Tracing Adaptations in the Professional Practice

of Musicians with Chronic Illness and Injury

Wendy McMahon
Nordoff Robbins/Goldsmiths
Thank you for the invitation!

 Wendy McMahon
 Nordoff Robbins/Goldsmiths University, London, U.K. (Mphil/PhD Music, Health, Society) – in progress
 Sheffield University, U.K. (MA, Music Psychology in Education)
 Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (BA, Musical Studies; Cello)

 Professional background in music education (private lesson teaching, music program writing/curriculum dev.,
community performance)
 The intersection of years of practical experience and a fascination for teaching/learning/motivation strategies, leading
to reading on perception-as-action (Heft, 2002; 2018); (Gibson, 1979)
 Additionally, alongside a longtime admiration for music therapy and the expressive therapies, culminated in a study of
a musical theatre group for adults/children with special needs for the final project of my MA. Having immersed myself
in the community music therapy literature (and overlapping disciplines) I ultimately learned of the Nordoff Robbins
PhD program offering tracks for both Music Therapists and community musicians like myself.
Current Research Study :: Tracing adaptations in the
professional practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

 Pilot Research Study

 Beginning 2nd year of my Mphil/PhD study –

Pilot Study Research Questions:

 How have chronically ill/injured professional musicians made musicking more accessible for
themselves?
 How have these strategies and technologies been appropriated when considered as affordances?
 In what ways might ecological psychology and allied perspectives (e.g. enactivism) offer useful frameworks for
analyzing and interpreting these data?
Rationale :: Tracing adaptations in the professional practice of
musicians with chronic illness and injury

Rationale for Pilot Study

 Oftentimes, professional musicians navigating ill-health and injury do so without a clear roadmap in
regards to sustaining their creative and professional practice.
 This study aims to trace and explore the creative, practical and ‘cognitive’ strategies adapted by
musicians as well as the adaptive technologies and devices developed for their instruments.
 Given the propensity of healthy bodies to ‘recede’, there are potentially rich seams of insight available
via those whose bodily awareness/experience has moved to the fore due to illness/injury.
Moreover, given that a musician depends on intensive practice, dexterity, fine motor skill
development, etc., participants may have explored and reflected upon different hurdles/solutions
relating to musical practice in an implicitly embodied way (e.g. ‘hands-on’/perception-as-action).
Literature Context :: Tracing adaptations in the professional
practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

This study lies at the intersection of several areas of research:

a. The physical and occupational therapy literature as it relates to musicians health and playing-related
injuries (Guptil, 2011; 2012); (Watson, 2009); (Sataloff, Brandfonbrener & Lederman, 2017).

b. The music psychology literature related to the implications of change in professional status on a person’s
sense of (musical) identity (MacDonald, Hargreaves & Miell, 2017; Ansdell & Meehan, 2010).

c. The adaptive technologies as applied in the field of music therapy to restore access to musicking and
creative expression (Magee, 2014; Tam, Schwellnus, Eaton, Hamdani, Lamont & Chau, 2007; Matossian &
Gehlhaar, 2015).

d. The ecological and embodied experience of musicking (Clarke, 2001; 2005); Windsor & de Bezenac, 2012);
(Gibson, 1966; 1979); (Heft, 2001); (Witek, 2017). (more on next slide)

e. Complementary theories to (d.) such as enactivism (Schiavio, van der Schyff, Cespedes-Guevara, &
Reybrouck, 2017).
 Ecological psychology:
“[A]nimate beings exist in relation
Heft, 2001 to a flow of events, and their
functioning is best understood as
that of dynamic, organismic
processes in context.”
 Not isolated, separated ‘mental processes’ and stimulus-responses
But dynamic real-time interactions between bodies/minds,
environments and the instruments/tools/actors within, affording
many possibilities for action and reaction within the contextual flow

Dynamic
Interactions
Body-Mind Environment

Affordances
Interdisciplinary
Perspectives ::
Groove
If we consider this dynamic flow of
events from a musicking
perspective, we might consider the
way Witek positions the body front-
and-center in the generation of
‘Groove’ in music performance and
listening:
“Syncopation in groove leaves the
metre acoustically incomplete…the
body is the most immediate and
material instrument with which the
metre can be completed”… (continued
next slide)
Play Maceo Parker video “Shake Everything You’ve Got” 7:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABLwmYI09Lw (7:12-
9:00)
 “Groove requires the body in order
Witek, 2017 not just to be understood,
but to be complete”.
 • And also, we can find consideration
given to the tools, instruments and
materiality's of performance and craft:
• Bodily music-instrumental sets of
dispositions ultimately form an
Instrumental Habitus – involving
perceptive, physical and kinesthetic
sensations generated in the
instrumentalist when playing over time
(and particularly notable are the
Interdisciplinary comparisons made to other instruments
one has played, e.g. a viola feeling
heavier than a violin, etc.) (Boia, 2014;
Perspectives :: 2010).
• Delamont & Stephens’ (2008)
Instrumental ethnographic study of Capoeira (a
Brazilian martial art/dance), identified
Habitus elements of habitus comprising the
studio space, the musical instruments
used in practice and performance, along
with the myriad physical skills involved
in the activity, echoing Atkinson’s
ethnographic work on "glassblowing
pedagogy [which] is ... in part, inscribed
in the material arrangements of the
studio, and couched in terms of those
physical competences that the tools and
techniques call for”. (Atkinson, 2013;
O’Connor, 2017)
Method for Pilot Study :: Tracing adaptations in the
professional practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

