A clavichord improvisation while I couldn't hear the instrument

[Derek]

Ok, here's my try on my clavichord. I wore headphones with white noise playing loud enough I could not hear the instrument at all. Twas a very strange sensation...

[nickc]

Wonderful feeling isn't it? How far can the mind go is the question....

Fantastic music... thanks for sharing.

Nicholas

[Derek]

Wonderful feeling isn't it? How far can the mind go is the question....

Fantastic music... thanks for sharing.

Nicholas

I dunno, I can't say I really enjoyed playing it without hearing it. It was definitely interesting to try though. It was actually somewhat horrifying. Like, imagining actually being deaf after a lifetime of loving and playing music. 

[quantum]

Well there seems to be a trend developing here.  Of those who have shared their take on this experiment, there is no appreciable diversion from the creative voice behind the improvisation.  This very much sounds like Derek, and posses salient characteristics I have come to hear in the years of listening to your music. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for sharing.

[ted]

Well there seems to be a trend developing here.  Of those who have shared their take on this experiment, there is no appreciable diversion from the creative voice behind the improvisation.

Yes, fascinating indeed. The precise reasons for this consistency could be tricky to fathom. Does it mean that we all have the ability to generate actual internal aural feedback, equivalent to photographic memory, from haptic and visual stimuli ? I had always thought this ability extremely rare, at least exceptional enough to discount occurring in several people at once on a public forum. I tend to think, therefore, that perhaps we are kidding ourselves about the significance of aural feedback in the spontaneous creative process. Rhythm and phrase, for instance, combined with visual and tactile input,  but lacking specific pitch input, might possibly be sufficient to embed musical personality. It sounds silly, but it might be true all the same.

[Derek]

Yes, fascinating indeed. The precise reasons for this consistency could be tricky to fathom. Does it mean that we all have the ability to generate actual internal aural feedback, equivalent to photographic memory, from haptic and visual stimuli ? I had always thought this ability extremely rare, at least exceptional enough to discount occurring in several people at once on a public forum. I tend to think, therefore, that perhaps we are kidding ourselves about the significance of aural feedback in the spontaneous creative process. Rhythm and phrase, for instance, combined with visual and tactile input,  but lacking specific pitch input, might possibly be sufficient to embed musical personality. It sounds silly, but it might be true all the same.

If the gradient in quality between this and "lydian/phrygian experiment" are any indication, the significance of aural feedback is quite great. At least for me, not for folks who have somehow internalized musical thought 100% into their brain, like Beethoven, haha.

Like, maybe enough habits arrange themselves that it's still recognizably me, but it's going to be missing quite a bit of "oomph" that can only be there if I'm engaged emotionally. Which it was really tough to be whilst not hearing anything, haha.

[quantum]

This may suggest that our perception of aural feedback, may not be as direct as we have come to believe.  In the absence of a given stimuli, even one which we consider essential to a task, we may have developed backup systems and alternate network pathways which our brains use to ensure the completion of a given task.  This may also suggest that the creative core processing is independent from the motor skills and sensory feedback processing, such that absence of said feedback loop does not grossly affect the data flow.

Although the presence of auditory stimuli would most certainly result in feeling a more intimate connection with the creative process to give you said "oomph," it is quite possible for creativity to remain on course without it. 

[Derek]

This may suggest that our perception of aural feedback, may not be as direct as we have come to believe.  In the absence of a given stimuli, even one which we consider essential to a task, we may have developed backup systems and alternate network pathways which our brains use to ensure the completion of a given task.  This may also suggest that the creative core processing is independent from the motor skills and sensory feedback processing, such that absence of said feedback loop does not grossly affect the data flow.

Although the presence of auditory stimuli would most certainly result in feeling a more intimate connection with the creative process to give you said "oomph," it is quite possible for creativity to remain on course without it.  

I think you're right, it's a very long and slow process to respond to one's own sounds. It has to settle in to the deep parts of our cerebellum perhaps. So if you take away the response to the sound, all of the built pathways are there but you might not grow further, if that makes sense. I.e. I am willing to bet if you made me deaf, recorded me for the next 10 years improvising, and compared me to a Derek in a parallel universe who was not deaf also recorded for the next 10 years, I would be shocked if the latter were not more interesting to listen to. Like, if I grew or changed any of my habits at all, I wouldn't have any idea if the new things I was trying really were things I liked or not.

