From: tgee@alfred.carleton.ca (Travis Gee)
Subject: RE: Are creativity and a good memory inversely related?
Keywords: creativity, memory
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:07:57 GMT

A  response to  my  previous posting arrived in my mailbox  today. The
author of that  note does not have net access for posting and asked me
to post his comments. (How he got the post is a mystery to me.) My
response to his comments follows his note.

Here's his note  (headers included so you can find him):

From @hel-pless.brl.mil,@hel1.brl.mil:tkelley@hel4.brl.mil Wed Jul 22 15:52:51 1992
Return-Path: <@hel-pless.brl.mil,@hel1.brl.mil:tkelley@hel4.brl.mil>
Received: from SMOKE.BRL.MIL by alfred.ccs.carleton.ca (4.1/SMI-4.0)
	id AA04896; Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:52:47 EDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 15:52:46 EDT
Received: by SMOKE.BRL.MIL id aa24147; 22 Jul 92 15:50 EDT
Received: from hel-pless.brl.mil by SMOKE.BRL.MIL id aa23978;
          22 Jul 92 15:44 EDT
Received: from hel1.brl.mil by hel-pless.brl.mil id aa20934; 22 Jul 92 16:39 EDT
From: tkelley@hel4.brl.mil
To: tgee <@BRL.MIL:tgee@alfred.ccs.carleton.ca>
Subject: Re: Are creativity and a good memory inversely related?
Message-Id:  <9207221640.aa20934@hel-pless.brl.mil>
Status: OR

In your posting you write:
>In <l5ou8mINNk1q@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
writes:
>
>
>>Is there any evidence that people with let's say, eidetic memories,
>>any less creative than people with less accomplished memories?
>
>My M.A. thesis was a study of 23 outstanding jazz musicians, all of
>whom have stupendous memories for music, and are remarkably creative.
>I suspect that the more things we can remember, the more patterns we
>can discern out of the apparent chaos. It is only by developing the
>ability to translate, say, emotional patterns (as in music) into
>expressive physical patterns (the actual sound that comes out of the
>instrument) that creativity can occur.  And to develop the expressive
>skills, one must also have in memory organized images of the overall
>framework in which one is playing. Superb imagery contributes to
>superb performances. One can be creative only when one is not
>struggling to remember. 
>Just my $.02 worth.

-- I dont have direct access to the digest. I would appreciate if you
-- posted these comments for me.

As a musician and a psycologist myself, I know that great musicians can
play what they hear in their head, especially if they have perfect pitch.
This is not a total recall type of memory where you are to remember which
cord is next, instead it is more of a recognition type of memory where
one knows what note leads to the next, and if you are good enough, you can play
the next note. Especially because once one note is remembered,
the other notes just follow easily. Improvization can be considered creative,
but it is also learned, beleive me I know. And I have heard some very
uncreative
improvisation in my life. Basically it is a collection of learned patterns that
are strung together in different orders. Those patterns are always repeated
and this gives all musicians there own style. That's why you can tell the
difference between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Eric Clapton, even though they both
might be playing the same song and are improvising in the same key. Each one
has learned patterns that they repeat for different songs, even though they
are improvising. Song memory might not be a good test of a good musician's
memory, as opposed to a more traditional standard memory test. And
improvisation
ability might not be a great test of creativity, but creativity is very hard
to mesure, so it might be as good as any.


My reply to tkelley:

Repeated patterns do not constitute style, although they do become
identifiable. Otherwise, we could not identify Clapton (f'rinstance)
when he plays a new piece which contains none of his well-known
cliches. I think you'll agree that at least some people _can_ do that.
It is the way in which the same cliche gets used by different people
to express different shades of emotion that is important. Otherwise,
those Clapton 'wannabes' who learn his patterns would not be
distinguishable from him. 
  Eventually, even the  sound which is generated  by the instrument is
cultivated to the point where  the  same note held for the same amount
of time with no bending or anything can distinguish two musicians.
This is not repeated pattern, either, it is a matter of individual
taste being reflected in extremely complex physiological and physical
manifestations. 

Much as in language, memory is required to store the basic elements,
be they words, musical cliches or motor patterns. Ultimately, memory
must be capable of recalling rich patterns very quickly, which is why
the use of imagery is important. With imagery, we can recall more
features of a thing simultaneously - the sound, the feel, and the
intonation of a note, along with the information as to where our
fingers must be and where we are in the piece. 

Creativity requires focus on 'the big picture' , but that focus is not
possible if the imagery mode of  recollection is disabled or  -worse -
undeveloped. Thus when we speak of memory, we must distinguish between
sharp, sequential recall of single features, or fuzzier simultaneous
recall of many features. Perhaps those who function best in
imagery-based recall have lousy sequential skills. But they cannot
lack the imagery skills, or else creativity will be stifled by an
inability to relate the notes being played to the ideas present in the
music. 

Newsgroups: sci.psychology