Method of data generation: The Show & Tell Session

• Format:
• Semi-structured interview
• Demo of instrument(s), adaptive technologies, devices and/or demo of cognitive strategies
• Musical duo session (e.g. duet, improvisation, vamp)

• The aim of the musical duo is to give further opportunities for musicking (not just talking
about musicking); to explore musicking together; how might the physicality of the musical
conversation change when two people are involved? Is there a notable change in the
instrumentalist communicating in the musical moment?

• 1-2 hours; videoed, photographed

• Follow-up reflection session 1-2 hours (approx. 1 week after Show & Tell session)
Methods of Analysis :: Tracing adaptations in the
professional practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

Methods of data analysis:

a. Coding and categorizing of themes from videos, interviews and field-
notes/journal
b. The music (therapeutic) index and musical event schema (DeNora & Ansdell,
2017) - allows us to trace actions, gestures, musicking, tracing ways ‘music
gets into action’
c. Ethnographic interpretation of creative work (Atkinson, 2013; O’Conner, 2017
- here they offer insight on the embodied nature of fieldwork as well as
detailed analysis of the dynamic ecologies generated between bodies, tools,
tacit knowledge/learning stages, and the skills/techniques inherent to each
craft).
Initial Data Themes :: Tracing adaptations in the
professional practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

Themes emerging from Initial Interview Data (case study):

1. Devices/Tech: Customization of violin shoulder rest (Bonmusica)
2. Embodiment: Bonmusica relieving excess “pressure” from neck/shoulders,
allowing for less pain, more playing
3. Musicians Health/Proprioception: The Pain Paradox. “No pain, no gain” Vs
“Pain is bad” Vs “Pain is a way to hear my injured body speak”
4. Identity Paradox: Hiding Illness & Injury (from clients/audiences); feeling
invisible in society/healthcare system
5. Resilience/Wellbeing: Retraining expectations: learning a new instrument
(piano) as a pathway to finding “yes!” again
Theme Detail Collaboration  Co-created outcomes
Device/Tech Customization of violin Manufacturer (Bonmusica) Customized experience
shoulder rest (Bonmusica) Musician/Participant (H) Exploration: body/instrument
Music Moves Us:: Tracing adaptations in theInstructor
Health Workshop’s professional
Expansion/trying something
practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury new
Embodiment Bonmusica relieving excess Tool: Bonmusica Customization/tweaking of
“pressure” from Instrument: Violin tool + exploration of body and
neck/shoulders, allowing for Body: Neck-Shoulder/Spine proprioceptive awareness
less pain, more playing Re-Alignment/Feet/ Hips Affording more TIME
(endurance/less pain/less
fatigue) for
practice/performance through
use of tool
Musicians Pain paradox Body/Mind More pain/Injury/Dealing with
Health/Proprioception No pain, no gain >>Pain is bad + Instrument pain (continuum)
>>Pain is a way to hear my + Social/Performance/ Emotional pain/healing
injured body speak Other Expectations journey
Support Systems (or lack Mind/body split or Integration
thereof) Identity Paradox (see next
Theme)
Theme Detail
Identity Paradox Hiding Illness/injury from
clients/audiences/colleagues (U.K./U.S.)
Feeling invisible in
Music Moves Us::
society/healthcare system
Morphing sense of self as
Tracing adaptations in the professional
practice of musicians with chronic
musicianship/instrumental
skills change
Collaboration  Co-created outcomes
Healthcare systems Living split life (‘faking’
wellness/ableness in professional life,
Habitus/Instrumental suffering during/after)
Habitus:
Primary/secondary
Working hard to hide illness AND
overcome illness in performance while
illness
instruments and injury
and our also suffering from illness during practice
relationships to them and performance (‘triple fatigue’).
(emotionally and Challenge: Resentment/regret for
physically) instrument/body/illness/injury.
Musical social groups Opportunity: Openness to new
(professional and personal) possibilities (learning new
techniques/instruments) – illness/injury
brings perspective, if embraced.

