Yesterday, I returned home after an excellent five days in Stockholm, discussing philosophy of chemistry with philosophers of chemistry, eating as many lingonberries as I could manage, and trying not to wake up instantly when light started pouring through the curtains at 4 AM.
It was a good time.
My last night there, we decided to go to Stampen, a club in Gamla Stan (the old part of Stockholm), to hear the Stockholm Swing Allstars. They were fabulous. If they are playing anywhere near where you are, you should see them without fail. They have no CD (yet), but they have some MP3 demos on their website.
And, watching them perform put me in mind of some of the things that can make good science, like good jazz, really good.
Yeah, maybe the beer (and my tendency to make everything about science) warped my perspective. But here are the parallels that struck me as the Stockholm Swing Allstars played three very tight sets:
- The members of the band communicated with each other really well. They talked to each other before each song. And, they talked to each other at important moments in the middle of songs. This wasn't excessively talky talk. It wasn't like the audience could hear what they were saying to each other. But it was the right level of communication to make sure the band members all knew what they were doing and how they were doing it. Good scientific collaboration too has the right amount of clear communication as the science is happening. It's not bossy talking, just making sure everyone knows his or her part and how it's going to fit with what the others are doing.
- From the audience's point of view, this was a band that really functioned as a band rather than as a leader with a bunch of back up. It wasn't just that everyone got his solos throughout the sets. The interweaving of the instruments felt seamless. Taking any of those parts or players away would have resulted in something lesser. All together that night, they may well have been the most powerful band on earth. Good scientific collaboration makes maximal use of the talents each collaborator brings to the table, engaging those contributions seamlessly to produce an engagement with the phenomena that is much more powerful than the sum of the individual contributions.
- Maybe related to the coordination of the band, and the joy they seemed to get out of playing together, was the sense they gave that they weren't so much making good jazz as finding it. When the different parts came together, there wasn't any trace of smugness or egotism -- no "We made that with our formidable talents." Rather, it really felt like they were working together to find these perfect harmonies that had as much of an emotional impact on the players as they did on the audience. There was this vibe of discovery ... that felt a lot like good science can feel.
- The club was not packed. (Perhaps the Swedes, on a Thursday night, are more likely to be getting adequate rest for work on Friday than to be listening to jazz in a club). However, the band was clearly having a great time. In some ways, it felt like maybe they were their own audience. I don't mean that they were ignoring us -- they seemed happy to be sharing the music with us -- but they probably would have played three excellent sets even if we hadn't been there to watch it. Scientists who are really in the zone can be like this, too: of course they'd like other scientists to pay attention to what they find, but they are so into the project of finding out new stuff about the world that they're going to do it well (and have fun doing it) even if no one else is watching.
Joyful jazz is wondrous to behold (and doubtless, even more fun to play), and joyous science can be, too. I recommend scheduling the occasional group meeting at a jazz club.
Dr. Free-Ride,
I really like this post. I think that this applies definately to more than just Jazz and Science, but I do understand what you are trying to communicate as well. I could easily draw parallels to many different situations, including business and, I would bet, that politics could also use these 4 points to make life better.
All of the best concerts, of any type of music - be it jazz, pop or prog-metal shows, have illustrated at least three of the above points for me!
Cool post.
Janet, when I start playing in a band again, could you be our band leadership coordinator (or psychologist)? Your post reminded me of the wonderful collaboration I shared in my old acoustic-rock band for about 10 years vs. my attempts in my new place to back-up a singer-songwriter for whom the band concept was just a support role and vehicle for his songs.
I am certainly awed by virtuoso performers of most any genre, but I have experienced as both a spectator and participant those moments where there is true synergy of talents that transcend the combined skills of each musician. Dare I call it 'magic'? I've only had one 2-year period where my lab was large enough for this to happen. But, for that matter, I've also experienced it with certain beers and wines (and one of two wives!). But having tasted it, in any setting, one always strives for that nirvana.
Great post. I too have pondered the science-jazz connections ever since I became a serious jazz fan about eight years ago. I'll just add that I think there are similarities between the creation of jazz music and the discovery of science knowledge. To become a credible jazz musician requires significant study of the music's history along with a the dedication to master an instrument. Likewise, scientists spend formative, early years learning from past masters while developing a high level of proficiency in one particular area of science. It is only after mastering what came before and developing specialized skills and knowledge that the jazz artist and the scientist are prepared to create and to add something unique to his/her field.
You've brought back a previously-forgotten memory. Thanks. I was at Stampen about 15 years ago when I visited Stockholm, and may have even seen the same band. I had forgotten all about this until your post.
I think the ethos you are seeking is more easily achieved with a younger discipline or sub-field. When things are still wide open and here is a sense amongst everyone in the group that things at the foundation are still live, when there are only a couple of journals, and the debates are between friends you get the sort of interplay that you more readily find amongst artists. The ossification that you encounter in established fields can kill the buzz so easily. That's why I love the philosophy of chemistry group. They are one place today where you find something of indubitable value that is still in its infancy. I went to play with them when they had their DC meeting a few years back and it is exciting to see chemists and philosophers and those who come from the physical and biological end feeling it all out.