Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2012
Influence of Aural and Visual Expressivity
of the Accompanist on Audience
Perception of Expressivity in Collaborative
Performances of a Soloist and Pianist
Justine Karmel Sasanfar
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF MUSIC
INFLUENCE OF AURAL AND VISUAL EXPRESSIVITY OF THE ACCOMPANIST ON
AUDIENCE PERCEPTION OF EXPRESSIVITY IN
COLLABORATIVE PERFORMANCES OF A SOLOIST AND PIANIST
By
JUSTINE KARMEL SASANFAR
A Dissertation submitted to the
College of Music
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2012
Justine Karmel Sasanfar defended this dissertation on June 15, 2012.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
John M. Geringer
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
Victoria McArthur
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation
Bruce Holzman
University Representative
Alice-Ann Darrow
Committee Member
Don Gibson
Committee Member
Kimberly VanWeelden
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
“The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.”
- Eden Ahbez
I dedicate this dissertation to the greatest sources of love I have known:
my parents, Guy and Gail Sasanfar,
and my husband, Michael Hanawalt.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank a number of individuals; had it not been for your knowledge, generosity,
and support, this dissertation would not have been possible.
Thank you to Dr. Alice-Ann Darrow, Dean Don Gibson, Professor Bruce Holzman, and
Dr. Kimberly VanWeelden for serving on my dissertation committee. I very much appreciate
your involvement, input, and encouragement in this process.
My deepest thanks to Dr. John Geringer and Dr. Victoria McArthur for guiding and
mentoring me throughout my doctoral degree and the completion of this dissertation. Thank you
for so generously sharing your time, expertise, and your selves. It has been a privilege to share
this journey with each of you.
Special thanks to Eitaro Kawaguchi for so expertly and artfully capturing and editing the
musical performances used in this study. I am appreciative also of the assistance of colleagues
and friends in the College of Music, including Oscar Quesada, Lydia Kilian, Ian Henning, Liz
Tilley, and especially my dear friend, Kirsten Mitak.
Thanks also to my piano teachers at The Florida State University, Dr. Heidi Louise
Williams and Professor Leonard Mastrogiacomo. Your teaching and humanity have inspired me
in countless ways, and have shaped the way I think about expressive performance. I am greatly
indebted to many other teachers and mentors throughout my studies, including Marie-France
Lefebvre and Alan Nathan, my primary instructors in collaborative performance.
I would not be where I am today without the love and support of my parents, Guy and
Gail Sasanfar. Thank you also to my siblings, Jason, Jamie, and Jenna, for friendship, love, and
inspiration. I am also grateful for the companionship of my four-legged best friend, Ella
Fitzgerald, who was literally by my side in writing this document, from the first to the very last
page.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Michael, for the many ways you
helped me throughout the process of completing this dissertation. I am thankful every day for the
love, friendship, and joy that we are so fortunate to share, and I look forward to all that is to
come.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................x
1.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Need for the Study ...............................................................................................................2
Purpose Statement................................................................................................................3
2.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..............................................................................................5
Expression in Music Performance .......................................................................................5
Defining Expressive Performance ...........................................................................5
Teaching Musical Expression ..................................................................................7
Elements of Expression........................................................................................................8
Rhythm and Timing .................................................................................................8
Dynamics ...............................................................................................................10
Articulation ............................................................................................................11
‘No Expression’ .....................................................................................................13
Body Movement in Performance ...........................................................................13
Physical execution of performance ............................................................14
Role in perception of performance ............................................................14
Impact on perception of expressivity .........................................................15
Messages of expressivity conveyed by the body .......................................16
Conductors’ movement and perception of expressivity.............................18
Other nonverbal information......................................................................18
Perception of Auditory and Visual Information ................................................................19
Congruent and Incongruent Aural and Visual Information in Music ....................20
Measurement ......................................................................................................................21
Post-Performance Methods ....................................................................................21
Continuous Response Methods ..............................................................................22
Piano Accompanying .........................................................................................................24
Defining the Role of Accompanists .......................................................................24
Musical Skills and Competencies ..........................................................................24
Personal Attributes .................................................................................................27
Challenges of Playing with Different Mediums ....................................................27
The Case for Training Pianists in Accompanying .................................................28
Descriptions of Piano Accompanying ...............................................................................28
Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................................28
From the Perspective of Accompanists..................................................................29
Musical Competencies and Social Attributes ........................................................29
Accompanying in Choral Settings .........................................................................30
Empirical Effects of Piano Accompanying........................................................................30
Simultaneous Performing Contexts and Tuning ....................................................30
Effect of Accompaniment Type on Preference and Perception .............................31
Impact on Musical Abilities ...................................................................................32
v
Effect on Sight-Reading.........................................................................................33
Influence on Perception of Performance Quality...................................................33
‘Smart’ Accompaniment ........................................................................................34
Perception of Expressivity in Collaborative Performance .....................................35
Summary ............................................................................................................................36
3.
METHOD ..........................................................................................................................38
Musician Selection .............................................................................................................38
Repertoire Selection ...........................................................................................................39
Independent Variables: Aural and Visual Expressivity of Piano Accompanist ................40
Creating the Stimuli ...........................................................................................................42
Audio recording procedures ...................................................................................42
Video recording procedures ...................................................................................43
Validity ..............................................................................................................................45
Participants.........................................................................................................................46
Dependent Measure ...........................................................................................................46
Procedures ..........................................................................................................................47
Post-Participation Survey...................................................................................................48
4.
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................49
Purpose Statement..............................................................................................................49
Participant Demographics ..................................................................................................49
Descriptive Data.................................................................................................................49
Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................................52
Main effects ...........................................................................................................53
Interactions .............................................................................................................54
Post-Participation Surveys .................................................................................................58
Research task questions .........................................................................................58
General expressivity questions ..............................................................................60
5.
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................64
Purpose Statement..............................................................................................................64
Summary of Results ...........................................................................................................64
Question 1: Influence of aural expressivity of piano accompanist ........................64
Question 2: Influence of visual expressivity of piano accompanist ......................64
Question 3: Differences between participant backgrounds ...................................65
Post-Participation Survey...................................................................................................65
Open-ended responses ...........................................................................................65
Other survey items .................................................................................................67
Question 1: Listeners’ focus of attention ...............................................................67
Question 2: Importance of musical and physical expressivity of performers ........67
General Discussion ............................................................................................................68
Aural expressivity ..................................................................................................68
Visual expressivity .................................................................................................69
Congruent and incongruent combinations of aural and visual expressivity ..........70
Survey comments pertaining to musical and physical elements ............................71
vi
Importance of musical and physical expressivity of each performer ....................72
Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................72
Pedagogical and Performance Implications .......................................................................73
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................75
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................78
A: Approval Letter from FSU Human Subjects Committee ..............................................78
B: Soupir (Henri Duparc)...................................................................................................80
C: Fleurs (Francis Poulenc) ...............................................................................................82
D: Lydia (Gabriel Fauré) ....................................................................................................84
E: Four Performance Orders for Stimuli ............................................................................87
F: Approved Participant Consent Form .............................................................................92
G: Participant Response Sheet ...........................................................................................95
H: Post-Participation Survey............................................................................................100
I: Participant Verbatim Comments ..................................................................................103
J: Participant Verbatim Comments ..................................................................................107
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................111
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................124
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Stimulus Conditions by Piece and Soloist .............................................................41
Table 3.2
List of Experimental Stimuli as Presented in Order 1 ...........................................45
Table 4.1
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Excerpts with Aural and
Visual Accompanist Expressivity ..........................................................................50
Table 4.2
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Audio-Video
Combinations of Accompanist Expressivity for Each Excerpt..............................51
Table 4.3
Analysis of Variance (Significant Results) ............................................................53
Table 4.4
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Aural Accompaniment
Conditions by Participant Background ..................................................................55
Table 4.5
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Visual Accompaniment
Conditions by Participant Background ..................................................................56
Table 4.6
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Aural Accompaniment
Conditions by Solo Instrument ..............................................................................57
Table 4.7
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Visual Accompaniment
Conditions by Piece ...............................................................................................58
Table 4.8
Frequency of Comments by Participant Background after Survey Question 1: Did
you Perceive Expressivity During the Collaborative Performances? ....................59
Table 4.9
Frequency of Participants’ Self-Reported Focus of Attention by Background .....60
Table 4.10
Participants’ Mean Ratings (and Standard Deviations) of the Importance of
Musical and Physical Expressivity of a Soloist and Pianist in Collaborative
Performances by Background ................................................................................61
Table 4.11
Mean Expressivity Ratings for Soloist and Pianist Musical and Physical
Expressivity............................................................................................................62
Table 4.12
Frequency of Comments by Participant Background Regarding the Importance of
Musical and Physical Expressivity of Performers in Collaborative Settings ........63
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1
Expressivity rating scale used by participants .......................................................47
Figure 4.1
Mean expressivity ratings for aural accompaniment conditions by participant
background.............................................................................................................55
Figure 4.2
Mean expressivity ratings for aural accompaniment conditions by solo
instrument ..............................................................................................................56
Figure 4.3
Mean expressivity ratings for visual accompaniment conditions by piece............57
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of accompanist expressivity, both
aural and visual, on audience perception of overall expressivity in collaborative performances of
a soloist and pianist. Research questions for the present study were: 1) Are there differences in
perceived expressivity between performances with aurally expressive and aurally unexpressive
piano accompaniment? 2) Are there differences in perceived expressivity between performances
with visually expressive and visually unexpressive piano accompaniment? 3) Are there
differences in perceived expressivity between the background areas of participants (music majors
with keyboard backgrounds, music majors with non-keyboard backgrounds, non-music majors)?
Audio-visual performances were created with two soloists, a vocalist and cellist,
performing musical excerpts with a piano accompanist who played either aurally expressive or
unexpressive, and appeared either visually expressive or unexpressive. The soloists maintained a
stylistically appropriate level of expressivity throughout, both aurally and visually. The aural and
visual accompanist conditions were combined to create congruent and incongruent
performances, resulting in 16 experimental stimuli. Three groups of participants (music majors
with keyboard backgrounds, music majors with non-keyboard backgrounds, and non-music
majors) rated the overall expressivity of each collaborative performance using an 11-point rating
scale. Participant attention was purposefully not directed toward the accompanist or soloist, but
instead toward the collaborative performance of both contributors. Participants (N = 72) also
completed a survey that addressed perception of accompanist expressivity in collaborative
performance, both in general and in reference to the research task.
Statistical analysis showed significant differences for both the aural and visual
expressivity of the accompanist (p < .01). Performances with aurally expressive accompaniment
were rated higher than those with aurally unexpressive accompaniment across both visual
conditions. Likewise, performances with visually expressive accompaniment were rated higher
than those with visually unexpressive accompaniment across both aural conditions. There were
differences between the groups of participants according to background. Ratings of participants
with music major backgrounds (keyboard and non-keyboard) were similar, while those of the
non-music majors were found to be significantly different from the responses of music majors
with keyboard backgrounds. There were also differences between participants with regard to the
influence of accompanist aural and visual expressivity. Participants of all backgrounds perceived
x
the contrast in the accompanist’s presentation of the two visual conditions. However, while nonmusic majors’ responses were similar between the two aural conditions, ratings of both groups of
music majors differed by more than two rating scale points between the expressive and
unexpressive aural conditions.
Survey responses indicated that participants based expressivity judgments on a variety of
factors, including specific musical elements, degree of physical movement, and whether or not
they perceived collaboration between performers. More than half of the participants reported that
they divided their attention equally between the soloist and pianist. Participants also indicated
that in collaborative performance, the musical expressivity of the soloist was regarded as more
important than any other rated factor (which included soloist physical expressivity, pianist
musical expressivity, and pianist physical expressivity).
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The element of expressivity in music performance is important for both performers and
listeners. Performance assessments are usually made with consideration to both technical and
expressive skills, and it is often on the basis of expressivity that one performance is preferred to
another. Researchers have explored the nature of expressivity and specific musical elements that
contribute to its global effect, yet aspects of expressivity remain largely enigmatic with regard to
preparation, production, and preference in musical performance.
How expressivity is perceived in performance is also of considerable interest to
performers, teachers, and researchers. Scholars have identified general trends as to what
constitutes expressive performance, including variation of specific musical elements, presence of
physical movement, and communication of emotions (Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Laukka, 2004;
Lindström, Juslin, Bresin, & Williamon; 2003). Yet, for many, the words of Supreme Court
Justice Potter Stewart aptly describe the subjective nature of expressivity in music performance:
“I know it when I see it.” Depending on the context, ‘I know it when I hear it’ may be more
appropriate in the case of music performance, but as will be seen, both aural and visual
information contribute to perception of expressivity. And while scholarly endeavors seek to
broaden understanding of musical expressivity, it should be stated that, at this time, there appears
to be no universal truth with regard to how listeners assess expressive performance. As such,
listeners’ perceptions may differ based on preference, training, focus of attention, performance
setting, or any number of other factors.
The nature of musical performance involves collaboration on a number of levels:
musician with instrument, sound with listener, performer with composer, and conductor with
ensemble – these are just a few examples of the myriad of collaborations that exist in the music
world. Merriam-Webster Online defines the act of collaborating as, “working jointly with others
or together, especially in an intellectual endeavor” (“Collaborate,” 2012). The examples of
musical collaborations listed earlier illustrate this definition. While each agent may not
contribute equally in all cases, there is the sense that both play a role in the creation, execution,
and fulfillment of musical performance.
1
One of the most common musical collaborations is that of a soloist and piano
accompanist. Throughout periods of music history, the role of the pianist in these settings was of
a secondary type, likely due to the musical composition of the accompaniments more than
anything else. Adler (1965) suggested that it was Schubert who freed accompaniment from its
former limitations, increasing the pianistic requirements and elevating its status from a
subordinate position to the designated carrier of psychological motivation and meaning in art
songs (p. 16). In a sense, the accompanist assumed full partnership with a co-performer. To
reflect this status, the label ‘collaborative pianist’ has become widely used in recent years, again
in an attempt to elevate the perception of accompanists from secondary performer to that of an
equal partner with the soloist (Garrett, 2007).
Collaborative performances of a soloist and piano accompanist exist in a variety of
settings, from amateur to professional, and involve a range of vocalists and instrumentalists. In
fact, accompanying is one of the most often used functional skills of professional musicians and
teachers (Young, 2010). Yet relatively little is known about how expressivity is perceived in
collaborative performances, particularly with regard to the contribution of each performer. On
this subject, pianist Gerald Moore (1944) offered the following:
The audience’s eyes should be equally open to the voice and the piano. They should
listen to the two instruments as equally and impartially as they listen to the four voices in
a string quartet. I am sure that a considerable percentage of the average audience does not
do this at a song recital. The voice and piano are to them separate entities, and their ears
listen to one instrument only – the voice. They exclude the accompaniment not only from
their consideration, they actually do not receive it, do not hear it. They are physically deaf
to the accompaniment. They miss half the significance of the song in this way
(pp. 52-53).
Need for the Study
Researchers have explored how a number of elements contribute to perception of
expressivity in music performance. These include rhythm and timing (C. M. Johnson, 2003;
Juslin & Madison, 1999; Repp, 1997), dynamics (Burnsed & Sochinski, 1995; Geringer &
Breen, 1975; Kamenetsky, Hill, & Trehub, 1997), articulation (Bresin & Friberg, 2000), and
physical movement (Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Davidson, 1993; Huang & Krumhansl, 2011;
2
Juchniewicz, 2008). These studies indicate that observers do perceive varying levels of
expressivity in music performance, and that they are largely influenced by variations in these
elements. They also reveal differences in perception between observers of various backgrounds.
In performances involving both aural and visual information, such as live performances
or those viewed on television or via the Internet, it seems that audience members with formal
training in music are influenced by both aural and visual information, though visual information
asserts a stronger influence (Behne & Wöllner, 2011; Davidson, 1993; Griffiths, 2009; Huang &
Krumhansl, 2011; Juchniewicz, 2008; Wapnick, Darrow, Kovacs, & Dalrymple, 1997). In
contrast, observers without formal music training seem to rely considerably on the visual
information they receive during performance to make perception judgments, and are often less
able to discriminate between performances with varying levels of aural expressivity (Huang &
Krumhansl, 2011; Shimosako & Ohgushi, 1996).
While many anecdotal opinions exist regarding the role of piano accompanists in
collaborative settings and any effects they have on evaluation or perception of performance, little
research has explored these effects using empirical techniques. Given the importance of
expressivity in performance and in light of the fact that accompanying is a frequently used skill
among pianists, it would seem consequential to better understand how expressivity is perceived
in these performance settings, specifically with regard to the contribution of the pianist. As the
body of research in the area of collaborative performance is small, and since the concept of
expressivity seems to be interpreted in such varied and personal ways, it seems reasonable in
initial explorations to explore the concept in its most general sense.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the aural and visual expressivity of the
piano accompanist affects audience perception of overall expressivity in collaborative
performances of a soloist and pianist. Specific questions addressed were: 1) Are there differences
in perceived expressivity between performances with aurally expressive and aurally unexpressive
piano accompaniment? 2) Are there differences in perceived expressivity between performances
with visually expressive and visually unexpressive piano accompaniment? 3) Are there
differences in perceived expressivity between the background areas of participants (music majors
with keyboard backgrounds, music majors with non-keyboard backgrounds, non-music majors)?
3
A post-participation survey was designed as a secondary means of addressing the
perception of accompanist expressivity in collaborative performance. Questions included:
1) How do listeners describe focus of attention during collaborative performances? 2) How do
participants regard the importance of soloist and accompanist musical and physical expressivity
in collaborative performances?
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Expression in Music Performance
Performers, listeners, and researchers generally agree that musical performance involves
more than the objective task of simply playing the right notes at the right time. It has been
suggested that expression is the aspect of performance that causes music to come to life
(Lehmann, Sloboda, & Woody, 2007; Radocy & Boyle, 2003). There is consensus that it is the
element of expression that makes music sound individual, human, and worthwhile (Juslin, 2003;
Lehmann et al., 2007; Palmer, 1997).
Expression, and the communication of emotion therein, is at the core of why people
engage in musical behavior, as both performers and listeners (Juslin & Persson, 2002). Teachers,
students, and players of music agree that expressivity may be the most important and appreciated
aspect of a performer’s skills (Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Laukaa, 2004; Lindström, Juslin, Bresin,
& Williamon, 2003; Woody, 2000). Expressive performance provides musicians with a medium
for presenting the most personal aspects of their work, as well as a means for communicating
with listeners (Lehmann et al., 2007).
Researchers have found that musical and expressive ideas are received by listeners.
Listeners both with and without backgrounds in music are able to discern among different levels
of expressive intent (Kendall & Carterette, 1990), and many listeners are able to accurately
decode the emotions underlying performers’ expressive intentions (Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996).
Juslin (2003) suggests that it is often on the basis of expressive features that one performance is
preferred to another, and that it is these features that allow and inspire new and insightful
interpretations.