Resilience/ Wellbeing Retraining expectations:
Learning a new instrument
(piano) as a pathway to
finding “yes!” again
Weighted keyboard +
headphones
Seated/Differently aligned
body (= less pain/more
endurance)
Retraining expectations
(learning new instrument vs
recapturing high level
former skills)
Immersive ‘quasi-acoustic’ private audio
experience
Excitement of accomplishing new
musical goals as opposed to frustration
of declining violin skills =
Rebirth of musical excitement and
developing sense of coherence (musical
identity)
Interdisciplinary Perspectives :: Tracing adaptations in the
professional practice of musicians with chronic illness and injury

Coming from a psychology background, I realized perhaps I had been

underappreciating the role of the social in my thinking, not only
regarding the people but also the tools, instruments and devices…

Thus, I began to shift my analytical perspective from the individual to

tracing these networks of experience, considering them as embedded
within and influenced by webs or tapestries of people, places and things
– a social world co-created and participatory by nature (e.g. ANT;
Latour, 1999; 2005; Garfinkle, 1967).
Imogen Heap/Mi.Mu Gloves
Interdisciplinary Perspectives ::
Actor Network Theory

Actor Network Theory (Latour, 1999; 2005) is a way of exploring the relational ties within a network:
Described by Latour as a “how-to book exploring detailed descriptions of how common activities, habits
and procedures sustain themselves”.
ANT gives us a way to think about music as a social creation and influencer (e.g. musicking the act, the
product, the industry, etc.), including instrument design influenced by musicians and makers (to name
just a few actors forming networks), the maker with ideas and skill and the musician who wants
instruments they can create with today and invent with tomorrow.
A (famous) example:
Leo Fender the guitar inventor and builder, didn’t actually play the guitar, but made adaptations and
improvements to his guitars influenced by feedback from musicians who played his instruments (as well
as his own technical skills and design ideas). In effect, co-creating his instruments/design through the
shared expertise and tacit knowledge of a collective shared ‘Mind’ in addition to constraints and
possibilities afforded by the technology and materials available at the time. This is a transient network
literally sustained by making and re-making ideas and instruments.
 Case study ::
“H” & Bonmusica
Outlining H’s Bonmusica experience:
• Motivated by pain and desire for
change
• Beginning with an introduction at a
‘Healthy Musicians’ workshop
• Continued through an exploration
with the tool itself relating to H’s
own body/playing experience
• Connecting H to other players and
traditions offering alternative
approaches to head/neck/body
position (e.g. Alexander Technique)
• (As well as traditional players who
voiced a preference for playing
without any shoulder rest at all)
• Psychological transitions occurred
as the initial idea of ‘customizing’
H’s violin (e.g. within the classical
tradition) took H a lot of getting
used to!
• Relieved “pressure” (tension) in
neck/shoulders afforded longer
periods of playing
 This interplay of co-creation
between the Bonmusica,
alongside the workshop
instructor and H’s
explorations with the
instrument/tool herself,
demonstrate the
co-participatory nature
of musical experiences
intertwined across networks
of people/tools, place and
time (e.g. Actor Network
Theory).
 Music moves us to act and
adapt…are we then ‘moving’
(changing and adapting)
music (e.g. tradition,
creation, instrument design,
etc.?)
 Small groups or pairs:
When you are practicing or performing and/or teaching…think of the collaborations emerging between musical
and non-musical actors (e.g. instruments, tech. / student-parent expectations, curriculum goals, etc.)
What are some co-created outcomes (between the above elements) you have experienced personally through
your work and practice?

1) Brainstorm together and generate music-based examples where you have ‘collaborated’/’co-created’ with the
following:
- Instruments/Tools/Actors (e.g. violin; Bonmusica, customized tech. etc.)
- Other Actors (e.g. other musicians, instrument manufacturers, audience members, students, etc.)

Small Group 2) Trace the Details (give examples) of several co-created outcomes and Collaborations (who/what were present).

15 mins approx. discussion then groups/pairs share one example each with large group.
Activity &
Discussion H’s Case Study Example:
Outlining H’s Bonmusica experience:
• Motivated by pain and desire for change
• Beginning with an introduction at a ‘Healthy Musicians’ workshop
• Continued through an exploration with the tool itself relating to H’s own body/playing experience
• Connecting H to other players and traditions offering alternative approaches to head/neck/body position
(e.g. Alexander Technique)
• (As well as traditional players who voiced a preference for playing without any shoulder rest at all)
• Psychological transitions occurred as the initial idea of ‘customizing’ H’s violin (e.g. within the classical
tradition) took H a lot of getting used to!
• Relieved “pressure” (tension) in neck/shoulders afforded longer periods of playing and less perceived pain
Thank you!

Any questions or points for discussion?

wendy.mcmahon@nordoff-robbins.org.uk