[chopinlover01]

One doesn't need to hear the music externally if they can hear it in their head..

[ted]

This may suggest that our perception of aural feedback, may not be as direct as we have come to believe.  In the absence of a given stimuli, even one which we consider essential to a task, we may have developed backup systems and alternate network pathways which our brains use to ensure the completion of a given task.  This may also suggest that the creative core processing is independent from the motor skills and sensory feedback processing, such that absence of said feedback loop does not grossly affect the data flow.

Although the presence of auditory stimuli would most certainly result in feeling a more intimate connection with the creative process to give you said "oomph," it is quite possible for creativity to remain on course without it.  

Taking an analogous liberty, it occurred to me, while practising cell transition just now, that our deaf brains may be behaving like David Cope algorithms. A computer program essentially substitutes pattern recognition and generation for perception and creation of aural qualia. It “hears” nothing at all, yet “composes” music indistinguishable from that which a hearing brain might produce. In fact, you don’t even need artificial intelligence to do it. A Basic program of a hundred or so lines will accomplish it, as I showed here somewhere or other.

Our brains are many millions of times greater than Cope’s algorithm or my little program, neither of which perceives actual sound at all, so is it really surprising that this experiment turned out as it has ? Are we flattering ourselves, when we improvise, that we are doing much more than we actually are ?

One doesn't need to hear the music externally if they can hear it in their head..

Very true, but in the light of this experiment, it would appear impossible to distinguish the end products of players who can from those of players who cannot.

[Derek]

What about what I posited above. Imagine a totally deaf person being taught all scales and chords on the piano and how to play them, and then have them build a vocabulary at the keyboard for 10 years.

I have a feeling it wouldn't sound as good as someone who could hear while they were doing this.

They would never once be able to go: "Ah, I like that sound, I shall use it again." They might not even develop any sort of response in their fingers that involve any sort of idea generation or repetition of any kind because they wouldn't be chewing on anything except the tactile feeling of the keyboard.

[Derek]

Very true, but in the light of this experiment, it would appear impossible to distinguish the end products of players who can from those of players who cannot.

Except that in our experiment, all of us *have heard* our instruments for years. It seems to me the premise of the experiment may be invalid to some degree.

[timothy42b]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

My thought, could be wrong:

In order to play, we need a voice in our head, some kind of sound we're striving for.

In order to improve, we need to hear the sound actually coming out of the instrument.  (and compare it to the sound we want, and calculate the error, and execute a correction)

Hearing both simultaneously is difficult.  I tend to bounce back and forth, that's why I record practice.  I speculate prodigies might just be people who learned to hear faster than the rest of us. 

[ted]

Except that in our experiment, all of us *have heard* our instruments for years. It seems to me the premise of the experiment may be invalid to some degree.

Yes, that's right. Aural memory, even if unconscious, imprecise or dissimilar to eidetic vision, might play a very important role in the experiment itself without our realising it. I do not know for sure, but it might have also influenced Cope's algorithm. Any accurate idea of what is going on is likely to be very complex.

[Derek]

In order to play, we need a voice in our head, some kind of sound we're striving for.

I've never known what I'm striving for (except when specifically imitating a style...which I almost consider a different skill entirely, nowadays...)...instead, I find my playing evolves over time and certain sounds sort of start to accumulate and intermix either because I liked them or I experimented with them and they became a habitual part of my vocabulary. And then the ways in which these habits intermix in the moment is where the really interesting moments occur.

In order to improve, we need to hear the sound actually coming out of the instrument.  (and compare it to the sound we want, and calculate the error, and execute a correction)

Hearing both simultaneously is difficult.  I tend to bounce back and forth, that's why I record practice.  I speculate prodigies might just be people who learned to hear faster than the rest of us.  

Recording improvisation is incredibly effective for growth. I've never had anything close to a prodigy like musical talent, either for technique or for improvisation, I've needed all the help I can get lol, and recording definitely helps. Or at least I've strongly perceived that it does, simply because when you're playing you often don't know what's really good until you listen later. I think it may help reinforce the pathways that originally generated the sound.