Defining Expressive Performance
A discussion of the nature of expression in musical performance involves several
working definitions, which may be conceived as pertaining to three general categories. The first
involves systematic variations in the acoustical parameters of music (Lehmann et al., 2007;
Palmer, 1997). Palmer (1997) stated that these elements, such as tempo, dynamics, articulation,
timing, and timbre are what differentiate one performance from another. A succinct explanation
5
was offered by Madsen (1999), who suggested that “all musical expression depends on only a
few interpretive attributes – loud/soft, short/long, and slow and fast” (p. 88). This view asserts
that changes in these acoustical parameters must not alter the identity of the musical sequence,
and that the precise arrangement of these parameters, the nuance of their presentation, is of the
greatest importance (Lehmann et al., 2007; Madsen, 1999). Another approach to defining
expression in performance was offered by Davies (1994), who recommended that expression
refer to the emotional qualities of the music as perceived by listeners. Still another perspective
involves a multidimensional approach to understanding expression. Juslin (2003) proposed that
expression is a set of perceptual qualities that reflect psychophysical relationships between
‘objective’ properties of the music and ‘subjective’ impressions of the listener. From this
interpretation, then, expression does not reside solely on acoustical properties of the music or in
the mind of the listener; it involves the interaction of both of these factors (Gabrielsson, 1999;
Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996).
Juslin and Laukka (2004) explored expressivity from the perspective of music listeners.
When asked to define ‘playing expressively,’ participants most frequently responded in terms of
communicating emotion, playing with feeling, focusing on elements of the music, and personal
expression. Participants ranked the importance of a musician’s expressive skills as second only
to listener approval of the performer’s song selection; expressive skills were ranked significantly
higher than the other remaining factors. There was unanimous agreement that music can express
emotions, and many respondents agreed that it could convey psychological relaxation, physical
aspects, beauty, sound patterns, and other events and objects.
The source of musical expression has also been widely discussed. Some suggest that
expression is derived from information found in musical structure (Clarke, 1985a; Clarke 1985b;
Clarke; 1988; Gabrielsson, 1999). Clarke (1988) suggested that an interpretation consists of “a
set of abstract expressive markers that can take a material expressive form within any of the
parameters available” and that “the structural component acts as a framework around which the
expressive markers are organized” (p. 15). From this perspective, interpretations are based on
musical structure, and involve knowledge of music theory, history, and the particular style of the
composer. For this reason, expressive forms may be similar across successive performances of a
piece (Gabrielsson, 1999; Shaffer, 1984). Repp (2000) suggested that expressive nuances often
are not dependent simply on structural elements in music; yet demonstration of these aspects
6
may be inherent in a trained musician’s spontaneous interpretation. He suggested that there are
two interrelated components to interpretation: cognitive structural analysis, and the other the
result of expressive characterization and emotional feeling. Most recently, Juslin (2003)
attempted to clarify the concept of musical expression by identifying five influential factors: the
piece of music, the instrument, the performer, the listener, and the context. To further explain
this approach, he proposed that expression in music performance may best be intellectualized as
a “multi-dimensional phenomenon” consisting of five components: 1) generative rules based on
structural elements of the music; 2) emotional expression; 3) random variation; 4) motion
principles, both biological or intentional; and 5) deviations from stylistic expectations based on
performance conventions.
Teaching Musical Expression
As expression appears to be the primary goal of musical performance, it has been
suggested that exploring the instructional and practice techniques that develop expression be
given substantive consideration (Davidson, Pitts, & Correia, 2001; Juslin & Persson, 2002;
Karlsson & Juslin, 2008). While some teachers believe that expression cannot or should not be
taught (Juslin & Persson, 2002; Laukka, 2004) and many performers are reluctant to respond to
inquisitive probing as to their method of their expressive artistry (Lehmann et al., 2007), a
number of researchers have persisted in examining the learning processes that foster expressive
performance (Rosenthal, Durairaj, & Magann, 2009; Sheldon, 2004; Woody, 1999, 2000, 2003,
2006a, 2006b). Some researchers have attempted to confirm that expressive performance can be
taught, while others have investigated pedagogical and practice strategies. Woody (2006b), for
example, compared three methods for teaching expression: aural modeling, verbal instruction
pertaining to concrete musical properties, and verbal instruction incorporating imagery and
metaphor. Results indicated that all methods were effective in facilitating expression, and it was
suggested that consideration be given to the music being performed, the teacher’s expressive
goals, and characteristics of the individual student to determine the most effective method for a
given learning context.
7
Elements of Expression
A number of musical elements are available that contribute to expressive performance.
These include rhythm and timing, dynamics, and articulation. Researchers have explored how
these elements can be varied and manipulated in ways that impact how listeners receive, prefer,
and perceive musical performance. Along with a general discussion, the following investigation
gives special focus to how these elements may influence perception of expressivity.
Rhythm and Timing
Pianist Martin Katz (2009) stated, “even in the strictest of styles there is still room for
subtle variations of speed, which may imply urgency, complacency, ardor, or boredom, among
other qualities” (p. 55). Some researchers have investigated the nature of rhythm and timing in
expressive performance, and have identified manners by which performers deviate from
mechanically regular rhythmic performance. Clarke (1985a & 1985b) determined that expressive
rhythmic performance involves underlying structural representation. Rhythmic figures are
organized around a framework of beats; expressivity transforms this framework and alters the
“clock rate,” thus impacting tempo and modifying the way the beat intervals are subdivided.
Gabrielsson (1985) examined how performance of rhythms in music are characterized by
systematic variations with regard to durations, and how these variations contribute to the
experienced or perceived rhythm. He found that musicians use several methods to vary timing in
order to contribute to the expressive dimensions of rhythm. These include changing time ratios
between notated values, placing notes before or after underlying beats, and elongating phrase
endings. Repp (1992) compared distinguished pianists’ interpretations of Schumann’s Träumerei
and found that performers tended to use a typical expressive timing pattern at the ends of musical
phrases, such that notes at phrase boundaries were played significantly more slowly than their
neighbors, creating a larger time gap between boundaries of the music, and thereby
sectionalizing the music. Comparison of pianists’ timing in a Chopin Etude revealed four timing
strategies: 1) large ritardandos at the ends of melodic gestures; 2) acceleration within some of
these gestures; 3) extreme lengthening of the initial downbeat; and 4) ritardandos between as
well as within melodic gestures (Repp, 1998).
Several trends pertaining to rhythm and timing have been observed across performers
when given instruction to perform with a specific expressive or emotional intention. When
8
pianists were asked to play a Mozart excerpt as expressively as possible and also with ‘no
expression’, expressive performances were found to contain greater use of rubato than those with
no expression (Palmer, 1989). Gabrielsson and Juslin (1996) observed significant differences in
the tempi of performances played under various emotional conditions. The emotions ‘happy’ and
‘angry’ were played fastest, while ‘sad’ and ‘tender’ were played slowest. Deviations from
tempo within a performance were also different for each emotional intention. Thompson and
Luck (2011) found that piano performances played under expressive conditions were longer in
length than those played ‘deadpan’ (with ‘no expression’). It was suggested that expressive
variation in timing lengthened overall performance time.
Another line of research has investigated the role of rhythm and timing in preference and
perception of expressive performance. Repp (1997) found that listeners preferred performances
with average or “composite” expressive timing and tempo, as compared with highly expressive
or unexpressive performances. Juslin and Madison (1999) found that removing musicians’
timing patterns decreased listeners’ decoding accuracy of the emotional content of a
performance.
A range of timing is available to musicians, varying from strictly metronomic to an
excessive use of rubato. Several researchers have explored listeners’ perception of rubato in
expressive performance. Clarke (1989) found that listeners could easily detect variations from a
metronomic pulse, but had more difficulty in contexts that contained rubato. C. M. Johnson
explored the component of rubato in a series of studies (e.g., 1996, 1997, 2003). He found that
proficient musicians were more capable of recognizing the use and appropriateness of rubato
than less proficient musicians (C. M. Johnson, 1996). In another study, he found that rhythmic
nuance and variation were linked to increased perceived musicianship (C. M. Johnson, 1997).
Later, C. M. Johnson (2003) asked listeners to rate the musicality of performances of a Bourée
from one of Bach’s Suites for Violincello. Participants heard six versions: one model
performance and five others with varying levels of rubato. Performances with appropriate
variations in timing were perceived as more musical than those without rubato. The model
performance was rated most musical; the two versions with less rubato received significantly
lower ratings for musicality. Findings of these studies suggest that proficient musicians may
perceive performances with rubato as more expressive and musical than performances without,
9
but that listeners without formal music training may have difficulty detecting this element of
expressive timing.
Dynamics
A performer’s intentions pertaining to dynamics may be easily perceived by listeners
(Nakamura, 1987). Instrumentalists recorded performances and then indicated their interpretation
in the score using expressive dynamic symbols. Participants specified their perception of the
performer’s dynamics as they watched a score containing dynamic choices while listening.
Listeners were able to accurately detect performers’ variations in dynamic contrasts. Crist (2000)
asked listeners to indicate when they noticed changes in tempo or dynamics in excerpts that
contained changes to one or both elements (or no change). Listeners perceived a significantly
higher number of changes in examples where both tempo and dynamics changed, suggesting that
listeners may be more sensitive to expressive variation when more than one musical element is
changing.
Analysis of recorded choral, orchestral, and piano performances revealed that performers
employ a similar range of dynamics across mediums (Geringer, 1992). Though not significantly
different, the range demonstrated in the orchestral recordings was found to be slightly larger than
in the choral and piano recordings. Performances across mediums exhibited piano to forte
changes with significantly greater dynamic contrast than changes from forte to piano.
Several researchers have explored the relationship between dynamics and emotion. In a
study by Gabrielsson and Juslin (1996), musicians performed the emotions of ‘solemn’ and
‘angry’ loudest, while ‘tender’ was performed softest. Researchers have used empirical methods
to suggest that expressive performance involves greater variation in dynamics. Thompson and
Luck (2011) found that when performers were instructed to play with exaggerated expression,
they specifically embellished score dynamics.
Pianist and conductor Kurt Adler (1965) indicated that dynamics are “one of the most
important means of expression, and a pillar component of style in musical performance” (p.
131). Variation in dynamics has yielded higher ratings for musical expression and likability
among mature listeners. In a study by Geringer and Breen (1975), listeners heard classical and
classic rock selections under the following conditions: minimum change of loudness, maximum
change of loudness within the composer’s intention, and maximum change of loudness in
10
opposition with composer’s intentions. Participants rated the selections for expressivity.
Classical selections with greater dynamic variation were judged as significantly more expressive,
but this was not so with the rock and roll selections. Kamenetsky, Hill, and Trehub (1997) asked
non-musician listeners to rate musical excerpts for likeability and emotional expressiveness. The
excerpts were presented under one of the following conditions: 1) no variation in tempo and
dynamics; 2) variation in tempo only; 3) variation in dynamics only; 4) variation in tempo and
dynamics. Excerpts with variation in dynamics resulted in higher ratings, and preference was
highly correlated with expressive ratings. It seems the greater the dynamic range, the more
musical expression is perceived by the listener.
Similar findings were produced in studies involving children. Burnsed and Sochinski
(1995) asked middle school students to rate their preference for folk song recordings that either
utilized expressive variation in dynamics or were consistently unvaried with regard to dynamics.
A significant proportion of the participants preferred the expressive versions of the songs. This
study was replicated with elementary school students (Burnsed, 1998). Similar results were
found: a significant number of students preferred the expressive versions of the songs. Burnsed
(2001) attempted to replicate these findings with new stimuli that contained more subtle dynamic
variation than the previous stimuli (dynamic contrasts were reduced by one-third as compared to
the earlier stimuli). Again, listeners rated their preference for the excerpts. The elementary
school students did not perceive a difference between the subtly expressive versions and the
nonexpressive versions. Middle and junior high school students significantly preferred the
expressive versions, as did adult conductors. These results suggest that some combination of age
and musical experience may affect perception and preference for subtle dynamic nuance in
music performance.
Articulation
Hähnel and Berndt (2010) described articulation as the forming of a tone in all its facets,
which includes loudness, timbre, intonation, and envelope characteristics. The impact of
articulation on perceptual aspects of music performance has been empirically explored. Woody
(1997) suggested that the way in which listeners organize successive tones or structure them in
degrees of connectedness or detachment affects perception of articulation. Two recent studies
have shown that articulation style affects perception of tempo (Geringer, Madsen, MacLeod, &
11
Droe, 2006; Geringer, Madsen, & MacLeod, 2007). The first study investigated the effect of
legato and staccato articulation styles on perception of modulated tempos. Listeners heard
orchestral music examples that included legato and staccato passages with three conditions of
tempo modulation: gradual increases, gradual decreases, and no change. Participants indicated
their perception of the amount and direction of the tempo change, if any. Staccato stimuli were
judged as increasing in tempo more than legato stimuli, even in excerpts where the tempo did not
change. As for preference, participants preferred no change in tempo as compared to tempo
increases or decreases for staccato articulation. For legato articulation, however, preferences
were higher for no change in tempo and tempo increases as compared to tempo decreases. Later,
Geringer, Madsen, and MacLeod (2007) replicated the above study, this time exploring the
effects of legato, staccato, and pizzicato articulation styles on the perception of modulated tempi
in solo violin performance under the same three conditions of tempo modulation. Some results
were similar to the authors’ previous study, including listeners’ preference for no-change and
tempo-increase modulations to tempo decreases. But in this study, listeners judged legato
examples as increasing in tempo more and decreasing less than staccato and pizzicato examples,
whereas in the earlier study, staccato examples were perceived as increasing more. Another
study exploring perception of articulation identified perceptual patterns in the detection of
articulation changes in piano music and found that listeners had greater difficulty detecting
changes toward legato, or increases in duration, as compared to staccato, or decreases in
duration (Woody, 1997). Kuwano, Namba, Yamasaki, and Nishiyama (1994) found that listeners
typically perceived a performer’s intention of legato articulation.
The articulation of a performance may contribute to the quality and expressiveness of the
sound. Pianist Martin Katz (2009) described how articulation must be executed according to the
composer’s wishes, and may imply a variety of things, such as romance, anger, or majesty.
Articulation, it seems, may be one of the most important cues for the communication of
emotional expressiveness (Bresin & Friberg, 2000). As was the case with tempo and dynamics,
different strategies are used by performers with regard to different articulations to express
various characters and emotions (Bresin & Battel, 2010). Researchers have found that
performers’ expressive intentions seem to affect articulation style. Musicians tend to perform the
emotions of ‘happy’, ‘angry’, and ‘fearful’ with more space between notes, producing a staccato
12
effect, while other emotions (including ‘sad’ and ‘tender’) are played with a more legato
articulation (Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996; Juslin 1997).
‘No Expression’
In creating stimuli for studies that investigated listeners’ ability to decode performers’
expressive intentions (e.g. Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996; Kendall & Carterette, 1990), performers
were instructed to play under a variety of conditions, such as exaggerated or appropriate
expression. In other cases, the musicians were asked to connote a specific emotion in their
performance, such as happy, sad, or angry. Performers were also asked to provide a ‘deadpan’
performance, also indicated by the condition, ‘no expression.’ Several commonalities with regard
to musical elements have been noted across performers when asked to play without expression.
Performers maintained a moderate and uniform sound level, used the smallest deviations in
timing (if any at all) and did not include a final ritardando, and played with a generally ‘cold’
tone or timbre (Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996).
Body Movement in Music Performance
Body movement plays a role in the construction, execution, and perception of musical
performance (Davidson & Correia, 2002). Movement, gesture, and facial expression tend to vary
depending on the instrument being played, and different genres seem to contain unique
movement vocabulary (Vines, Krumhansl, Wanderley, & Levitin, 2005). In addition to serving
the technical function of producing sound, physical gestures contribute to expressive and
communicative effects, and many have suggested that an interdependent relationship exists
between these mechanical and expressive aims (Ginsborg & King, 2009; King, 2006; Poggi,
2006). Some researchers have attempted to classify various gestures in music according to
function (e.g., Davidson, 2001). Dahl, Bevilacqua, Bresin, Clayton, Leante, Poggi, and
Rasamimanana (2010) described four such types: 1) sound-producing gestures; 2)
communicative gestures for connecting with co-performers and conveying information to the
audience; 3) sound-facilitating gestures which aid in producing and modifying sound; and 4)
sound-accompanying gestures which may be made in response to sound. There appears to be
consensus among researchers that any one gesture may serve a combination of functions.
13
Physical execution of performance. Pedagogues have suggested that the physical body
plays a critical role in the production of musical sound. All musical elements (i.e. melody,
rhythm and phrasing, cadence points, accents, variations in timing and dynamics, and harmony)
are informed by, and draw on, bodily processes (Seitz, 2005). While the physical gestures
associated with the execution of performance vary for every instrument, Pierce (2010) suggests
that all musical elements contain a ‘distinct kinetic quality that may be vitalized by movement”
(p. 3). For example, fluid arm movement and a flexible spine may encourage a pianist’s
production of a smooth and continuous melodic line. In another example, a pianist may use body
movements to support the projection of the melody, to control sound levels, or to stress harmonic
structure and timbre (Poggi, 2006). Mark (2003) suggests that performance is accomplished
through high-quality movement, the interaction of parts contributing efficiently and effectively
without tension. Such movement will be “free, expressive, and secure” (p. 5). In describing their
practice methods, musicians frequently reference metaphors of motion or specific body
movements that aid in playing expressively (Rosenthal, Durairaj, & Magann, 2009). Body
movement not only aids in the production of sound, but also conveys information about the
physical effort required to perform the music (Thompson, Graham, & Russo, 2005), which may
be received by the listener and play a role in overall perception. It seems movement serves to
both produce and shape musical sound, and to enliven the performance experience for performer
and listener.
Role in perception of performance. As live performance is a multi-sensory experience
for many, it would follow that visual aspects of the performance may strongly influence and
enhance the musical experience (Thompson, Graham, & Russo, 2005). Listeners receive
important information pertaining to musical structure and expression from a performer’s body
movements during performance (Davidson, 1993 & 1994; Davidson & Correia, 2002; Nusseck,
Wanderly, & Schoonderwaldt, 2007; Vines et al., 2005). This information may include clues
regarding specific musical elements such as timing variation, phrasing, interpretation, emotional
intention, and intensity.
Researchers have explored how body movement can affect perception with regard to a
number of aspects of performance, including temporal judgment of tone duration (Schutz &
Lipscomb, 2007), plucked versus bowed judgments (Saldaña & Rosenblum, 1993),
communication of emotional intent (Dahl & Friberg, 2007), and string vibrato quality (Gillespie,
14
1997). Schutz and Lipscomb (2007) found that physical gesture affected temporal judgment
when listeners rated the duration of notes played by percussionists that were either short or long,
and were performed with either a short or long gesture. Significant differences were found with
regard to stroke type and perceptual length, whereby notes played with longer gestures were
perceived as longer, even if the sound was a short sound.
Saldaña and Rosenblum (1993) explored perception of plucked versus bowed
articulations in string playing. Participants viewed audio-visual stimuli of plucked and bowed
tones where the sound and visual information were either consistent or disparate, and were asked
to identify the articulation of the stimuli based on perceived sound. Visual information appeared
to confound judgments. Significant differences occurred between participants’ audio-visual and
audio-only judgments of the stimuli.
Similar results were produced by Gillespie (1997), who investigated the effect of visual
information on perception of string vibrato quality. Experts rated audio-visual performances by
experienced and inexperienced string players on a number of musical elements; after six months
they rated the same performances based on audio only. Ratings between the two trials were
significantly different; the audio-visual stimuli produced higher ratings than audio only for
several factors.
