Bonnel, A.-M. (1998). Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 884–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rentfrow, P. J. (2012). The role of music in everyday life: Current directions in the social psychology of music. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(5), 402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salavuo, M. (2006, 11). Open and informal online communities as forums of collaborative musical activities and learning. British Journal of Music Education, 23, 253–271.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265051706007042.
  23. Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. September, O. (2013). Behind the scenes with MOOCs: Berklee college of music’s experience developing, running, and evaluating. Continuing Higher Education Review, 77, 137.Google Scholar
  25. Settles, B., & Dow, S. (2013). Let’s get together: The formation and success of online creative collaborations. In Proceedings of the Sigchi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2009–2018).Google Scholar
  26. Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 837–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Urbano, J., Lloréns, J., Morato, J., & Sánchez-Cuadrado, S. (2011). Melodic similarity through shape similarity. In Exploring music contents (pp. 338–355). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Martín
    • 1
  • François Pachet
    • 1
  • Benjamin Frantz
    • 1
  1. 1.ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations