I went to the Esplanade to attend the “Gala Concert: Sarah Chang Plays Bruch” on Friday, and I had some time before the concert to go to the library. While browsing through the journals on the bookshelves, I saw this study which caught my imagination – it was something about a cellist using performance cues to remember how to perform her piece, as studied by psychologists. Then, I had a brainwave. I thought of becoming, an orchestral psychologist.
Does anyone know of any pre-existing orchestra with such a position? I think I’d love to go and work there next time. A psychologist in his basic degree would have some exposure to industrial-organisational psychology knowledge and research on human perception, perhaps to do with music cognition and acoustics perception. So how about linking the two fields together, with music psychology and organisational psychology expertise, into orchestral psychology?
With a grounding in IO psychology, the psychologist could quite begin his consultancy by assigning roles to each member of the orchestra: the conductor who is the director; the principal players who would be like the manager/subject-matter experts; the rest who would be the staff. In fact, more configurations could be possible. Via motivation and incentive, and professional tools of the trade, the psychologist could aid in building an orchestra highly focused upon their craft, and committed to their passions.
While in the commercial business-oriented setting the goal of such consultancy is to achieve monetary and productivity payoffs, which would be measured by accountants and business economists, the goal of the orchestra would be to achieve better acoustics and musicality. This, while is a task traditionally tasked to audiences and critics as judges, and teachers as coaches, could actually be interpreted as, in turn, another domain of psychology. The psychologist could offer advice on memorization strategies; learning; the effects of the vibrato on the human emotion; the affect of the timbre.
Besides, traditional results of IO psychology can also be expected from the non-musician core of the orchestra when the services of the psychologist is engaged in those areas i.e. in the event management department; sponsorships department etc.
Yet, will the introduction of such a role in the structure of the orchestra be a challenge to the traditional hierarchy and unwritten rules of the musicians? Why should a psychologist, a scientist, be allowed to interfere into the domain of artistes? Will experienced players not be better judges and coaches than the psychologist, the former with their empirical and hands-on knowledge rather than the latter’s clinical training? Perhaps, the maximal acceptance one can give to the psychologist is to allow him with his practice of IO on the orchestra – his coaching of leadership and motivation in the orchestra might be welcome in a setting where the onus is on the conductor, the leader of many, to synthesize and bring out collective magic in his players, each a talent and individual star. However, the psychologist who tries to advise on the direct experience and creation of music could be seen as overstepping his line of duty. Do IO psychologists try to advise businesses on strategic acquisitions and mergers? If no, then why should they advise orchestras on musicality, even if they may be a tad more trained on musical perception than business strategy? A musician who is trained as an IO psychologist might do better, conferring advice as a fellow artist, improving organisation as a practitioner.
But has IO psychology looked into the performing arts? I am guessing that orchestras can benefit as much, if not better, from IO as compared to the white-collar industry. I have not heard of any openings in orchestras, or theatre groups, for IO psychologists though. I think sadly, the undersized incomes of arts performing groups around do not allow themselves such luxuries in recruitment, perhaps. To justify the extra cost of a professional psychologist to the sponsors would require a very excellent reason to change the status quo.
Anyway, Sarah Chang’s performance was stellar. I think I counted six or seven curtain calls. (Disclaimer: As usual, this is all to the untrained ear 
) Her opening was intense, and her way of playing throughout exuded a great deal of self-confidence. I would say that hearing it played live was much better than the studio recording of her performance. It could perhaps have been the acoustics; the atmosphere or the emotional sincerity that comes out better playing to a physical human audience than an electronic mic. Applause to the Singapore Symphony Orchestra as well for their accompaniment of her concerto. Bravo! I would most definitely want to go and see a similar performance to this in the future.
Entries (RSS)
Psychologists are not scientists. They are semi-scientists at best.
Precisely. If they were scientists, people like Freud, Yalom or Maslov would never existed. The study of the mind requires a critical appreciation of the human, not just as a generalized entity, but also as a unique individual with his personal constructs and beliefs. Either because of the imprecision of our scientific instruments, or by evolution or super-intelligent design, the study of the mind, rather thankfully, I would say, is a field where normalized laws don’t quite hold. At times, to even consider it a “social science”, equipped with a proper understanding of the differences in epistemology between hard and soft sciences, would be pushing it.
Um. I would consider it a social science, and therefore not a science. A social science because humans are involved, and humans are unpredictable, and it follows.
And how do we know that humans are unpredictable? It is by firstly the meta-study of all that studies humanity. Otherwise, we would not have arrived at such a conclusion! Even so, there are still those who seek a more “scientific” slant to social scientific studies, and those who argue for a more artsy; critical perspective to it.
If not for the fortunate surrender to the premise that humans are indeed unpredictable, I would not have so quickly passed the above comment about psychology. In my descriptions I do not seek to simply call psychology a “social” science, but I like to see what method gains the most brilliant insights; and it is from that method that I proceed. Look at economics, where people are starting to, in consideration of the failure of economic “laws” that have caused the economic crises of today, trying to rewrite the entire field of economics by rebutting its basis in “science” and “prediction”, instead attempting to convince economists to see human economic behaviour as something rather more speculative and critical. It would be indeed sexy if psychology was to slant towards a similar orientation, for good, instead of going with “revolutions” and “with the flow”.
But I would not campaign now for such a radical interpretation of psychology; psychology’s affiliation with science, to a certain degree, has up to today allowed it to compete with its “harder” cousins like psychiatry with theories that stem from critical and humanistic origins e.g. the triumph of humanistic psychology in 1960s over biopsychiatry. If not for the basic grounding in the retroductive method of science, it is difficult to consider how psychology could have survived till the 21st century; instead it could have been lumped together with astrology; new-age and various other movements without scientific and public legitimacy. It could even be dismissed immediately as literature or mere philosophy by the people who live in the aftermath of the Enlightenment and conquer of Reason – which, will bring us back a full circle, to perhaps the academic interpretation of the human as a fully scientific being. Hence, I am thankful of all these “artists” in psychology for their contributions finally.