Juchniewicz (2008) isolated the visual element of performance in a study that asked
participants to rate audio-visual piano performances that included three physical movement
conditions: no movement, head and facial movement, and full body movement. The audio for all
stimuli was the same. Participants rated the performances on several musical factors. There were
significant differences in participants’ ratings of excerpts performed under the three movement
conditions. As the pianist’s physical movements increased, so did ratings of phrasing, dynamics,
rubato, and overall musical performance. In general, these studies indicate that incorporating a
visual aspect to performance impacts perception and performance ratings.
Impact on perception of expressivity. Other researchers have explored how body
movement affects perception of expressivity in music performance. Davidson (1993) established
the importance of visual information in conveying different levels of intended expression in two
studies investigating how observers perceived performers’ expressive kinesthetic movements.
Performances were recorded utilizing the point-light method (Johansson, 1973), which uses
ribbons on glass-bead retro-reflective tape attached to major body joints, and spotlights mounted
15
very close to the lens of the camera so that the light hitting the ribbons is reflected back into the
camera. This process causes only the ribbons, which are seen as spots of light, to be visible on
the monitor, creating a stimulus based solely on movement. Performances were recorded using
this technique under three expressive conditions: deadpan, projected, and exaggerated.
Participants observed the performances in three forms, audio only, visual only, and audio-visual,
and rated them for expressivity. The deadpan performances received the lowest ratings, while the
exaggerated received the highest ratings. The greatest difference was between the deadpan and
projected performances. Visual-only displayed the greatest differences across conditions,
resulting in the only significant differences in ratings.
Several researchers have established that performances with more physical movement are
generally rated as more expressive than performances with minimal or no movement (Broughton
& Stevens, 2009; Huang & Krumhansl, 2011; Juchniewicz, 2008). Huang and Krumhansl also
found differences between musician and non-musician listeners. For audio-visual conditions, all
participants’ ratings were different among varying levels of expressivity. In the audio-only
condition, however, non-musicians did not discriminate between expressive levels, while
musician participants did.
In a study by Behne and Wöllner (2011), participants viewed audio-visual piano
performances that contained audio recorded by one pianist, and video that was recorded by two
other pianists. Participants rated the stimuli for expressivity and other items. Results revealed
that participants rated the performances differently, even though only the visual information
varied. One interesting finding was that pianists’ ratings were not significantly different from
other participants, suggesting that they were not more likely than other participants to realize that
the sound stayed the same, despite the fact that performances were on their instrument. These
studies and others confirm the impact of visual information on perception of expressivity in
performance.
Messages of expressivity conveyed by the body. Exploration of body movement and its
role in perception of expressivity has revealed several trends with regard to movement.
Concerning general movement, Davidson (2007) found that an experienced pianist moved the
least when instructed to play unexpressively. The researcher’s instruction was with specific
regard to dynamic, temporal, and timbral variation; no prompt or instruction was given
pertaining to physical movement. Thompson and Luck (2011) also observed that performers
16
equated playing without expression to playing with only movement that was essential to the
physical production of sound, and noted that some performers found it difficult to demonstrate
expressive playing without moving accordingly. There seems to be a relationship between
expressive musical sound and size of physical movement. Davidson (1994) found that the more
exaggerated the expressive intention, the larger the physical movement demonstrated by the
performer.
Researchers have observed that movements of the head, face, gaze, and trunk were used
not only for communicating with the audience, but also for expressing pianist’s cognitive and
emotional states (Castellano, Mortillaro, Camurri, Volpe, & Scherer, 2008; Dahl and Friberg
2007; Davidson, 1994 & 2001; Poggi, 2006; Thompson & Luck, 2011). King (2006) found that
physical movements regularly appeared to convey information about the tempo and phrasing of
the music. Body sway, elbow circles, wrist pulsations and head tilts were observed in accordance
with the main beats in a bar, hand lifts often highlighted the ends of phrases, and other physical
movements reflected dynamic changes.
Other researchers have examined how aspects of facial expression, including eyebrow
movement, are involved in the perception, planning, and production of performance (Bonfiglioli,
Caterina, Incasa, & Baroni, 2006; Caterina, Bonfiglioli, Baroni, & Addessi, 2004; Livingstone,
Thompson, & Russo, 2009). Facial movements have been found to correlate with structural
features of a musical composition. For example, analysis of performances videos of professional
pianists revealed a tendency to raise eyebrows during ascending melodic lines, ornaments, and
prolonged notes. Eyebrows tended to frown during descending passages, legato playing, louder
dynamics, and playing in lower registers (Bonfiglioli et al., 2006).
Regarding movement and communication between musicians, Ginsborg and King (2009)
explored the effects of familiarity and expertise on singers’ and pianists’ body movements and
eye contact during ensemble rehearsals. They found that bodily movement and eye contact were
used to consolidate technical details, convey musical information, and coordinate entries. Singers
generally used gestures to reflect and support technical production of sound and to convey
information related to meaning of the lyrics or the expressive content of song. Pianists’ gestures
and glances were found to be primarily expressive and communicative. The musicians used more
body movement and eye contact when rehearsing familiar music and in playing with similarexpertise partners.
17
Conductors’ movement and perception of expressivity. Conducting involves
expressive effects with regard to both those being conducted as well as those observing a
performance (Seitz, 2005). Higher levels of expressivity are perceived by gestures characterized
by increased amplitude, greater variance, and higher speed of movement (Luck, Toiviainen, &
Thompson, 2010), confirming findings by Davidson (1994) in another medium of music
performance. A number of researchers have investigated the relationship between expressive
conducting and perception of expressive ensemble performance. Many of these studies have
demonstrated that performances with high-expression conducting result in higher ratings for
expressivity as compared to those with low-expression conducting (Morrison, Price, Geiger, &
Cornacchio, 2009; Morrison & Selvey, 2011; Napoles, 2011; Price, Morrison, & Mann, 2011).
This finding has been consistent among musician and non-musician participants, college and
high school students, and across mediums, including wind and choral ensembles. It should be
noted that earlier research found no relationship between expressive conducting and expressive
performance (Price & Chang, 2001 & 2005; Price, 2006).
Silvey (2011) investigated these factors from a different direction, exploring whether
excellent or poor ensemble performances influenced expressivity ratings of the conductor (who
did not vary in expressive manner of conducting). College ensemble members rated the
expressivity of the conductor. Results indicated that ensemble performance significantly affected
ratings of conductor expressivity in that excellent performances resulted in higher ratings for the
conductor than poor performances.
Other nonverbal information. Non-musical characteristics, including concert dress and
attractiveness, may affect perception of musical performance. A series of studies by Wapnick
and colleagues (1997, 1998, 2000) analyzed the effect of performer attractiveness on
performance ratings. In a study by Wapnick, Darrow, Kovacs, and Dalrymple (1997),
participants rated singers on physical attractiveness and musical performances while randomly
assigned to one of three treatment conditions: visual, audio-alone or audio-visual. Findings
revealed that singers were given higher ratings in the audio-visual performances than the audioalone performances. In addition, more attractive performers received higher ratings than less
attractive performers in the audio-visual performances, though more attractive females also
received higher ratings than less attractive females in the audio-alone performances. Later,
Wapnick, Mazza, and Darrow (1998) found similar results with violinists’ performance ratings.
18
In a third study, Wapnick, Mazza, and Darrow (2000) explored the effects of performer
attractiveness on children’s piano performance ratings. Again, more attractive pianists were rated
higher than less attractive pianists in both audio-visual and audio-alone conditions. An
attractiveness bias was also found by Ryan and Costa-Giomi (2004). Findings from these studies
show consistently higher ratings for attractive performers.
Griffiths (2009) investigated the effects of concert dress on perception of female classical
soloists’ musical abilities. Audio-visual stimuli were presented with four types of concert dress:
jeans, nightclubbing dress, concert dress, and point-light condition. Dress produced significantly
different results with regard to several aspects of performance, including technical proficiency,
musicality, and appropriateness. It was suggested that observers have a strong concept of
appropriate dress according to the genre of music being performed, and that inappropriate and
body-focused dress may negatively impact perceptions of performers’ musical abilities.
Perception of Auditory and Visual Information
Some researchers have explored the interaction of aural and visual information and
subsequent influence on perception. The best example of this may be the ‘McGurk effect,’ a
product of research exploring the influence of vision on speech perception (McGurk & Donald,
1976). Researchers found that when an audible syllable was presented simultaneously with the
facial movements used to produce a different syllable, perception of a third syllable resulted.
Thus, it was determined that a speaker’s facial movements play a role in listeners’ ability to
decode speech, demonstrating the power of the fusion of auditory and visual cues in cognitive
perception.
Quinto, Thompson, Russo, and Trehub (2010) expanded on these findings by evaluating
whether the McGurk effect could be observed in the case of sung syllables. The researchers
compared perception of spoken and sung syllables and found no significant difference,
suggesting that speech and song activate a common underlying mechanism for audio-visual
integration. Other researchers have offered theories of how auditory and visual information are
integrated to create a unified impression. Instigated by the art of ventriloquism, Alais and Burr
(2004) investigated spatial localization of audio-visual stimuli. When visual localization was
good, vision dominated sound; and when visual localization was poor (blurry), sound dominated
19
vision. For less blurred stimuli, neither sense dominated, suggesting a more equal consideration
of visual and auditory information in cognitive processing.
Congruent and Incongruent Aural and Visual Information in Music
Researchers have investigated possible ‘McGurk effects’ in music performance,
exploring how listeners perceive elements of performance when auditory and visual information
are either consistent or discrepant. Schutz and Lipscomb (2007) explored how physical gesture
affected perception of acoustic tone length, asking participants to rate the duration of notes
played on the marimba that sounded either short or long, and were performed with either a short
or long gesture. The auditory and visual information were combined to create stimuli that were
either congruent (e.g., short note, short gesture) or incongruent (e.g., short note, long gesture).
Notes that were played with a long gesture were perceived as significantly longer, even when the
acoustical sound was short. Visual information contained in physical gesture may affect auditory
temporal perception of note length.
In a similar study, Saldaña and Rosenblum (1993) explored perception of plucked versus
bowed notes in string playing. Congruent and incongruent stimuli were prepared, containing
different combinations of plucked and bowed auditory and visual performance. Participants’
responses as to the articulation of the stimuli revealed that auditory judgments were significantly
influenced by the visual plucked and bowed gestures.
Other researchers have explored perception of expressivity when auditory and visual
information are consistent or disparate. Shimosako and Ohgushi (1996) asked musician and nonmusician participants to rate the expressivity of piano performances that contained three levels of
expressivity (pertaining to sound and body movement). Participants were successful in
discerning among levels of the pianist’s expressive intent when sound and video were presented
separately. When the audio and visual were combined, however, visual information had a greater
influence on ratings, especially for non-musicians. When sound and body movements were
incongruent, performances were rated lower by musicians, but not by non-musicians. These
results suggest that some listeners, particularly non-musicians, may perceive expressiveness
more from an artist’s physical gestures than from musical content.
Lucas and Teachout (1998) investigated differences in the expressiveness ratings of
music majors and non-music majors for small ensemble performance. Participants viewed
20
expressive and unexpressive stimuli that were presented with audio only, video only, and
combined audio-video. For all three modes, expressive performances received significantly
higher ratings than unexpressive. Significant differences were found in the responses of the two
participant groups. Music majors and non-majors tended to rate unexpressive performances
roughly the same, while music majors tended to rate expressive performances higher than nonmajors. In a study incorporating the same musical stimuli, Hamann (2003) corroborated this
finding, whereby participants with musical training rated performances as more expressive than
participants without training. It was suggested in both studies that participants were more
discriminating in judging expressivity in presentations that included video, implying that visual
information may help listeners to distinguish between expressive and unexpressive performance.
Measurement
A number of methods have been used by researchers to measure listeners’ perceptual
responses to music performance. Methodology may be demarcated in terms of whether the
ratings are collected post-performance or continuously. In the case of post-performance, a single
retrospective rating is recorded after participants have been exposed to the stimulus (Zenter &
Eerola, 2011). Continuous response formats allow participants to respond to a stimulus as it is
happening (Madsen, 1990; Schubert, 2011).
Post-Performance Methods
Open-ended formats are thought to be among the first post-performance methodologies
used by researchers to assess listeners’ responses to music. The earliest documented use of this
type of measurement was by Gilman (1892) who, in order to explore listeners’ perception of
musical expressiveness, prefaced each listening stimulus with a different open-ended question.
These questions involved listeners writing down words that described their reaction to a piece of
music, and included such open-ended statements as “Give any image that is strikingly suggested
to your mind by the course of the following piece” (p. 560). Methodologies employing openended questionnaires continue to the present day (e.g., Juslin & Laukka, 2004). An infinite
number of responses may result from this methodology, given the unlimited possibilities of
language, making objective comparisons and statistical analysis difficult (Asmus, 2009). Also,
21
vocabulary is not standardized across time, thus transfers across time and context are
problematic.
Other researchers have employed adjective checklists, whereby participants select
adjectives that are suggestive of the concept, constructs, or stimuli being investigated. Adjective
checklists may be presented in any number of formats, including individual words or groups of
terms. The Hevner Adjective Checklist (1935, 1936, 1937) is perhaps the most well known of
this methodology, which was developed over the course of three studies exploring how listeners
responded to various musical elements. The researcher presented lists of adjectives from which
participants checked any terms that seemed appropriate to the musical stimuli. One limitation to
this methodology is intersubject variability with regard to the number of items that each
participant may check. Instructions often request that participants select as many or as few terms
as they wish, making interpretation of checked and unchecked items problematic. Another
summative approach was developed by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957). Their semantic
differential method utilizes pairs of opposite meaning or polar adjectives, separated by 7-point
scale containing descriptive terms on the respective ends.
Rating scales are commonly used to record listeners’ perceptions of musical performance.
These scales, including Likert-type, are widely used across the social sciences to measure
attitudes, opinions, personalities, and descriptions of various concepts and stimuli. Limitations of
this method may include unreliability and inconsistency in responses over time, and also the
potential of oversimplification of the question or concept at hand.
Continuous Response Methods
Another line of methodology collects data on an ongoing basis in real time, and is
categorized as ‘continuous response’. Schubert (2011) suggested that the term ‘continuous
response’ may be conceptualized as a ‘time-dependent response’, whereby responses are
collected without interruption via an incremental sampling rate, which may be at such a high rate
that the illusion of continuous response is created. This format requires careful synchronization
of each response with the time in the music at which the response occurred. The Continuous
Response Digital Interface (CRDI) (Gregory, 1989; Geringer, Madsen, & Gregory, 2004) was
developed in late 1980’s at the Center for Music Research at Florida State University. It has been
used in a variety of settings to investigate aesthetic response, perceived tension, and perception
22
of music elements, among other things, allowing listeners to “respond non-verbally during
ongoing music and/or during visual presentations” (Geringer, Madsen, & Gregory, 2004, p. 1).
Other approaches to continuous response measurement include EmotionSpaceLab (Schubert,
1999), EMuJoy (Nagel, Kopiez, Grewe, & Altenmüller, 2007) and SCRIBE (Duke & Stammen,
2009). An advantage to these types of methodologies is that data can be obtained without aural
or written responses (Madsen, 1990).
Comparisons of responses between these two types of measurement formats with regard
to various aspects of music perception have produced inconsistent results. Brittin and Sheldon
(1995) compared listeners’ Likert-type scale ratings with continuous response ratings (CRDI)
regarding preferences for art music and found no significant difference between CRDI and static
ratings. While music major listeners’ ratings were similar across formats, responses from nonmusic majors using the CRDI were higher than those who used the static response format by a
difference of approximately one point on their rating scale. Later, Brittin (1996) investigated
listeners’ preferences for music of other cultures using Likert-type scales and continuous ratings
(CRDI). Listeners who used the CRDI rated selections significantly higher than listeners using
the rating scale. Brittin and Duke (1997) explored listeners’ perception of musical intensity using
continuous (CRDI) and post-performance response formats and found that continuous response
means were consistently lower than post-performance responses.
After assessing the purpose, methodology, and stimuli of the previous studies, researchers
have agreed that the decision to use continuous or post-performance ratings depends on the
research question and method employed (Brittin & Duke, 1997; Geringer & Madsen, 1998).
Short perceptual tasks might be best assessed after the fact via post-performance formats
(Geringer & Madsen, 1998), where the research question involves understanding participants’
discriminations among various and different stimulus examples (Brittin & Duke, 1997). Longer
musical tasks, such as complete movements of larger musical works, should be assessed via
continuous measures (Geringer & Madsen, 1998). In these situations, it is often beneficial to the
research question to track listeners’ changing impressions during the course of the listening
experience (Brittin & Duke, 1997). Regarding necessary temporal considerations for making
perception judgments, Thompson, Williamon, and Valentine (2007) found that it took listeners
between 15-20 seconds to make an evaluative perception judgment in contextual listening tasks.
23
A study exploring perception of aural expressivity in collaborative music performances
corroborated this finding (Geringer & Sasanfar, 2011).
Piano Accompanying
Defining the Role of Accompanists
Oxford Music Online (“Accompanist,” n.d.) defines an accompanist as the “performer of
an accompaniment, usually referring to a pianist playing with one or more singers but it is also
applied to the pianist in instrumental sonatas. Some pianists (e.g., Gerald Moore) have
specialized in the art of accompaniment”. Several such pianists have offered attempts at
describing the role of accompanists. Adler (1965) designates accompanists as piano collaborators
who are primarily concerned with the ‘give and take’ between the soloist and the accompanist in
performance settings, as well as the pianistic qualities of their performance. Katz (2009)
describes accompanists as fourfold custodians, charged with the mission of guarding and
maintaining 1) the composer’s wishes, 2) the poet’s requirements as the composer saw them, 3)
the soloist’s emotional and physical needs, and 4) the personal needs of the pianist. Another
pianist, Samuel Sanders, is credited with originating the term ‘collaborative pianist’ in an attempt
to elevate the perceived status of accompanists to that of an equal partner with the soloist, instead
of merely a secondary performer (Garrett, 2007).
Musical Skills and Competencies
A number of pianists, including Kurt Adler, Martin Katz, Algernon Lindo, and Gerald
Moore, have written extensively about the art and profession of accompanying, outlining the
necessary musical skills and competencies. They agree that accompanists must demonstrate
excellence in the areas of sight-reading, transposition, playing orchestral reductions, reading
from open scores, and must also possess ample and proficient technique (Adler, 1965; Katz,
2009; Lindo, 1916; Moore, 1944). Essential technical skills include supreme legato, useful
fingering, a developed kinesthetic sense of the keyboard, an awareness of the mechanical aid of
pedalization, and above all, knowledge and fluency in producing sound (Adler, 1965). The
ability to create tonal beauty, with sensitive touch and colorful variety, appears to be of
paramount importance for accompanists. One pianist states that accompanists must be able to
produce tone that “lives, sings, mourns and jubilates, caresses and beguiles” (Adler, 1965, p.
24
225), and recommends that accompanists study a score’s printed dynamics and invent new
variations, shades, and color mixtures within the sound palette. It is not enough for accompanists
to play with subtle and flexible tone in isolation; Moore (1944) asserts that accompanists must
blend their tone with that of the soloist, following even the slightest inflections. Intelligent and
sensitive listening, then, plays a critical role in the production of tone in collaborative
performance.
Experts agree on the importance of ensemble between the soloist and piano accompanist,
where the goal is for the two performers to play with unanimity, appropriately aligning their
respective parts. To this end, Adler (1965) says, “that he is not in conformity with the soloist is
about the worst that could be said about an accompanist” (p. 182). Collaborative ensemble, it
seems, is of the utmost importance. An accompanist must go along with the soloist and be with
him at all points, but the reverse is also true: the soloist must also be with the accompanist
(Adler, 1965). Thus rehearsal time affords a soloist and pianist the opportunity to learn to
anticipate each other, such that the pianist is not following the soloist, or vice versa (Moore,
1944).
According to Adler, the teamwork of the ensemble depends largely on the pianistic
support of the accompanist, who:
Prepares for the entrance of the soloist by some such device as a slight ritardando, a
slight diminuendo, or whatever is indicated in a particular case; leading the soloist on to
more intense singing or playing by an increase in the intensity of the accompaniment;
encouraging the soloist during the entire performance. The accompanist may immediately
convey a sense of his reliability and support by playing the prelude before the soloist’s
first entrance with great competence, conviction, and immersion in the meaning of the
piece; and will also give support to the very end by playing the postludes at the same high
pitch of intensity as the rest of the composition. (Adler, 1965, p. 240)
This kind of collaboration applies to all elements of the music. Lindo (1916) states that the
accompanist must project himself into the mood of the soloist, feeling the piece in the same way:
Any little wave of crescendo or diminuendo must happen simultaneously in voice and
piano….If the accompanist possesses that priceless and most necessary gift, a
sympathetic and responsive temperament, he will find himself able at times intuitively to
anticipate the soloist’s effects and to feel, by some electric wave of sympathy, where a
25
pause or sudden pianissimo will be introduced, and, even if unprepared, be able to
produce the exact effect that is required. (Lindo, 1916, p. 47)
Katz (2009) suggests that breath is the primary building block of successful
collaboration, providing and preserving a natural flow to the music around which accompanists
may arrange their playing and phrasing. The accompanist must bring sensitivity both to phrases
with a soloist, and to the intervening material between their phrases, handling the exit and
entrance of their co-performer with great care. According to Katz, the most graceless handling of
phrasing is a pianist playing in tempo to the end of his intervening material and then simply
waiting for the reentry of the soloist. Accompanists must
Fill up whatever holes [the singer’s] breathing has caused in the flow of the music and
disguise them….In order that the gap in the singing should not be noticed, the
accompanist must help [the singer] to glide over this hiatus by easing the tempo slightly
before it and carrying on with the tempo smoothly afterwards. (Moore, 1944, p. 29)
While musical and physical considerations contribute to collaborative phrasing, it seems rubato
is a critical element of successful execution thereof. Moore stresses that phrases in music must be
elastic as opposed to rigid, “slightly quicker here, slightly slower there….and that accompanists
must be alive to these fluctuations, familiar enough with the song and the soloist’s performance
to be able to anticipate this rubato” (Moore, 1944, pp. 30-31).
The importance of listening skills in accompanying has been addressed with regard to
producing sound. But accompanists must also possess another type of listening skill. In this case,
listening refers to an awareness of sound that is both inward (created by oneself) and outward
(that of the soloist). Bos (1949) describes listening, then, as both a quantitative and qualitative
issue: quantitative in that it aids in attaining proper dynamic balance between the soloist and
pianist, and qualitative in that it impacts the fusion of tone within the collaboration.
Other desirable competencies include interpretive knowledge and performance
experience with varied and extensive repertoire including operas, oratorios, choral works, art
songs, and instrumental sonatas (Lindo, 1916). The ability to vary playing style in accordance
with the style, genre, and source of music being played is also important. For example,
accompanists must translate instrumental effects into piano effect when playing orchestral
transcriptions, imitating and replicating the perceived resulting sounds produced by instruments
on which they were originally played (Katz, 2009; Lindo, 1916). Familiarity with the sounds and
26
mechanics of languages (especially French, Italian, German, and English) is also emphasized
(Katz, 2009). Little has been written regarding the stage behavior of piano accompanists, yet
Moore (1944) states that an accompanist “must so comport himself that, should the eyes of the
audience stray towards him, he looks in the picture of the song” (p. 52).
Personal Attributes
The role of accompanist encompasses more than simply being a competent pianist and
musician. Pianists agree that an accompanist’s success in their non-musical roles, including
diplomat, psychologist, disciplinarian, patient listener, and teammate, are of critical importance
to a successful collaboration (Adler, 1965; Katz, 2009). The culmination of such teamwork may
result in the molding of two independent personalities into a firm unity of purpose and execution.
Other personal qualities, such as a sympathetic temperament and the ability to be highly
adaptable, may be beneficial (Moore, 1944).
Challenges of Playing with Different Mediums
Every collaboration is unique and presents its own challenges; playing with different
instruments is no exception. Performing with string players, for example, requires an
accompanist to never lose sight of the performer’s bow, itself a visible manifestation of
important musical information pertaining to such elements as phrasing and articulation (Katz,
2009). The accompanist, in turn, must mimic these elements. Collaborations with wind and brass
players involve fewer visual cues with regard to the instruments themselves. Therefore increased
physical communication through breathing and gestures of the body is necessary for successful
collaboration. Moore (1944) suggests that collaborations with instrumentalists present greater
challenges in tone matching and unanimity of attack than those with singers, and that the
technical demands are greater for the pianist.
The element of text is most commonly associated with the repertoire of singers.
Therefore in collaborations with these performers, it becomes a consideration for accompanists
as well. Failure on the part of pianists to appreciate the significance of the words may result in an
empty, futile sound (Moore, 1944). Attention must be paid to a singer’s diction; accompanists
should listen for vowel sounds in order to align with the singer, instead of the consonant that
initiates the syllable. According to Katz (2009), perfect ensemble and fusion between performers
27
relies on understanding the text, even in instrumental settings, where Katz says the phrases
contain similar syntax to vocal phrases, even in the absence of text.
Pianists agree that ensemble balance is another challenge presented by different types of
collaboration (Adler, 1965; Moore, 1944). It is important that the audience perceives the tone of
the soloist and pianist as having equal weight, the responsibility of which falls primarily to the
accompanist. Well-defined pianism, clear articulation and pedaling, and thoughtful voicing can
substitute for volume when it comes to striving for the right balance (Katz, 2009).
The Case for Training Pianists in Accompanying
Lindo (1916) suggests that accompanying vocal and instrumental soloists should be a
compulsory part of any baccalaureate piano curriculum, as accompanying is the only area in the
profession of piano performance for which there is always a demand. Academic programs in
collaborative piano may serve both the student and the school in that they train pianists to
accompany (a skill that will always be needed as long as there are singers and instrumentalists),
and provide a needed service to the school (Lee, 2009). On a personal level, accompanying may
help develop keyboard students’ interpersonal and thinking skills, as well as personal attributes
(Castiglione, 2002). In a survey of professional musicians, private instructors, and faculty
members, participants responded that they frequently sight-read, transposed, or performed
accompaniments, depending on their respective field, and that many indicated that they would
have liked to have had additional training in accompanying (Young, 2010).
Descriptions of Piano Accompanying
Theoretical Framework
Kokotsaki (2007) attempted to develop a theoretical model to explain how performance
quality is achieved in ensemble performance involving pianists. Specifically, she was interested
in exploring this matter from the pianist’s perspective. In her interviews with pianists, five
general areas emerged: 1) searching for balance (i.e. all aspects relating to musical balance,
human relationship, and performance interpretation); 2) externalization of attention (including
visual and aural communication, as well as technical and social skills); 3) regulating (as
pertaining to balancing pianist and accompanist roles and responsibility within the ensemble); 4)
28
time availability (i.e. individual and ensemble rehearsal time or familiarity with repertoire); and
5) achieving integration (including partnership with the soloist and the audience’s response).
From the Perspective of Accompanists
Other descriptive research explored accompanying from the perspective of professionals
in the field. Kubota (2009) found consensus among professionals that accompanists complement
and enhance the performance of a soloist. The participants stated that the main aim of rehearsal
was synchronization, first focusing on finding a collective tempo and synchronizing timing, then
addressing more aesthetic goals of mood and feeling. Issues of tempo (including rubato),
articulation, instrument differences, dynamics, mood, and tone quality were cited as the areas of
greatest discrepancy between collaborators.
Musical Competencies and Social Attributes
Others have sought to examine the musical competencies and personal attributes
necessary for accompanying. Rose (1981) explored what capabilities professional accompanists
and accompanying teachers thought were important to include in pianists’ training and
development. Her findings produced general categories of competencies pertaining to pianistic
skills, accompanying, vocal knowledge, linguistics, repertoire, and human relations. Kubota
(2009) identified three important areas pertaining to desirable competencies of accompanists:
effective technique, personality, and musical excellence. Specifically, Kubota noted that the
personal traits of sensitivity, tactfulness, and flexibility are helpful, and communication – social,
physical, and musical – are essential. Fong (1997) compiled an annotated bibliography for
collaborative pianists and teachers of accompanying that serves as a reference for literature about
accompanying on keyboard instruments in both vocal and instrumental settings. Rich (2002)
created a manual for pianists who play art songs with singers, focusing on the specific technical,
practical, and inspirational considerations of this type of collaboration.
Scholars have corroborated what expert pianists (Adler, 1965; Katz, 2009; Lindo, 1916;
Moore, 1944) have suggested regarding competencies in the field. In general, the studies have
found that accompanists must be proficient in the areas of sight-reading, transposition, playing
orchestral reductions, reading from open scores, and must possess fluent technique (Baker, 2006;
Lee, 2009; Rich, 2002; Rose, 1981). The studies also affirmed the importance of vast and varied
29
knowledge of repertoire (Lee, 2009; Rose, 1981), acquaintance with the sounds and mechanics
of languages of singers (Baker, 2006; Lee, 2009; Rose, 1981), as well as sophisticated
interpersonal skills and a high level of understanding of human relationships (Lee, 2009; Rose,
1981).
Accompanying in Choral Settings
Several researchers explored specific desirable competencies for accompanists in choral
settings. Findings by Castiglione (2002) and T. A. Johnson (1993) were consistent with what
pianist experts and other researchers have said about general musical competencies: that
technique, sight-reading, open score reading, teamwork, and the ability to create beautiful and
varied tone (specifically, the ability to adjust piano tone to match the character of the music) are
important attributes. Alertness and flexibility during rehearsal were also found to be
advantageous. Through interviews with choral conductors, accompanists, and singers,
Castiglione (2002) determined that singers listen closely to and are affected by the
accompaniment whereby the sounds they hear may reinforce the gestures they see. Grimland
(2005) analyzed characteristics of teacher-directed modeling in the case of experienced choral
conductors and found that some conductors called upon accompanists to model the musicality of
a phrase for singers during rehearsal.
Empirical Effects of Piano Accompaniment
Simultaneous Performing Contexts and Tuning
Several researchers have explored the effect of simultaneous performance contexts, such
as settings with accompaniment, on intonation. Small (1982) explored the effect of an in-tune
melodic stimulus on undergraduate students’ ability to sing a short harmonic passage in tune and
found that passages sung with the melody were significantly more in tune than the passages sung
without it. Sterling (1985) examined the effects of five stylistically diverse vocal harmonizations
(tonal, chromatic, dissonant, quarter, and chords with extensions) on college singers’ ability to
sing an accompanying melodic line. Results showed significant differences between
performances with the various harmonic accompaniments. The highest level of vocal pitch
accuracy resulted from performances with accompaniments consisting of tonal harmony. Other
researchers have found that the pitch register of accompanying tones (higher or lower in relation
30
to the soloist’s pitch register) may affect a soloist’s intonation (Brittin, 1993; Garman, 1992;
Kantorski, 1986). Garman (1992) explored how string players’ intonation accuracy was affected
by the presence or absence of accompaniment in terms of conformity to equal-tempered tuning.
College instrumentalists (violin, viola, cello, bass) recorded a melody with four accompaniment
conditions: no accompaniment, unison/octave doubling, single voice harmonization, and
triad/seventh chord harmonizations. There was a significant difference in pitch deviation
between the unaccompanied and accompanied conditions, with greater pitch deviation resulting
from the unaccompanied condition. The findings of these studies suggest that the presence of
melodic and tonal harmonic accompaniment may increase the intonation accuracy of the soloist.
Effect of Accompaniment Type on Preference and Perception
In a series of studies, Brittin (2000, 2001, 2002) explored the effect of accompaniment
style on preference and perception of performance quality in children and young adults.
Regarding children’s preferences for various sequenced accompaniment styles, she found that
children most preferred rock-based styles and that chordal piano accompaniment was the least
preferred style (Brittin, 2000). In a similar study comparing urban and suburban student
populations, Brittin (2001) found that students responded most positively to folk songs with
sequenced accompaniments; rock-based styles were most preferred and chordal piano
accompaniments least preferred.
Brittin explored perception of soloist performance quality under three types of
accompaniment conditions: unaccompanied solos, solos with chordal piano accompaniment, and
solos with compact disc accompaniment (Brittin, 2002). Middle and high school instrumentalists
listened to the performances and evaluated performance quality, strongest and weakest features,
and preference. Performances under the three conditions were rated significantly different.
Compact disc accompaniment produced the highest ratings, and participants preferred
unaccompanied performances to those with chordal piano accompaniment. Brittin, Sheldon, and
Lee (2002) replicated this study with children in Singapore and found similar results. Both
studies revealed a significant, though moderate, relationship between greater preference for
accompaniment style and perception of performance quality; listeners may be more forgiving of
the performance quality when they like the accompaniment.
31
Impact on Musical Abilities
Researchers have examined the effect of accompaniment in educational settings on
various performance competencies, including the singing ability of children. Hale (1977)
explored how different types of accompaniment facilitated kindergartners’ development of a
sense of tonality in singing. Specifically, she compared the effects of singing with a harmoniconly accompaniment to singing with a progressive sequence of accompaniment. The sequence
involved introducing musical layers in progressive stages, from simple to more complex. Thus,
at first the children heard only the melody as they sang. Once they were familiar with the
melody, they heard the melody with harmonic accompaniment, and finally they sang while
hearing only harmonic accompaniment. Children were assigned to either the control (harmoniconly) or experimental (sequence) groups. After one year of such instruction, the participants
recorded performances to be judged on tonal singing ability. There was a significant difference
between the two groups, favoring the progressive sequence, suggesting that children learned to
sing with a better sense of tonality when structured combinations of melody and harmony
accompanied them during the learning process.
Atterbury and Silcox (1993) also investigated the influence of piano accompaniment on
the singing ability of kindergarten students. Their study compared the effects of instruction with
no accompaniment versus piano harmonic accompaniment. No significant difference was found
between the groups. In a related study, Guilbault (2004) examined the effect of harmonic
accompaniment on the tonal achievement and tonal improvisations of children in kindergarten
and first grade. Consistent with Atterbury and Silcox (1993), she found no significant difference
in children’s tonal achievement. However, children who received song instruction with root
melody accompaniment received significantly higher improvisation ratings than children who
did not receive such instruction. The improvised melodies of the children in the experimental
group contained implied harmonic functions and maintained the tonic pitch and tonality of the
song better than children who received instruction with no accompaniment. Although the results
of these studies are not consistent, incorporating a combination of melody and harmony in
accompanying children’s singing appears to aid in developing a stronger sense of tonal
awareness in some contexts.
32
Effect on Sight-Reading Ability
Sight-reading ability involves perception, kinesthetic, memory, and problem-solving
skills and is a highly desirable competency for pianists (Lehmann & McArthur, 2002).
Researchers have found that sight-reading in an accompanying context may improve sightreading performance. Class piano students who sight-read along with a tape-recorded soloist
were significantly more rhythmically accurate than students who played without the soloist
(Watkins & Hughes, 1986). Lehmann and Ericsson (1993) investigated differences in the sightreading ability of pianists who specialized in either accompanying or in solo performance. The
pianists sight-read accompaniments to pre-recorded flute solos. Accuracy, as judged by MIDI
notational printouts and ratings by expert judges, between the two groups was found to be
significantly different. Pianists with accompanying backgrounds performed better than the solo
pianists. The pianists recorded two performances, and while accuracy increased for both groups
across the readings, the solo pianists demonstrated greater improvement. Results of this study
suggest that pianists with accompanying backgrounds may be superior sight-readers to solo
pianists, but that with repeated trials (or more practice), the difference in performance may
diminish.
Influence on Perception of Performance Quality
The influence of piano accompaniment on perception of various aspects of performance
quality has been investigated. Hamann and Banister (1991) attempted to determine what factors
were related to higher performance ratings at solo and ensemble festivals for band students. They
found that adjudicator rating scores were significantly higher for the variable ‘ rehearsal with
accompanist.’ Sheldon, Reese, and Grashel (1999) explored the effects of different
accompaniment conditions on instrumental musicians’ performance quality. Music majors
practiced and performed a piece on an instrument that was not their primary instrument. The
participants were assigned to practice under one of three conditions: with live accompaniment,
intelligent digital accompaniment, or without accompaniment. After a 6-week practice period,
the students performed a selection twice: once without accompaniment, and once in accordance
with their assigned accompaniment condition. The performances were rated on several musical
aspects. While scores were similar across the three groups, the mean ratings of the initial
performances (without accompaniment) were higher for both accompaniment groups than the
33
group that practiced without accompaniment, though not significantly. It was speculated that
practice with any form of accompaniment may aid students in the music learning process by
aiding in gaining a better grasp of the piece as a whole, thus enhancing all aspects of the
performance.
Another series of studies investigated listener perception of accompanied and
unaccompanied art songs. When judging intonation, listeners rated accompanied excerpts higher
than unaccompanied excerpts (Madsen, Geringer, & Heller, 1991). In a related study, Madsen,
Geringer, and Heller (1993) found that listeners discriminated between good and bad tone quality
of soloists regardless of whether the performances were accompanied or unaccompanied.
Geringer and Madsen (1998) asked listeners to rate art song performances that were
accompanied or unaccompanied using traditional performance evaluation rating scales. Results
revealed that accompanied excerpts were rated significantly higher than unaccompanied versions
for phrasing/expression, rhythm, and dynamics.
‘Smart’ Accompaniment
Other researchers have explored how interactive digital accompaniment, such as Smart
Music™ (formerly known as Vivace Intelligent Accompaniment™) can aid in music learning and
performance. These software programs simulate performance with a live accompanist for
instrumentalists and singers in that the program has the capability to adjust the accompaniment to
the soloist’s tempo in real time. Researchers have investigated the effects of practice with this
software on the performance achievement of musicians. Tseng (1996) found that college flute
students who practiced with Vivace™ over the course of a semester reported learning music at an
accelerated pace and more quickly gaining understanding of a piece of music as a whole.
Participants indicated heightened awareness of pitch and intonation during practice with the
program, and described an increase in confidence on stage, which they attributed to more
practice time in a musical setting that simulated the real performance. Snapp (1997) surveyed
teachers in order to explore the uses and effectiveness of Vivace™ in K-12 band programs and
found that the program was used primarily as a supplemental tool in preparation for solo and
ensemble contests, and therefore was not typically incorporated into the large ensemble.
Teachers’ reports of student musical growth after using Vivace™ indicated the potentially
34
positive impact of the program, due in part, perhaps, to the fact that students spent more time
practicing with it, and therefore were better prepared for performance.
Ouren (1997) attempted to document the effect of Vivace™ on the playing skills,
musicality, and motivation of middle school band students through case studies with eight
students. Students who practiced with the accompaniment program for a six-week period showed
improvement in performance, particularly in the areas of rhythm and interpretation/musicianship
as assessed by a judge using the solo/ensemble adjudication form. Similar results were found in
settings with a live accompanist (Hamann & Banister, 1991; Sheldon, Reese, & Grashel, 1999).
These studies suggest that regular practice with a live accompanist or an interactive digital
accompaniment program may contribute to better preparation and improved overall performance;
additional benefits may include increased motivation and confidence, as well as greater
sensitivity to specific musical aspects and awareness of the piece as a whole (Ouren, 1997;
Snapp, 1997; Sheldon, Reese, & Grashel, 1999; Tseng, 1996).
Perception of Expressivity in Collaborative Performance
I have found only one study to date that has empirically explored the effect of
accompanist expressivity on overall perception of expressivity in any setting. Geringer and
Sasanfar (2011) investigated whether or not the musical expressivity of the accompanist was
perceived by listeners, and how it contributed to overall perception of expressivity in
collaborative performances of a soloist and pianist. Listeners heard performances that contained
both expressive and unexpressive accompaniment. One vocalist and one violinist performed art
songs with a stylistically appropriate level of expressivity while the piano accompanist played
either expressively or unexpressively. Expressivity in this case was defined as pertaining to
dynamics, articulation, and tempo as it relates to phrasing. The expressive sections incorporated
a range of dynamics (piano to forte), articulation (pedal), and flexibility in timing and tempo.
The unexpressive sections were played without variation in dynamics (everything was mezzo
forte), consistently used a non legato articulation (no pedal), and were played metronomically.
To explore whether listeners perceived contrast in accompaniment, the expressivity of the
accompaniment changed several times during each performance, such that each piece contained
an equal number of expressive and unexpressive sections. Music majors listened to the excerpts
and rated the expressivity of the overall collaborative performances in real time using a CRDI
35
(Continuous Response Digital Interface). No specific definition of expressivity was given to the
participants; instead listeners were instructed to use their own judgment as to what that concept
meant to them. Listener attention was purposefully not directed toward that of the
accompaniment or the soloist, but instead toward the collaborative performance of both
contributors. Graphic analysis of listeners’ mean responses for both pieces illustrated that they
differentiated between sections containing expressive and unexpressive accompaniment.
Sections with expressive accompaniment were perceived with significantly higher levels of
expressivity than unexpressive sections. The results of this study suggest that listeners do hear
accompanied performances as at least somewhat collaborative and that the expressivity of the
pianist impacts listeners’ perceptions of the overall expressivity of the performance.
Summary
There is consensus among performers, teachers, and listeners regarding the importance of
expressivity in music performance. Researchers have established that specific elements of
performance influence perception of expressivity, including rhythm and timing, dynamics,
articulation, and physical movement. These elements contribute in different ways to overall
perception of expressivity for observers of varied backgrounds with regard to formal training in
music. Given its elusive nature, there is still much to be learned with regard to the preparation,
production, and perception of expressivity in various types of performance contexts and with
observers of different backgrounds. Other researchers have found that both aural and visual
information contribute to perception judgments with regard to expressivity in music
performance. It seems visual information asserts an especially strong influence, particularly for
audience members without formal training in music.
Other scholars have descriptively identified musical competencies of piano accompanists
that contribute to effective and expressive collaborative performance. Few studies have explored
possible effects regarding the role of piano accompanists. It has been shown that regular practice
with an accompanist may improve a soloist’s overall performance. Further, collaborative
performances of a soloist and pianist with aurally expressive accompaniment seem to be
perceived by listeners as more expressive than those with unexpressive accompaniment. Given
the frequency in which accompanying is found in contexts of music learning and performance,
36
more knowledge about the role of the accompanist and any possible effects on overall
performance would be extremely useful for pianists, soloists, and teachers.
37
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
The purpose of the present study was to explore perception of expressivity in
collaborative performances of a soloist and piano accompanist. Specifically, this study examined
how the expressivity of the piano accompanist, both aural and visual, affects audience perception
of overall expressivity. Prior to commencing the study, approval from the FSU Human Subjects
Committee at the Office of the Vice President for Research at the Florida State University was
obtained (see Appendix A).
Musician Selection
Collaborative performances of a soloist and piano accompanist exist in a variety of
settings, from amateur to professional, and involve a range of vocalists and instrumentalists. The
present study focused on the performance level of musicians who play in some of the more
commonly occurring collaborative performances, such as church services, high school
performances, and undergraduate recitals. These musicians may be classified as experienced
amateurs or semi-professionals, given they have a number of years of experience and training.
However, they may not have completed advanced study, nor have significant professional
experience.
The decision was made to use both an instrumental and a vocal soloist in order to explore
possible differences in perception of expressivity depending on the medium of the soloist.
Specifically, a cellist and a tenor vocalist were selected. These two instruments possess a similar
register and range, which served as an element of control with regard to the soloists. Both
musicians were frequent collaborators in performance settings involving a pianist. The cello
soloist had a baccalaureate degree in music and seven years of performing experience. In
addition to a baccalaureate degree in vocal performance, the tenor soloist had 15 years of
performing experience. The piano accompanist (who was the researcher) had a Master’s degree
in collaborative piano and 15 years of professional performance experience.
38
Repertoire Selection
In considering repertoire for the present study, efforts were made to identify a musical
genre that is commonly performed in the settings described above. The category of art song was
selected as it was a natural choice for the vocalist, and was one that could be easily assimilated
by the cellist. Attention was given to the musical composition of the piano accompaniment.
Several pianists have classified categories of art songs based on the composition of the
piano accompaniment. Lindo (1916) describes two types of accompaniment: 1) one which forms
an integral part of an organic whole, the song depending for its artistic unity on the combined
values of voice part and piano part; and 2) the other which possesses no intrinsic merit of its own
except as a medium for supporting the voice. Adler (1965) suggests a way of grouping ‘lied [art
song] styles’ on the basis of the relationship between the vocal line and piano accompaniment.
He describes three types of relationships. In the first, the vocal line (melody) dominates the song;
the accompaniment reinforces the solo line by consisting of primarily harmonic background. The
second relationship involves the accompaniment assuming a more prominent role –
independently painting, explaining, and illuminating the overt and hidden meaning of the song
amid the melodious vocal line. The third type of relationship comprises a vocal line that is more
declamatory than musical, whereby greater importance is given to the meaning of the song than
to the formal structure of the lyrics, and the accompaniment supports this principle. Two types of
accompaniment overlap in the writings of these two pianists: a type of accompaniment that
reinforces the singer, and another that plays a more independent role, which Katz (2009)
suggests might represent something observed or experienced, wholly independent from the
singer’s psyche.
In order to investigate possible differences in perception of expressivity depending on
accompaniment type, the decision was made to include one art song that contained a reinforcing
accompaniment and one song that contained a more independent accompaniment. Following the
classifications of Lindo (1916) and Adler (1965), the present study defined ‘reinforcing
accompaniments’ as those that primarily provide a harmonic foundation, wherein the piano
frequently doubles the solo line and contains little embellishment with regard to rhythm and
harmony. ‘Independent accompaniments’ were defined as containing musical composition that
differs from that of the soloist. In such cases, the piano accompaniment could be described as
more collaborative in nature, with harmonies and rhythms that complement those of the soloist.
39
Two French mélodies were selected: Henri Duparc’s Soupir for the ‘independent’
accompaniment and Francis Poulenc’s Fleurs for the ‘reinforcing’ accompaniment (see
Appendix B and Appendix C). In order to help control for possible effects of text, songs in
English were not considered, given that it was the primary language of most of the participants.
While the songs were originally composed for voice and piano, both the vocalist and cellist
performed the songs with piano accompaniment in the present study. The excerpts from each
piece were of similar length and duration: the passage from Fleurs was 15 measures long and 53
seconds in duration, while the section from Soupir was 11 measures and 43 seconds in duration.
The pianist repeated the last measure of each excerpt in order to bring it to a musical conclusion.
The excerpts contained melodic passages that were musically and stylistically similar. The scores
contained similar expressive markings with regard to dynamics, shape, and pace. The tempo and
character of the two pieces was also similar. Poulenc indicated the tempo and mood for Fleurs
with the inscription, ‘Très calme’ (meaning ‘very calm’) and a metronome marking of quarter
note equals 56. Similarly, Duparc’s score contains the marking, ‘Lent’ (which translates to mean
‘slow’) in the score for Soupir. Attempts were made to select pieces that were not commonly
performed and thus would likely be unknown to most participants. This selection choice was so
that perception of expressivity could be explored independently of familiarity.
Independent Variables: Aural and Visual Expressivity of the Piano Accompanist
Since the research literature contains limited empirical study regarding the element of
accompanist expressivity, the present study was designed to explore how aural and visual
accompanist expressivity affect overall perception of expressivity in collaborative performances.
Performance excerpts were created in which the soloist maintained a stylistically appropriate
level of expressivity (both aural and visual) throughout, and the piano accompanist varied with
regard to aural and visual expressivity. The independent variables in the present study were the
aural and visual expressivity of the piano accompanist. Audio recordings were created of each of
the two mélodies (performed by both cello and voice) where the piano accompanist played either
aurally expressively or unexpressively. Using these previously recorded audio tracks, video
performances were then created, in which the piano accompanist played with either visually
expressive or unexpressive movement. In order to further isolate the effect of each independent
variable, the two conditions of aural and visual expressivity were combined, creating congruent
40
audio-visual performances (meaning that the aural and visual accompaniment conditions
matched, i.e. the accompanist sounded and appeared expressive), and incongruent audio-visual
performances (the aural and visual conditions did not match, i.e. the accompanist sounded
expressive but appeared unexpressive). The following table shows how the independent variables
were combined and implemented in the present study. The piano accompaniment performed
under each combination of variables with each of the soloists and for both mélodies, creating 16
stimuli in total.
Table 3.1
Stimulus Conditions by Piece and Soloist
Piece (Accompaniment Type)
Soloist
Conditions of Piano Accompanist
Fleurs (reinforcing)
Cello
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs (reinforcing)
Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir (independent)
Cello
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir (independent)
Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
41
Creating the Stimuli
Audio recording procedures. The soloists recorded their part while hearing a
stylistically appropriate accompaniment that had been recorded earlier. Stylistically appropriate
in this case refers to a performance based on an interpretation that fit with the standard
performance practice of the piece. The pianist initially rehearsed the art songs with the soloists
and then recorded a version containing only the accompaniment, mindful of the soloist’s line and
general interpretation. Hearing this pre-recorded accompaniment through headphones, the
soloists then recorded their performance. This recording procedure was done so that the solo line
could be captured independent of the piano accompaniment. For their performances, the soloists
were instructed to perform with a stylistically appropriate level of expressivity, referring to the
standard performance practice interpretation described earlier. Multiple takes were performed
until the researcher and two independent observers were satisfied that the performances met this
description.
Next, the pianist, hearing the recorded solo lines through headphones, recorded two
versions of the accompaniment for each piece for each of the soloists: one that was aurally
expressive and one that was aurally unexpressive. For the purpose of this study, three expressive
elements (dynamics, articulation, and tempo) were selected. Therefore, expressive versions
incorporated a range of dynamics (piano to forte), articulation as indicated by the composer
(manifested through touch and pedal), and flexibility in tempo with regard to phrasing. During
the expressive performances, the pianist listened to and was mindful of the soloist’s performance
with regard to these musical elements, and aimed to create a performance that aligned with and
complemented the soloist. The unexpressive versions were played with little variation in
dynamics (almost entirely mezzo forte), incorporated articulation that did not consistently
demonstrate the composer’s intentions, and contained both metronomic playing and fluctuations
in tempo. In unexpressive versions, the pianist performed without sensitivity to the soloist’s line,
which resulted in performances where the musical elements described above (dynamics,
articulation, tempo) did not align with the soloist. Thus, dynamic levels were not balanced
between soloist and pianist, musical phrases did not line up, and the pianist abruptly changed
tempo when it was obvious that the two performers were not in sync. Multiple takes were
performed until the researcher and two independent observers were satisfied that the expressive
and unexpressive performances were indeed different and that these differences would be
42
perceptible to observers. Four versions for each excerpt were recorded in order to provide a
complete counterbalance of the pieces, soloists, and aural accompaniment conditions. This
counter balancing resulted in eight audio recordings.
Two practice excerpts were also created for use in the study to allow participants the
opportunity to become accustomed to the research task prior to beginning the study. These were
recorded using the same process as described above, but in this case were only recorded with the
vocalist. The piece used was Gabriel Fauré’s Lydia, which contains a ‘reinforcing’
accompaniment (see Appendix D). The practice excerpt consisted of 18 measures of the mélodie,
which was 71 seconds in duration.
All recording took place in a recital hall in the college of music where the piano
accompaniments were played on a 7-foot New York Steinway B. The audio performances were
captured using a Tascam HD P2 audio recorder with two AKG C1000S microphones at a
sampling frequency of 48 kHz with 24-bit resolution. Digital audio files were transferred to a
computer and were mixed and mastered using the program Adobe Audition 3.
Video recording procedures. Once the audio tracks were complete, visual performances
were recorded. The musicians heard the mastered audio files through loudspeakers in the recital
hall and simulated visual performances in accordance with each of the prescribed expressive
conditions. The researcher used terms and definitions of expressivity described by Davidson
(1993) to inform expressive movement conditions. While Davidson’s terms were not in specific
reference to movement, they provided a simple method by which movement could be
differentiated between the soloists and accompanist. For all performances, the soloists were
instructed to visually perform in a ‘projected’ manner with regard to expressivity following the
definition by Davidson, which she likened to presenting a normal interpretation as one would in
giving a recital. Visual expressivity in this case, then, was defined as any physical movement,
including the head, body, and face, which may communicate expressivity during the
performance that does not pertain directly to the physical execution of the music. Soloists only
performed in this ‘projected’ manner.
Meanwhile, the piano accompanist played appearing either visually expressive or
unexpressive during the performance of each excerpt. The expressive performances followed the
‘projected’ definition described above. In this case, the pianist moved freely, allowing head, face,
hands, arms, and body to move naturally and unreservedly in order to present and express the
43
music. For the unexpressive versions, the pianist interpreted Davidson’s definition of ‘deadpan.’
In this case, Davidson recommended minimizing expressive interpretation in order to create an
unvaried performance. Thus, the pianist’s movements were constrained to only those that were
physically necessary to accomplish the performance. Multiple takes were performed until the
researcher and two independent observers were satisfied that the expressive (‘projected’) and
unexpressive (‘deadpan’) performances were indeed different and that these differences would
be perceptible to observers, and that the soloists’ movements remained ‘projected.’
For each piece as performed by each duo (voice and piano and cello and piano), four
visual performances were recorded: two where the aural and visual expressivity of the
accompanist were congruent: 1) expressive audio with expressive video, and 2) unexpressive
audio with unexpressive video; and two where the aural and visual conditions of the pianist were
incongruent: 1) expressive audio with unexpressive video, and 2) unexpressive audio with
expressive video, creating a total of 16 excerpts. Only two versions of the practice examples
were recorded. One version contained expressive audio with expressive video, and the other was
comprised of unexpressive audio with unexpressive video.
The visual performances were recorded in the same recital hall using a Sony HDR-SR11
video camera. The video files were layered with the previously recorded and mastered audio files
using the software program, Adobe Premiere Pro C25.5. The camera was placed at a distance of
15 feet from the front row of seats in the hall, approximately 35 feet from the performers on
stage, such that the entirety of each performer’s body was visible. Four different presentation
orders of the final stimuli were created to help control for possible order effects. The following is
a listing of the stimuli as they were presented in order 1. See Appendix E for a listing of all four
orders. Stimuli were transferred to DVD with the program, Adobe Encore CS5.1.
44
Table 3.2
List of Experimental Stimuli as Presented in Order 1
Piece-Soloist
Accompanist Condition
Lydia-Voice (practice)
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Lydia-Voice (practice)
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Validity
Three pianists, all with at least at least seven years of performing experience, established
validity of the stimuli with regard to the aural and visual expressivity of the piano accompanist.
The experts listened to two aurally expressive performances and two aurally unexpressive
performances (one with each of the soloists) without video and rated the aural expressivity of the
45
piano accompanist using an 11-point rating scale, where ‘10’ was very expressive and ‘0’ was
very unexpressive. The process was repeated for visual expressivity, whereby the experts viewed
two visually expressive performances and two visually unexpressive performances (one with
each of the soloists) without sound and rated the visual expressivity of the piano accompanist.
The ratings for the excerpts with aurally expressive accompaniment ranged from 5 to 9, and from
0 to 3 for excerpts with unexpressive accompaniment. For excerpts with visually expressive
accompaniment, ratings ranged from 5 to 10, and from 0 to 1 for those with unexpressive
accompaniment. These data verified that both aural and visual examples of expressive and
unexpressive accompaniment could be clearly differentiated along an expressivity continuum.
Participants
Participants for the present study were 72 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at
The Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. Participants were recruited from the general
population of the college of music at the university by asking for volunteers from classes and
ensembles within the college, where students who are both music majors and non-music majors
attend classes. Approximately the same number of males (34) and females (38) participated in
the study. The participants represented music majors with keyboard backgrounds (n = 24), music
majors with non-keyboard (vocal or instrumental) backgrounds (n = 24), and non-music majors
(n = 24). All participants completed an informed consent form, which had been approved by the
university’s institutional research review board (see Appendix F). The consent form stated that
(1) the study would explore participants’ perceptions of expressivity in performances of a soloist
and piano accompanist, and (2) that participation was voluntary, and that choice to withdraw was
available at all times, without penalty. Participants made pre-arranged appointments with the
researcher, and “walk-ins” were also encouraged.
Dependent Measure
Participants used a response sheet that contained an 11-point rating scale for each excerpt
to indicate their perception of expressivity at the conclusion of each performance (see Figure
3.1). The complete participant response sheet is shown in Appendix G. The number 10 was
identified with the label ‘very expressive,’ while 0 represented ‘very unexpressive’. The middle
range of the scale (4-6) contained the words ‘somewhat expressive.’
46
!
0
!
1
very unexpressive
!
!
2
3
4
5
6
somewhat expressive
7
8
9
10
very expressive
Figure 3.1. Expressivity rating scale used by participants.
Procedures
The study took place in a soundproof room in the college of music. The room contained
10 chairs arranged in two rows in the shape of a semi-circle. The video monitor and speakers
were placed at the center of the circle, at a comfortable distance for all observers. A clipboard
and pencil were placed on each chair for the participants to use for completing paperwork. All
participants were asked to sign a consent form prior to commencing the research task.
Participants were then given the response sheet (see Appendix G) that asked them to indicate
their gender and music background (music major with keyboard background, music major with
non-keyboard background, or non-music major). Included on the response sheet was a written
explanation of the procedures that asked participants to indicate their perception of overall
expressivity for each collaborative performance. No specific definition of expressivity was given
to the participants (following the methods of Geringer & Breen, 1975; Hamann, 2003; and Lucas
& Teachout, 1998). Instead, listeners were instructed to use their own judgment as to what that
concept meant to them. One of the main purposes of the present study was to explore how
expressivity is perceived in its most general sense, as opposed to directing participants to attend
to specific musical, physical, or emotional elements. Attention was purposefully not directed
toward the accompanist or soloists, but instead toward the collaborative performance of both
contributors. Participants were then afforded the opportunity to ask questions. It should be noted
that no participant questioned the meaning of expressivity. Before viewing the music
performances, the lighting in the room was dimmed so that the participants could see the video
monitor without glare from the overhead lights. Participants viewed the performances with high
quality playback equipment: an LG-32LK450 32” video monitor, Toshiba SD-6980 DVD player,
Pioneer VSX-D814 amplifier, and a pair of Boston Acoustics A70 loudspeakers.
47
Two practice examples were completed before commencing the experimental stimuli in
order to ensure participants understood the task. All participants received the same 16 stimuli,
presented in one of the four orders. There was approximately five seconds of silence between
stimuli. The entire task, including the post-participation survey, took approximately 20 minutes.
Post-Participation Survey
After observing the collaborative performances, participants completed a brief survey
(see Appendix H) that contained questions pertaining to the performances they just observed, as
well as questions concerning general perception of expressivity in collaborative performance.
The survey asked participants to indicate whether or not they perceived expressivity while
observing the performances; two blank lines were provided for additional comments. Participants
were also asked to rate their level of focus of attention during the performances using a 10-point
rating scale, with ‘1’ being low and ‘10’ as high. In addition, participants were asked to rate the
importance of several elements as they believed they would contribute to their overall perception
of expressivity in collaborative performances. These elements included the following: 1) how
musically expressive the soloist sounds, 2) how musically expressive the piano accompanist
sounds, 3) how physically expressive the soloist looks, and 4) how physically expressive the
piano accompanist looks. Participants rated the importance of each item using a 10-point rating
scale, where ‘1’ was not important and ‘10’ was very important. Two blank lines were provided
for additional comments. The last question of the survey asked participants to identify the focus
of their attention during the present study, specifically whether they focused primarily on the
soloist or piano accompanist, or if their attention was equally divided between the two
performers. Post-participation surveys were identified by number, which corresponded with
participants’ response sheets from the experimental task. This coding was done so that the two
data sheets completed by each participant could be associated.
48
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the aural and visual expressivity of the
piano accompanist affects audience perception of the overall expressivity in collaborative
performances of a soloist and pianist. Specific questions addressed were: 1) Are there differences
in perceived expressivity between performances with aurally expressive and aurally unexpressive
piano accompaniment? 2) Are there differences in perceived expressivity between performances
with visually expressive and visually unexpressive piano accompaniment? 3) Are there
differences in perceived expressivity between the background areas of participants?
A post-participation survey was designed as a secondary means of addressing the
perception of accompanist expressivity in collaborative performance. Questions included:
1) How do listeners describe focus of attention during collaborative performances? 2) How do
participants regard the importance of soloist and accompanist musical and physical expressivity
in collaborative performances?
Participant Demographics
Participants for the present study consisted of 72 college students at The Florida State
University in Tallahassee, Florida. Approximately the same number of males (34) and females
(38) participated. The participants included both undergraduate and graduate students, and
represented music majors with keyboard backgrounds (n = 24), music majors with non-keyboard
backgrounds (n = 24), and non-music majors (n = 24).
Descriptive Data
Raw data consisted of participants’ expressivity ratings using the 11-point rating scale
described earlier. Ratings across all excerpts ranged from 0-10. Internal consistency of the
ratings was established with Cronbach’s Alpha. The 11-point expressivity scale was found to be
reliable (16 items; α = .78).
The composite mean score for performances with aurally expressive accompaniment
across both visual conditions was 6.56 (SD = 1.82) and with aurally unexpressive
49
accompaniment was 4.87 (SD = 2.15). Performances with visually expressive accompaniment
across both aural conditions produced a composite mean score of 6.72 (SD = 1.89), and the mean
for those with visually unexpressive accompaniment was 4.71 (SD = 2.08). Standard deviations
across all performances ranged from 1.63 to 2.38, and were larger for excerpts containing the
unexpressive aural and visual accompaniment conditions, and for those that contained an
incongruent aural-visual combination. Table 4.1 contains composite mean scores and standard
deviations for the independent variables of aural and visual accompanist expressivity.
Table 4.1
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Excerpts with Aural and Visual
Accompanist Expressivity
Expressive
Unexpressive
Aural Expressivity
6.56 (1.82)
4.87 (2.15)
Visual Expressivity
6.72 (1.89)
4.71 (2.08)
Each excerpt was presented under four conditions, which contained either congruent or
incongruent combinations of expressive or unexpressive aural and visual performances by the
accompanist. The congruent versions were expressive audio-expressive video and unexpressive
audio-unexpressive video, and the incongruent versions were expressive audio-unexpressive
video and unexpressive audio-expressive video. Table 4.2 contains composite mean scores and
standard deviations for the four combinations of each excerpt.
50
Table 4.2
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Audio-Video Combinations of
Accompanist Expressivity for Each Excerpt
EAEV
UAEV
EAUV
UAUV
Cello-Fleurs
7.33 (1.63)
6.14 (2.16)
5.76 (1.87)
4.06 (2.32)
Cello-Soupir
7.67 (1.66)
6.25 (1.91)
5.03 (1.97)
3.89 (2.00)
Voice-Fleurs
7.72 (1.68)
5.06 (2.38)
5.76 (2.02)
4.03 (2.31)
Voice-Soupir
7.68 (1.69)
5.90 (1.99)
5.50 (2.00)
3.67 (2.12)
Note. EAEA = Expressive Audio-Expressive Video; UAEV = Unexpressive Audio-Expressive
Video; UAUV = Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video; EAUV = Expressive AudioUnexpressive Video. These conditions pertain to the accompanist only.
Mean scores for excerpts with congruent audio and video accompaniment conditions
ranged from 7.33 to 7.72 for the expressive combinations and 3.67 to 4.06 for the unexpressive
combinations across pieces. For incongruent versions, mean ratings for excerpts with
unexpressive audio-expressive video ranged from 5.06 to 6.25, while excerpts with expressive
audio-unexpressive video ranged from 5.03 to 5.76. Standard deviations were lowest and also
most consistent across excerpts for the congruent expressive combinations (1.63 to 1.69), and
were highest for the congruent unexpressive versions (2.00 to 2.32). The incongruent
combinations produced greater discrepancy in standard deviations across excerpts, especially in
the unexpressive audio-expressive video versions, where standard deviations ranged from 1.91 to
2.38. This audio-visual combination also contained the largest standard deviation (2.38), which
resulted from the Voice-Fleurs performance. In comparing means of the incongruent versions,
expressivity ratings were higher for the unexpressive audio-expressive video combinations for
three of four excerpts, compared to the expressive audio-unexpressive video versions of the same
excerpts.
51
Statistical Analysis
An alpha level of .01 was used for all statistical analyses. Preliminary analyses showed
no significant difference between the four orders, nor did order interact with any other factor (p >
.01). Further, no significant difference was found for gender, nor were any significant
interactions found (p > .01). A five-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
four within-subjects variables (solo instrument, piece, aural accompaniment condition, visual
accompaniment condition) and one between-subjects variable (participant background) was
calculated to test for differences in participants’ expressivity ratings. The dependent measure was
the 11-point rating scale, by which participants indicated their perception of overall expressivity
for each performance. Data were screened to test the assumptions of the factorial ANOVA.
Levene’s Tests were not significant, which established that the assumption of homogeneity of
variance was met. Significant main effects and interactions are shown in Table 4.3.
52
Table 4.3
Analysis of Variance (Significant Results)
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
η2 p
< .001
.71
Significant Main Effects
Within Subjects
Aural Expressivity
Error
Visual Expressivity
Error
816.75
1
816.75
165.59
340.34
69
4.93
1160.01
1
1160.01
575.61
69
8.34
--
--
181.05
2
90.53
7.14
< .01
875.18
69
12.68
--
--
347.78
2
173.89
35.26
< .001
340.34
69
4.93
--
--
29.39
1
29.39
12.50
< .01
162.29
69
2.35
--
--
34.72
1
34.72
15.09
< .001
158.75
69
2.30
--
--
-139.05
-< .001
.67
Between Subjects
Background
Error
.17
Significant Interactions
Aural x Background
Error
Instrument x Aural
Error
Piece x Visual
Error
.51
.15
.18
Main effects. For the within-subjects variables, no significant main effects were found
for solo instrument, F (1, 69) < 1, p > .40 or for piece, F (1, 69) < 1, p > .70. Significant main
53
effects were found for accompanist aural expressivity, F (1, 69) = 165.59, p < .001, η2p = .71,
and for accompanist visual expressivity, F (1, 69) = 139.05, p < .001, η2p = .67. There was a
significant difference in participants’ ratings of performances with aurally expressive
accompaniment (M = 6.56) as compared with those with aurally unexpressive accompaniment
(M = 4.87). Excerpts containing visually expressive accompaniment (M = 6.72) were also rated
significantly different from those with visually unexpressive accompaniment (M = 4.71). For
both the aural and visual variables, there was a difference of approximately two rating scale
points between participants’ ratings of the expressive versions as compared to the unexpressive.
Regarding the between-subjects variable, a significant main effect was found for
participant background, F (2, 69) = 7.14, p < .01, η2p = .17. Composite means of the participants
by background were as follows: music majors with keyboard background, M = 5.26; music
majors with non-keyboard background, M = 5.66; and non-music majors, M = 6.23. A Tukey
post hoc test showed a significant difference between the non-music majors (M = 6.23, SD =
2.53) and the participants with keyboard backgrounds (M = 5.26, SD = 2.17). The non-music
majors rated the excerpts, on average, approximately one rating scale point higher than did music
majors with keyboard backgrounds. Neither the non-majors nor the music majors with keyboard
backgrounds were significantly different from the music majors with non-keyboard backgrounds
(M = 5.66, SD = 2.28).
Interactions. Significant two-way interactions occurred between aural accompaniment
condition and participant background, F (2, 69) = 35.26, p < .001, η2p = .51, solo instrument and
aural accompaniment condition, F (1, 69) = 12.50, p < .01, η2p = .15, and piece and visual
accompaniment condition, F (1, 69) = 15.09, p < .001, η2p = .18. No other significant two-way or
higher order interactions occurred.
The significant interaction between aural accompaniment condition and participant
background is shown in Figure 4.1, and means and standard deviations are found in Table 4.4.
Mean ratings for the versions with aurally expressive and unexpressive accompaniment by music
majors with keyboard and non-keyboard backgrounds differed by more than two rating scale
points. Non-music majors’ responses, however, were similar between the two aural conditions.
54
7
6.5
6
5.5
Aurally Expressive
5
Aurally Unexpressive
4.5
4
3.5
3
Keyboard
Non-Keyboard
Non-Majors
Figure 4.1. Mean expressivity ratings for aural accompaniment conditions by participant
background.
Table 4.4
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Aural Accompaniment Conditions by
Participant Background
Aurally Expressive
Aurally Unexpressive
Music Major: Keyboard
6.65 (1.71)
3.87 (1.80)
Music Major: Non-keyboard
6.70 (1.71)
4.62 (1.97)
Non-Music Major
6.32 (1.94)
6.14 (1.96)
As a matter of comparison, the interaction of participant background and visual
accompaniment condition was not significant. Participants’ ratings of the excerpts containing the
two visual conditions were consistent, regardless of background. These ratings showed a
difference of more than two rating scale points for both music major groups and 1.4 points for
the non-major group between the expressive and unexpressive visual conditions. Ratings for the
three groups are displayed in Table 4.5.
55
Table 4.5
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Visual Accompaniment Conditions by
Participant Background
Visually Expressive
Visually Unexpressive
Music Major: Keyboard
6.35 (1.79)
4.17 (1.72)
Music Major: Non-keyboard
6.88 (1.65)
4.44 (2.04)
Non-Music Major
6.93 (1.94)
5.53 (1.96)
Regarding the significant interaction between solo instrument and aural accompaniment
condition, participants perceived the versions with aurally expressive accompaniment of each
instrument similarly (cello: M = 6.45; voice: M = 6.67). However, the versions with aurally
unexpressive accompaniment were perceived differently by approximately one-half of a scale
point (cello: M = 5.08; voice: M = 4.66). This interaction is illustrated in Figure 4.2, and Table
4.6 contains the mean expressivity ratings and standard deviations for the aural conditions by
solo instrument. The contrast between unexpressive and expressive aural conditions was
perceived as larger for the voice performances.
7
6.5
6
Aurally Expressive
5.5
Aurally Unexpressive
5
4.5
4
Cello
Voice
Figure 4.2. Mean expressivity ratings for aural accompaniment conditions by solo instrument.
56
Table 4.6
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Aural Accompaniment Conditions by
Solo Instrument
Aurally Expressive
Aurally Unexpressive
Cello
6.45 (1.78)
5.08 (2.10)
Voice
6.67 (1.85)
4.66 (2.20)
As for the significant interaction between accompaniment visual condition and piece,
ratings for Fleurs differed by approximately one and a half rating scale points between
conditions (expressive version: M = 6.56; unexpressive version: M = 4.90). For Soupir, however,
the difference for the visual accompaniment conditions was larger, nearing two and a half scale
points (expressive version: M = 6.88; unexpressive version: M = 4.52). Figure 4.3 shows this
interaction, in that the distance between the expressive and unexpressive visual conditions for
Soupir is larger than for Fleurs. Table 4.7 contains mean expressivity ratings and standard
deviations for the expressive and unexpressive visual conditions for each piece.
7.5
7
6.5
6
Visually Expressive
5.5
Visually Unexpressive
5
4.5
4
Fleurs
Soupir
Figure 4.3. Mean expressivity ratings for visual accompaniment conditions by piece.
57
Table 4.7
Mean Expressivity Ratings (and Standard Deviations) for Visual Accompaniment Condition by
Piece
Visually Expressive
Visually Unexpressive
Fleurs (Poulenc)
6.56 (1.96)
4.90 (2.13)
Soupir (Duparc)
6.88 (1.81)
4.52 (2.02)
Post-Participation Surveys
After completing the experimental task, participants completed a brief survey (see
Appendix H). Three questions pertained to the performances the participants had just witnessed,
and four questions explored participants’ general perceptions of collaborative performance. Two
blank lines for optional additional comments followed two of the questions. Open-ended
comments were categorized according to emergent themes. An independent observer reviewed
20% of the comments and grouped them according to category. The category assignments agreed
with the researcher at an acceptable level of .80 (using the method of agreements divided by
number of agreements plus disagreements).
Research task questions. The first question asked whether the participants had perceived
expressivity during the experimental task. All participants (100%) indicated that they had. Two
blank lines were provided for additional comments. Forty-eight participants (67%) wrote
comments. Comments were categorized according to emergent themes. Frequency counts per
theme, which are shown in Table 4.8, are indicated both by participant background and totals for
each category. Some participants included more than one comment or a comment that was
relevant to more than one theme area. The relevant portions were included under each category,
such that there are more comments than number of participants who wrote comments. The
complete verbatim comments appear in Appendix I. Seven general themes emerged, pertaining
to soloist expressivity, pianist expressivity, general expressivity, musical aspects of the
ensemble, physical expressivity, musical versus physical expressivity, and other general
comments. Overall, comments reflected participants’ general thoughts on expressivity or
referenced specific musical elements that contributed to their perception of expressivity in the
58
experimental task. Most comments were general (14), followed by those related to issues of
timing between the soloist and pianist (9).
Table 4.8
Frequency of Comments by Participant Background after Survey Question 1: Did you Perceive
Expressivity During the Collaborative Performances?
Participant Background
Category
Keyboard
NonKeyboard
Non-Music
Major
Total
General
2
2
0
4
Cello
0
0
1
1
General expressivity
1
3
3
7
Musical expressivity
0
0
1
1
Physical movement
0
2
1
3
6
2
6
14
Synchronization/timing
5
3
1
9
Dynamics
1
3
2
6
Other musical elements
4
1
0
5
Collaboration
1
1
2
4
Physical expressivity
0
2
4
6
Musical vs. physical
1
1
0
2
Other comments
1
0
1
2
Soloist Expressivity
Pianist Expressivity
General Expressivity
Ensemble
The second question asked participants to rate their focus of attention during the music
excerpts using a 10-point rating scale. Participants’ responses were fairly high to high (M = 8.56,
59
SD = .99), and encompassed a range of 6 – 10. Participants were also asked to identify whether
they focused primarily on the soloist or piano accompanist, or if their attention was equally
divided between the two performers. Twelve participants (17%) stated that they focused on the
soloist, 18 (25%) focused on the pianist, and 42 (58%) indicated that their attention was divided
equally between the two performers. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the frequency of
participants’ responses across categories, and a significant difference was found, χ2 (2, 72) =
21.0, p < .001. The number of participants that indicated that their attention was focused equally
on both performers was significantly higher than participants who focused on one performer
exclusively. Subsequent Chi-square analysis compared responses by the three participant
backgrounds and found no significant difference in focus of attention between the various
backgrounds, χ2 (4, 72) = 5.79, p > .01. Table 4.9 contains participants’ frequency of responses
pertaining to their focus of attention, including the distribution for each background.
Table 4.9
Frequency of Participants’ Self-Reported Focus of Attention by Background
Soloist
Pianist
Equal
Keyboard
1
6
17
Non-Keyboard
4
6
14
Non-Music
7
6
11
Total
12
18
42
General expressivity questions. Another set of questions concerned the importance of
several aspects of collaborative performance in terms of their contribution to general overall
perception of expressivity. These aspects were the musical expressivity of the soloist and of the
piano accompanist, and the physical expressivity of each performer. Participants gave their
opinion regarding the importance of each item separately using a 10-point rating scale.
Participants’ responses are included in Table 4.10.
60
Table 4.10
Participants’ Mean Ratings (and Standard Deviations) of the Importance of Musical and
Physical Expressivity of a Soloist and Pianist in Collaborative Performance by Background
Musical
Expressivity of
the Soloist
Musical
Expressivity of
the Pianist
Physical
Expressivity of
the Soloist
Physical
Expressivity of
the Pianist
Keyboard
9.29 (.81)
9.13 (1.12)
7.21 (1.86)
6.75 (2.11)
Non-Keyboard
9.08 (1.06)
8.38 (1.56)
8.25 (1.45)
7.63 (1.79)
Non-Music
8.83 (1.24)
7.71 (1.65)
7.79 (2.62)
6.88 (2.77)
Composite
9.07 (1.05)
8.40 (1.55)
7.75 (2.05)
7.08 (2.26)
Composite mean ratings for musical expressivity of both the soloist (M = 9.07) and
pianist (M = 8.40) were higher than for physical expressivity of either performer (soloist: M =
7.75; pianist: M = 7.08). Ratings for musical expressivity were at least one rating scale point
higher than for physical expressivity for each performer. Standard deviations were smallest for
musical expressivity of the soloist (M = 1.05) and were slightly larger for musical expressivity of
the pianist (M = 1.55). Standard deviations were higher for physical expressivity of the soloist
(SD = 2.05) and were highest for physical expressivity of the pianist (SD = 2.26).
Participants’ ratings of the importance of performers’ musical and physical expressivity
were analyzed with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients to explore the extent to
which these responses were associated. Physical expressivity of the soloist was highly correlated
with physical expressivity of the pianist, r(70) = .70, p < .001. Musical expressivity of the soloist
and piano accompanist were also correlated, r(70) = .39, p < .01.
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one within-subjects variable (the four
ratings given for soloist and pianist musical and physical expressivity) and one between subjects
variable (participant background) was conducted to investigate for possible differences in
responses between the three backgrounds. There was no significant main effect for participant
background, F (2, 69) = 1.18, p > .30, however, a significant main effect occurred for importance
61
ratings, F (3, 207) = 23.39, p < .001, η2p = .25. Pairwise differences after adjusting for multiple
comparisons (Bonferroni) showed that soloist musical expressivity (M = 9.07) was rated
significantly higher than the other rated aspects. Pianist musical expressivity (M = 8.40) was
rated as significantly more important than pianist physical expressivity (M = 7.08). The physical
expressivity of the soloist (M = 7.75) was rated significantly higher than physical expressivity of
the pianist (M = 7.08). There was no significant interaction between the variables. Table 4.11
displays participants’ mean ratings for these aspects.
Table 4.11
Mean Importance Ratings for Soloist and Pianist Musical and Physical Expressivity
Soloist MusExp
Pianist MusExp
Soloist PhyExp
Pianist PhyExp
9.07
8.40
7.75
7.08
Note. MusExp = Musical Expressivity and PhyExp = Physical Expressivity. Underlined means
are not statistically different from each other.
Following this series of questions pertaining to the importance of performers’ musical
and physical expressivity, two blank lines were provided for additional comments. Forty-one
participants (57%) wrote comments, which were categorized according to emergent themes and
frequency, which appear (both by participant background and totals for each category) in Table
4.12. Some participants included more than one comment or a comment that was relevant to
more than one theme area. The relevant portions were included under each category, such that
there are more comments than number of participants who wrote comments. The complete
verbatim comments appear in Appendix J. Seven general themes emerged, pertaining to the
soloist, pianist, physical expressivity, collaborative performance, musical versus physical
expressivity, individuality of performers, and other general comments. Overall, the most frequent
comments reflected participants’ general thoughts on physical expressivity in music performance
or reflected views on the importance of musical versus physical expressivity in performance.
62
Table 4.12
Frequency of Comments by Participant Background Regarding the Importance of Musical and
Physical Expressivity of Performers in Collaborative Settings
Participant Background
Category
Keyboard
NonKeyboard
Non-Music
Major
Total
Soloist-general
1
2
3
6
Pianist-general
0
2
4
6
Physical expressivity-general
4
3
2
9
of soloist
0
2
0
2
of pianist
2
4
0
6
Collaborative performance
0
4
0
4
Musical vs. physical
5
1
1
7
Individuality of performers
2
1
0
3
General comments
0
2
4
6
63
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to explore whether the aural and visual expressivity of the
piano accompanist affects audience perception of overall expressivity in collaborative
performances of a soloist and pianist. Specific questions addressed were: 1) Are there differences
in perceived expressivity between performances with aurally expressive and aurally unexpressive
piano accompaniment? 2) Are there differences in perceived expressivity between performances
with visually expressive and visually unexpressive piano accompaniment? 3) Are there
differences in perceived expressivity between the background areas of participants?
A post-participation survey was designed as a secondary means of addressing the
perception of accompanist expressivity in collaborative performance. Questions included:
1) How do listeners describe focus of attention during collaborative performances? 2) How do
participants regard the importance of soloist and accompanist musical and physical expressivity
in collaborative performances?
Summary of Results
Question 1: Influence of aural expressivity of piano accompanist. Aural expressivity
of the piano accompanist was found to significantly affect perception of expressivity.
Performances with aurally expressive accompaniment were rated higher than those with aurally
unexpressive accompaniment across both visual conditions. While ratings for the two aural
conditions showed contrast between solo instruments, participants perceived a larger difference
in performances with voice as compared to those with cello, which was evident especially in the
unexpressive accompaniment version. In the performances with voice, the versions with aurally
expressive accompaniment were perceived as more expressive and the versions with aurally
unexpressive accompaniment were perceived as more unexpressive than the corresponding
performances with cello.
Question 2: Influence of visual expressivity of piano accompanist. Visual expressivity
of the piano accompanist was also found to significantly influence perception of expressivity.
Performances with visually expressive accompaniment were rated higher than those with
64
visually unexpressive accompaniment across both aural conditions. Ratings for the two visual
accompaniment conditions showed this contrast for both pieces, yet participants perceived a
larger difference between conditions in performances of Soupir than in those of Fleurs. This was
especially apparent in the unexpressive accompaniment version.
Question 3: Differences between participant backgrounds. Expressivity was
perceived differently according to participant background. Mean ratings by participants with
music major backgrounds (keyboard and non-keyboard) were similar. The ratings of the nonmusic majors, however, were found to be significantly different from the responses of music
majors with keyboard backgrounds. The non-music majors rated the excerpts, on average,
approximately one rating scale point higher than music majors with keyboard backgrounds.
The independent variables of aural and visual expressivity of the piano accompanist
affected participants differently. In comparing ratings for performances with expressive or
unexpressive video, participants of all backgrounds perceived contrast in the accompanist’s
presentation of the two conditions. Mean ratings of performances with expressive or
unexpressive audio, however, revealed differences between the participant groups. Ratings of
both groups of music majors differed by more than two rating scale points between the aural
conditions. In contrast, non-music majors’ responses were similar across the aurally expressive
and unexpressive versions.
Post-Participation Survey
Open-ended responses. All participants completed a post-participation survey, which
contained questions pertaining to the performances the participants had just witnessed, and four
questions that explored participants’ general perceptions of collaborative performance. After two
of the questions, blank lines were provided for additional comments. The first such place was
after the question, ‘Did you perceive expressivity during the collaborative performances?’
Responses of the 48 participants who included statements revealed seven general themes, a
number of which were further divided into subcategories. Overall, comments reflected
participants’ general thoughts on expressivity or referenced specific musical elements that
contributed to their perception of expressivity in the experimental task.
Many comments pertained to general expressivity, and included, “Lack of expressivity by
one of the performers affected [my perception] a lot.” A number of the participants indicated that
65
the manner in which the performers executed specific musical elements affected their perception
of expressivity. Overall, this category had the greatest number of comments, most of which
pertained to issues of rhythmic synchronization and timing between the soloist and pianist. These
comments included, “I’m not sure if it was related to expressivity or not, but I found that what
tended to bother me the most and grab my attention was when the soloist and pianist weren’t
together in tempo/rubato. I think I rated those performances/excerpts lower than others that had
the two forces together.” Both groups of music major participants, keyboard and non-keyboard,
commented more frequently on specific musical elements than non-music major participants.
Other comments referenced aspects that pertained specifically to the pianist. Comparison of the
backgrounds of those who responded on this subject revealed that more music major participants
with non-keyboard backgrounds and non-music majors commented on aspects related to the
pianist than music majors with keyboard backgrounds. Participants’ verbatim comments are
included in Appendix I.
The second opportunity for free response followed a series of questions that asked
participants to rate the general importance of musical and physical expressivity of the soloist and
piano accompanist as they contribute to overall perception of expressivity in collaborative
performance. Again, seven general themes emerged, many of which were further divided into
subcategories. Overall, comments reflected participants’ general thoughts on physical
expressivity in music performance or reflected views on the importance of musical versus
physical expressivity in performance.
The largest number of comments pertained to physical expressivity, either in general or in
reference to one of the musicians. These comments indicated that many participants felt that
more physical movement impacted perception of expressivity in a favorable way and included,
“the more physical movement, the more expressive it seemed.” Some comments specifically
referenced the movement of the accompanist, and expressed how movement affected perception
of expressivity in both positive and negative ways. Such comments included, “It detracts if the
accompanist does not look involved/committed, even if they’re playing beautifully,” and, “If the
accompanist draws too much attention by being physically expressive, it can take away from the
performance.” It is interesting that both groups of music major participants commented more on
this area than non-music majors, given the strong influence the visual aspect of performance
appeared to have on the non-majors. Other responses commented on the importance of musical
66
versus physical expressivity; these were offered primarily by music major participants with
keyboard backgrounds. Such comments included, “I believe that expressivity is found both in the
music and the body. If the body remains still and lifeless then it is hard for the music to
overcome those boundaries.” Others were generally related to the pianist and to the collaborative
performance of both musicians. It is interesting that these two categories contained the fewest
number of responses from participants with keyboard backgrounds, as compared with the other
two groups. Participants’ verbatim comments are included in Appendix J.
Other survey items. The post-participation survey was designed as a secondary means
of addressing the perception of accompanist expressivity in collaborative performance, with
particular regard to the following questions.
Question 1: Listeners’ focus of attention. Participants were asked to indicate whether
they focused primarily on the soloist or piano accompanist, or if their attention was equally
divided between the two performers during the research task. The number of participants who
indicated that their attention was equally divided was significantly higher than those who
focused primarily on one performer. Of those who indicated that they focused primarily on one
performer, it is interesting that a greater number focused on the pianist than on the soloist, which
may indicate that participants perceived the contrasts in the expressivity of the accompanist
during the research task. It is also noteworthy that nearly all of the participants with keyboard
backgrounds focused on either the pianist or indicated that their attention was equally divided
between the two performers.
Question 2: Importance of musical and physical expressivity of performers.
Participants’ ratings of these elements implied a hierarchy of expressivity with regard to the two
performers and the importance of musical and physical expressivity. In general, musical
expressivity was rated as more important than physical expressivity across performers. The
musical expressivity of the soloist was rated as significantly more important than any other rated
aspect (pianist musical expressivity, soloist physical expressivity, and pianist physical
expressivity). Musical and physical were rated as more important for the soloist than for the
pianist. Importance ratings for physical expressivity for the soloist and pianist were lower than
for musical expressivity, and produced larger standard deviations, yet were highly correlated
with each other.
67
Although ratings between backgrounds were not significantly different, response patterns
seem interesting to compare. The non-music majors had the lowest ratings for all categories
except for the physical expressivity of the pianist, where their mean rating was only slightly
above the music major participants with keyboard backgrounds. Music major participants with
non-keyboard backgrounds rated the physical expressivity of the soloist and pianist higher than
either group. While the difference was smaller in comparison with the non-music majors, it was
nearly a full rating scale point higher than the participants with keyboard backgrounds.
General Discussion
The present study was an exploration regarding perception of expressivity in
collaborative performances of a soloist and pianist. Specifically, it addressed how the
expressivity of the piano accompanist, both aural and visual, contributes to overall perception of
expressivity. For both of the independent variables, the aural and visual expressivity of the
accompanist, there was a difference of approximately two rating scale points between
participants’ ratings of the expressive versions as compared to the unexpressive, which is
approximately one standard deviation. Since only the accompanist varied in expressivity while
the soloists maintained approximately the same stylistically appropriate level of expressivity
throughout, the present study provides evidence that the expressivity of the pianist, both aural
and visual, contributes to audience members’ perception of overall expressivity. Thus, in
collaborations of a soloist and pianist, the expressivity of each performer apparently influences
perception of the overall expressivity of the performance. These results are supported by
participants’ survey responses, which revealed that more than half of the participants (58%)
divided their attention equally between performers, while 42% focused primarily on one
performer.
Aural expressivity. The findings of the present study corroborate recent results of a
study by Geringer and Sasanfar (2011) where participants rated audio collaborative
performances with expressive accompaniment as more expressive than those with unexpressive
accompaniment. That study, however, incorporated only music major listeners. The present
study included non-music majors, and revealed a significant difference overall with regard to the
aural expressivity of the accompanist. Inspection of expressivity ratings for each of the
participant groups, however, showed that only the music major participants differentiated
68
between the aural expressive and unexpressive conditions. The non-music majors rated
performances under the two aural conditions similarly, suggesting that they were unable to
differentiate between these expressive conditions. These findings support those of Huang and
Krumhansl (2011).
There was a difference in perception of expressivity between performances with voice
and those with cello. The performances with voice produced a larger difference for the two
conditions than with cello, in that the expressive versions were perceived as more expressive and
the unexpressive versions were perceived as more unexpressive. Both voice and cello performed
the same music, however, the vocalist’s performance incorporated text. Perhaps the presence of
this element, itself an expressive medium, resulted in a greater contrast of ratings for these
performances, even though the performance of both soloists was the same for both the expressive
and unexpressive aural accompaniment conditions.
Visual expressivity. Researchers have established that visual information conveyed by
the body in music performance influences perception of performance and expressivity (Behne &
Wöllner, 2011; Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Davidson, 1993; Huang & Krumhansl, 2011;
Juchniewicz, 2008). The present study contributes uniquely to this body of research in the
specific case of collaborative performances of a soloist and pianist. Visual expressivity on the
part of the pianist favorably impacted participants’ expressivity ratings of the overall
performances, even in cases where the accompanist played aurally unexpressively. Participants’
ratings of the two visual conditions were consistent, regardless of background. Ratings showed a
difference of more than two rating scale points for both music major groups and more than one
point for the non-major group between the expressive and unexpressive visual conditions.
The impact of visual information in music performance was demonstrated by Behne and
Wöllner (2011), who asked musician participants to rate the expressivity of performances of
audio recorded by one pianist and video that was recorded by two other pianists. Results revealed
that participants rated the performances differently, even though only the visual information
varied. Pianists’ ratings were not significantly different from other musician participants,
suggesting that they were not more likely than other participants to realize that the sound stayed
the same, even though the performances were on their own instrument. The same outcome was
found in the present study. Ratings by participants with keyboard backgrounds were not
69
significantly different from music majors with non-keyboard backgrounds; however, they were
significantly different from non-music major participants.
Participants perceived a greater contrast between the visually expressive and
unexpressive versions of Soupir than between the two renderings of Fleurs. The primary
difference between these two pieces was with regard to the type of accompaniment, in that
Soupir contained an independent piano accompaniment, while the composition of the piano part
for Fleurs was reinforcing. It would seem reasonable that accompaniment type would impact
perception of aural expressivity to a greater extent than visual, yet it may be that a relationship
exists whereby what one hears influence what one sees. Or, there may have been other factors
that influenced the visual judgments. Perhaps participants perceived more physical movement in
Soupir given that the accompaniment was of a more independent nature and therefore involved
greater activity on the part of the pianist, or, at least, movement that was complementary to that
of the soloist.
Congruent and incongruent combinations of aural and visual expressivity. The
response patterns for the four combinations of congruent and incongruent aural and visual
accompanist expressivity are interesting to compare. It is not surprising that performances with
congruent aural and visual expressivity received the highest ratings, by more than one scale point
as compared to the other combinations. Nor, that performances with aurally and visually
unexpressive accompaniment received the lowest ratings, by as much as two and three rating
scale points.
However, regarding the incongruent performances, expressivity ratings were higher for
the unexpressive audio-expressive video combinations for three of four performances containing
this combination of conditions as compared to the expressive audio-unexpressive video versions.
These results indicate that the visual information perceived by the participants impacted overall
expressivity ratings to perhaps a greater extent than the aural expressivity. This finding suggests
a sort of McGurk effect with regard to perception of expressivity in music performance, which
was also found by Shimosako and Ohgushi (1996), particularly for participants without
backgrounds in music. Both studies reveal that visual information may have a greater influence
on evaluation when stimuli are presented containing both audio and visual information.
Descriptive comparison of participants’ responses to the incongruent combinations by
background area demonstrates the influence of visual information on overall perception. Non-
70
music major participants seemed especially susceptible to this influence. Participants with
keyboard backgrounds were the only group to rate the unexpressive audio-expressive video
combinations lower than the expressive audio-unexpressive video combinations (M = 5.01 and
5.61 respectively). The non-keyboard music major participants rated the unexpressive audioexpressive video combinations slightly higher than the expressive audio-unexpressive video
combinations (M = 5.74 and 5.39 respectively). Inspection of the non-music majors’ ratings is
especially telling regarding the influence of visual information: mean ratings for unexpressive
audio-expressive video combinations was 6.76, while it was 5.54 for the expressive audiounexpressive video versions, a difference of over one rating scale point.
Comparison of the expressive audio-expressive video combinations with the
unexpressive audio-expressive video combinations by background is also revealing. Both
participant groups with music backgrounds rated these two combinations with a difference of
over two rating scale points. Meanwhile, the non-majors’ ratings differed by less than half of one
rating scale point. This again indicates the strong influence of visual information in music
performance for those without formal music training.
Survey comments pertaining to musical and physical elements. Previous researchers
have explored how elements of music have been found to contribute to perception of expressivity
in music performance. These elements include rhythm and timing (C. M. Johnson, 2003; Juslin
& Madison, 1999; Repp, 1997), dynamics (Burnsed & Sochinski, 1995; Geringer & Breen, 1975;
Kamenetsky, Hill, & Trehub, 1997), articulation (Bresin & Friberg, 2000), and physical
movement (Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Davidson, 1993; Huang & Krumhansl, 2011;
Juchniewicz, 2008). Researchers have found that performances that include variation in these
elements are generally perceived as more expressive. Furthermore, it seems the greater the
variation, the more expression will be perceived (Burnsed & Sochinski, 1995; Davidson, 1994;
Luck, Toiviainen, & Thompson, 2010), although Repp (1997) and C. M. Johnson (2003) found
some limitations.
In the present study, participants’ free responses on the post-participation survey
indicated that they perceived variation in these elements, and that it was often on the basis of
such variation that they determined their expressivity rating. After the general question, ‘Did you
perceive expressivity during the collaborative performances?’ many responses pertained to
timing and synchronization (10), dynamics (6), and other musical elements (5). These responses
71
indicate that audience members do perceive variation in these musical elements, and that they
may influence perception of expressivity. Meanwhile, a number of other comments referenced
the importance of physical movement in assessing expressivity. The diversity in these responses
suggests that perception of expressivity is highly individualized and unique to every listener.
While some audience members appear to equate expressivity with specific musical or physical
elements, others respond in more general and emotional terms. This finding would seem to lend
support to the method of not providing participants with a clear definition of ‘expressivity’ when
investigating perception, given that it seems the very nature of what constitutes expressivity is
very subjective, as noted by Juslin and Laukka (2004), Laukka (2004), and Lindström and
colleagues (2003).
Importance of musical and physical expressivity of each performer. Regarding the
survey questions that asked participants to rate the importance of musical and physical
expressivity of the soloist and pianist, there was more agreement for both factors as they
pertained to the soloist as compared to the pianist. Mean ratings were higher for the soloist and
the standard deviations were smaller. Thus, while present results suggest that audience members
do perceive collaborative performances as at least somewhat collaborative, wherein the
performance of each musician contributes to overall perception; they do indicate that the
expressivity of the soloist is ultimately more important than that of the piano accompanist. It is
interesting that music major participants with keyboard backgrounds rated the physical
expressivity of the pianist lowest of the groups, and that music major participants with nonkeyboard backgrounds rated the physical expressivity of both the soloist and pianist higher than
the other groups. These findings could be related to the fact that the non-keyboard participant
group included many vocalists, for whom visual representation of the music and text is integral
to their training and performance, while many keyboard participants tend to approach physical
movement more as a means to produce sound and execute performance than as a medium for
communication.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of the
present study. The participants were volunteer participants recruited from the general population
of the college of music at the university. While participants indicated their background according
72
to their major (music with keyboard background, music with non-keyboard background, or nonmusic major), no further information was collected with regard to experience or training in
music. Thus, it is possible that the sample was not representative of a general population
concerning backgrounds in music and outside of music. Therefore, generalizations to the larger
population should be made with caution.
Another factor that may have influenced the results of this study is with regard to the
music that was used for the stimuli. Both pieces come from the genre of French mélodies. The
distinguished singer Pierre Bernac described the unique contribution of these pieces with the
following statement: “the art of the greatest French composers is an art of suggestion, more often
expressing moods and impressions than precise emotions” (p. 33). Due to this more reserved and
understated nature, it could be suggested that the pieces themselves were not expressive or
emotive enough to elicit a great contrast in responses. Also, only one genre of music (art song)
was used for exploring perception of expressivity, and the pieces represent a similar period of
music history. Consideration was given to select pieces most participants would not specifically
recognize or know, but would be comfortable or familiar with in terms of style, melody, and
harmony. That participants were not familiar with the music in the present study could be
considered a limitation; perhaps expressivity is more easily discerned in hearing repertoire with
which one is familiar.
The fact that an explicit definition of expressivity was not provided for the participants
could also be considered a limitation. Perhaps a more specific definition would have resulted in
greater differences. This concept was intentionally not defined, following the methods of
Geringer and Breen (1975), Hamann (2003), and Lucas and Teachout (1998). In these studies, as
well as the present study, listeners were instructed to use their own judgment as to what that
concept meant to them as the present study was interested in how expressivity is perceived in its
most general sense, as opposed to directing listeners to attend to specific musical, physical, or
emotional elements.
Pedagogical and Performance Implications
The present study explored the influence of accompanist expressivity, both aural and
visual, on overall perception of expressivity in collaborative performances of a soloist and
pianist. Participants rated performances in which the accompanist both sounded and appeared
73
expressive significantly higher than performances that were unexpressive with regard to either
variable. Thus, present results indicate that the expressivity of the piano accompanist seems to
influence perception of overall expressivity. Therefore, in performances of this type, the
expressivity of each performer apparently contributes to global perception of expressivity.
Accompanying soloists is one of the most frequently utilized skills of professional
musicians, and one in which many would have preferred additional training (Young, 2010).
Because pianists will at one time or another find themselves performing in collaborative settings,
it would seem to follow that instruction in this area would be of considerable use to all pianists.
Thus, collaborative performance training in degree programs in keyboard at the undergraduate
and graduate levels should be given serious consideration.
While researchers have examined the learning processes that foster expressive
performance, I have found no studies that investigated how expressivity is taught in collaborative
performance settings. That said, the general suggestion of Woody (2006b) comes to mind: that
consideration be given to the music being performed, the teacher’s expressive goals, and
characteristics of the individual student to determine the most effective method for a given
learning context. These principles can be easily transferred to teaching expressivity in
accompanying.
Accompanying involves many specific musical competencies, including sight-reading,
transposition, and proficient technique (Adler, 1965; Baker, 2006; Katz, 2009; Lee, 2009; Lindo,
1916; Moore, 1944; Rich, 2002; Rose, 1981). Development of these skills involves years of
exposure, practice, and refinement. In light of the reality that accompanying likely exists in the
futures of most pianists, the results of the present study seem to be relevant to teachers of
beginning students. Dedicated work on sight-reading and transposing that commences during the
early stages of a pianist’s study would seem to aid in the development of strong skills in these
areas. Meanwhile, incorporating ensemble experiences – to develop musical and listening skills
as well as provide important social and personal interaction – may also be extremely beneficial.
Present findings may also be of interest to pianists who perform in collaborative settings.
In these contexts, where audience attention is not directed at only one performer, the expressivity
of the piano accompanist contributes to audience perception of overall expressivity of the
performance. Further, in order to reach the greatest number of audience members, it seems that
only sounding expressive is not enough. For those with backgrounds in music, both the aural and
74
visual expressivity of the accompanist seem to impact perception of performance, though these
listeners are able to discern between aurally expressive and aurally unexpressive performances at
least somewhat independently of the visual information presented. Audience members without
formal training in music, however, seem to rely considerably on the visual information they
receive during performance to make perception judgments, as they may be less able to
discriminate between performances with varying levels of aural expressivity.
Descriptive comments collected in the present study revealed that opinions regarding
physical movement in performance are divided among pianists. Yet, it should be noted that the
visual aspect of performance is of paramount importance to listeners without formal backgrounds
in music. This is an important consideration, with implications for effectively communicating
with an audience during performance. As such, it may be useful for pianists to dedicate some of
their preparation to considering the usage and quality of their physical movements during
playing, as these serve both as an aid in performing and as a means for communication. Scholars
have affirmed both aspects of this notion. For example, Mark (2003) claimed that high-quality
movement will produce piano playing that is free, expressive, and secure, while Pierce (2010)
recommended that it is valuable for all musicians, no matter their performance style, to free and
extend their physical movement in order to become permeated by the music which will, in turn,
exhilarate the performance experience for the audience.
That the physical expressivity of the soloist and pianist were found to be highly
correlated may be of interest to soloists and pianists who perform in collaborative settings. This
finding seems to suggest that musicians should perform with a similar amount of body
movement in these contexts, as opposed to presenting disparate levels of physical expression.
Perhaps this congruency serves as a sort of visual representation for audience members of the
collaboration they perceive between the performers.
Recommendations for Future Research
The present study demonstrates that the expressivity of the piano accompanist, both aural
and visual, contributes to overall perception of expressivity in collaborative performances of a
soloist and pianist. Audience members of both musical and nonmusical backgrounds perceived
overall differences in expressivity depending on whether the piano accompanist appeared
expressive or not. Further, musician participants observed differences depending on whether the
75
accompanist sounded expressive or not. It is not possible to conclude, however, that aspects of an
accompanist’s expressivity impacts perception of overall expressivity in all performance settings.
How does accompanist expressivity impact perception in genres other than art songs, such as
instrumental sonatas or concertos? Does the influence of accompanist expressivity translate to
repertoire from other periods of music history? What is the influence of accompanist expressivity
in ensemble settings, such as choral performances? The musical role of the accompanist can be
different in each of these settings. In some, the accompaniment exists primarily to musically
reinforce the co-performer or co-performers, while in other situations the accompanist performs
a thoroughly independent and demanding part in the context of a co-performer. Future research
is needed to understand how the expressivity of the accompanist impacts overall perception of
expressivity in these and other performance settings.
As there is a paucity of empirical research regarding piano accompanying, other studies
might investigate other possible effects of the piano accompanist. For example, does the
expressivity of the pianist impact the expressivity of the soloist or ensemble in rehearsal or
performance? Similarly, does the expressivity of the soloist or ensemble affect that of the
pianist? In situations of less experienced soloists, does practice with an experienced accompanist
aid a young performer in learning to play expressively? Researchers have found modeling to be a
highly effective form of teaching, and in this situation, the accompanist could provide a sort of
model for the young player. Other studies might explore how the expressivity of the accompanist
influences audience perception of the soloist, with regard to expressivity or performance quality.
Yet another line of research might explore the nature of expressivity in accompanying versus
solo performance and perception of expressivity. Do these two types of playing involve the same
kind of expressive performance? That is, should a pianist play in the same manner as they would
in solo performance in accompanying settings? In a related area, should co-performers
demonstrate approximately equivalent levels of expressivity for optimal perception of musical
expression? Both generally and with regard to these specific questions, more information is
needed pertaining to the teaching of expressivity in collaborative settings. Therefore,
investigations that illuminate how expressivity is enhanced in collaborative contexts are needed.
More information concerning these and other topics will help musicians and teachers to
better understand how expression is perceived in all types of performance settings. Expressive
performance provides musicians with a medium to perform for their own pleasure as well as a
76
means to communicate and connect with an audience (Lehmann, et al., 2007). More knowledge,
then, as to how expressivity is perceived will guide teaching, practice, and performance in
settings of making music collaboratively.
77
APPENDIX A
Approval Letter from FSU Human Subjects Committee
78
79
APPENDIX B
Soupir (Henri Duparc)
80
Note: Arrows indicate the portion of the piece that was used in the present study.
81
APPENDIX C
Fleurs (Francis Poulenc)
82
Fleurs is the final piece in Francis Poulenc’s song cycle, Fiançailles pour rire. The score is
published by Editions Salabert (HL.50413790). Measures 13-25 were used in the present study.
83
APPENDIX D
Lydia (Gabriel Fauré)
84
Note: Arrows indicate the portion of the piece that was used in the present study.
85
86
APPENDIX E
Four Performance Orders for Stimuli
87
Order 1
Piece-Soloist
Version
Lydia-Voice
Lydia-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio- Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpessive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expessive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpessive Video
Unexpessive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expessive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpessive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
88
Order 2
Piece-Soloist
Version
Lydia-Voice
Lydia-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
89
Order 3
Piece-Soloist
Version
Lydia-Voice
Lydia-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
90
Order 4
Piece-Soloist
Version
Lydia-Voice
Lydia-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Fleurs-Cello
Soupir-Voice
Soupir-Cello
Fleurs-Voice
Expressive Audio-Expressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Expressive Audio-Unexpressive Video
Unexpressive Audio-Expressive Video
91
APPENDIX F
Approved Participant Consent Form
92
93
94
APPENDIX G
Participant Response Sheet
95
Participant # _______
Run # _______
Participant background:
______ Music major: my primary performing area is keyboard
______ Music major: my primary performing area is vocal or instrumental (not keyboard)
______ My major is outside the College of Music
Please check one:
______ Female
______ Male
You will see excerpts of collaborative performances of a soloist and piano accompanist. Two
soloists, voice and cello, will perform two pieces with piano accompaniment, Fleurs by Francis
Poulenc and Soupir by Henri Duparc, which will be presented multiple times. At the end of each
collaborative performance, you will be asked to rate the expressivity of the overall performance,
whatever that means to you. After the task is complete, you will be asked to answer several
questions about the collaborative performances you viewed.
We will complete two practice examples to ensure that you understand the task.
Example 1:
0
1
2
3
Very unexpressive
Example 2:
0
1
4
5
7
8
Somewhat expressive
2
3
Very unexpressive
4
5
6
Somewhat expressive
Do you have any questions?
6
96
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
9
10
Very expressive
Excerpt 1:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 2:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 3:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 4:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 5:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 6:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 7:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
3
4
5
6
7
8
Somewhat expressive
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
Somewhat expressive
97
10
9
10
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
Somewhat expressive
3
9
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
10
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
9
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
10
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
9
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
9
10
Very expressive
Excerpt 8:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 9:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 10:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 11:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 12:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 13:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 14:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
3
4
5
6
7
8
Somewhat expressive
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
Somewhat expressive
98
10
9
10
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
Somewhat expressive
3
9
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
10
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
9
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
10
Very expressive
Somewhat expressive
3
9
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
9
10
Very expressive
Excerpt 15:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
Excerpt 16:
0
1
2
Very unexpressive
3
4
5
6
7
8
Somewhat expressive
3
4
5
6
Somewhat expressive
99
9
10
Very expressive
7
8
9
10
Very expressive
APPENDIX H
Post-Participation Survey
100
Participant # _______
Run # _______
Participant Survey
1.) Did you perceive expressivity during the collaborative performances?
Yes______
No_______
Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2.) How would you describe your level of focus of attention during the music excerpts?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low
10
High
3.) In general, when you attend collaborative music performances, what elements of the
performance contribute to your overall perception of expressivity? Please rate the
importance of the following elements:
How musically expressive the soloist sounds:
1
2
3
4
Not important
5
6
7
8
Somewhat important
9
10
Very important
How musically expressive the piano accompanist sounds:
1
2
3
4
Not important
5
6
7
8
Somewhat important
9
10
Very important
How physically expressive the soloist looks:
1
2
3
4
Not important
5
6
7
8
Somewhat important
9
10
Very important
How physically expressive the piano accompanist looks:
1
2
Not important
3
4
5
6
Somewhat important
101
7
8
9
10
Very important
Comments: ____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4.) In viewing the collaborative performances in the present study, please check the
statement that best describes your focus of attention with regard to each performer:
____ I focused primarily on the soloist.
____ I focused primarily on the pianist.
____ My focus was equally divided between the soloist and pianist.
Thank you for your time and participation in this study.
102
APPENDIX I
Participant Verbatim Comments
Open-Ended Response Area following the question:
‘Did you perceive expressivity during the collaborative performances?’
103
Note: (…) indicates that other portions of the same comment were included in another category.
Comments have been transcribed to literally reflect participants’ responses.
Comments pertaining to the general expressivity of the soloists
Sometimes the soloist’s performance would be more/less expressive…
…If the soloist was musical, I still enjoyed the performance for the most part.
…The soloists never seemed to reach that ecstasy of expression.
Especially among the soloists.
Comments pertaining specifically to the cellist
…The color of the cello and sound was expressive…
Comments pertaining to the general expressivity of the pianist
…But then the piano was doing something inexpressive…so I didn’t know how best to
rate expressivity.
Even when the accompanist was unmusical…
Sometimes the lack of expressivity in the accompaniment depreciated the value of the
performance of the soloist at times.
Yes, the pianist was very expressive…
Performers differentiated between clips, most noticeable in pianist.
I was expecting to see the soloist expressing their relationship with the music but I felt
the accompaniment express it a lot more.
I felt there was more expressivity when the accompanist seemed more engaged with the
music and performer.
Comments pertaining to the musical expressivity of the pianist
The pianist’s rhythm…was also expressive.
Comments regarding the physical movement of the pianist
…But then the piano…would take one’s hands off the piano in an interrupting way, so I
didn’t know how best to rate expressivity.
Some of the takes the pianist didn’t move at all.
The pianist’s…lifts were also expressive.
Comments pertaining to general expressivity of the performances
…So I considered the emotion of each performer regardless of their collaboration.
Musical expressivity too preference over physical for me.
But it was mixed between the two performers, sometimes one was expressive while the
other was not and vice versa.
Sometimes they were expressive, and sometimes they weren’t.
Despite musical inaccuracies or inconsistencies, there were moments where the
expressivity did not always match the musicality.
A little too much expressivity at times.
I thought it was fairly obvious how the expressivity changed.
Most of the inexpressive excerpts were blatant. It was difficult to measure a strong
difference between the expressive ones however.
104
I felt more emotion and the combined performances made it nicer.
I rated expressivity on the music and I interpreted the musician’s to feel while playing.
Lack of expressivity by one of the performers affected it a lot.
I found large contrasts in how I saw each excerpt being expressed.
Both voices (whether piano and vocal or piano and cello) had varying expressivity in
each performance.
Sometimes it was difficult to say exactly what was causing the difference.
Comments pertaining to the musical element of synchronization/timing of the ensemble
To my ear, an out-of-sync performance cannot exude expressivity.
I’m not sure whether a dissynchronized performance should count as ‘unexpressive’…
“Expressivity” is very difficult to quantify, especially when the soloist was flexible but
the piano was not. Even a more neutral performance can be expressive – it can
express calm, tranquility, etc.
At times my rating of expressivity was influenced by the accuracy (rhythmic and
pitchwise) more than anything else.
Different elements of the music suffered from ‘expressivity’ (timing, tone, ensemble,
etc.)
The timing…was very important to overall expressivity.
Sometimes it seemed like the two musicians weren’t together, so it had an effect on the
rating.
I wish I could have made more comments to explain my answers. Synchronization, I
noticed, was a key factor in my enjoyment of the piece…
Comments pertaining to the musical element of dynamics of the ensemble
Certain excerpts were stylistically and dynamically varied.
I perceived it through shared dynamic observances.
Dynamics…played into making my decisions; yes there was expressivity in some clips,
and there was a lack of it in others.
Both used dynamics…
I listened for changes in volumes…
The…relative volume was very important to overall expressivity.
Comments referencing other musical elements
I perceived it in the way they treated notes differently and tried to mimic speech and
emotion with the sound.
I perceived I through…shared articulations.
…I rated based on the sound produced.
Both used…different rhythms.
…Familiarity also influenced my score. As I heard the pieces more, I enjoyed certain
elements more and also became more critical.
Comments regarding collaboration between performers
Especially when there was a musical connection between the soloist and pianist!
I perceived expressivity only when both performers were expressive.
105
Very much so. In some pieces, more attention or expressiveness was given to the right
performer, other times it was given to both, correctly.
Moreso when there was a clear visual connection between the accompanist and the
soloist.
Comments regarding general physical expressivity
Most expressive when whole body was engaged by both performers.
In some more than others, mostly with the instrumentals, movement during playing, more
of a flow, etc.
…Body language of performers…played into making my decisions; yes, there was
expressivity in some clips, and there was a lack of it in others.
Lack of physical expressivity during the performance really affected my opinion on the
pieces.
I listened for changes in…gestures.
Facial expression could have been stronger…
Comments regarding the importance of musical versus physical expressivity
Sometimes there was a noticeable disconnect between the musical expressivity of the
performers and the physical expressivity.
Watching a performance is both an aural and a visual experience: musicality, dynamics,
body language of performers – these all played into making my decisions; yes,
there was expressivity in some clips, and there was a lack of it in others.
Other comments
Fun to listen/watch.
Good piece.
106
APPENDIX J
Participant Verbatim Comments
Open-Ended Response Area following ratings of the importance of musical and physical
expressivity of a soloist and pianist in collaborative performances
107
Note: (…) indicates that other portions of the same comment were included in another category.
Comments have been transcribed to literally reflect participants’ responses.
General comments pertaining to the soloist
My attention is usually on the soloist…
I feel the soloist must present expressivity extremely.
Focus should be on the soloist.
Main focus is on soloist, not often on accompanying pianist.
Most of my attention was on the soloist.
General comments pertaining to the pianist
…It [expressivity] is less important for the pianist because they are generally not the
focus of attention.
Didn’t realize how much it made a difference whether the accompanist was
expressive…it really made a difference in the performance quality.
…However, when the pianist is expressive they attract your attention.
Shouldn’t take away from soloist, but pianist should be expressive.
It was hard to not focus on the piano, as it was the most dynamic throughout.
There were excerpts when the accompanist looked and played unexpressively, thereby
downplaying the soloist’s performance.
General comments regarding physical expressivity
Physical expression is not a factor of importance in performance.
I think the physical expressivity of the performers can easily add or detract from a
performance depending on whether or not the sound being produced actually
matches the visual element.
A visual perception of an involvement in the music aids in overall perception of
expressivity.
It’s possible to fake physical expression and I think there was at least one example of
that.
The look is also part of the performance, I think!
Even though the look shouldn’t be what shows expressivity I feel as if in most instances
it does.
The more physical movement, the more expressive it seemed.
The demeanor of both the soloist and accompanist has an effect on the performance.
…Actually, the way the body moves surely impacts the production of the notes – this is
also applicable to the soloist.
Comments pertaining to the physical expressivity of the soloist
I think it is more important that the singer look engaged than the pianist.
…So I find their [the soloist’s] physical expression most important (especially for
vocalists – face, body, etc.)
108
Comments pertaining to the physical expressivity of the pianist
I believe that the physical gestures or movements of the pianist directly affect the
“sound.”
Sometimes I find it distracting if instrumentalists (especially piano accompanists) move
too much during a performance.
…If the accompanist draws too much attention by being physically expressive, it can take
away from the performance.
It detracts if the accompanist does not look involved/committed – even if they’re playing
beautifully.
It is interesting to notice how the body language of the accompanist influences perception
of the performance.
Justine’s [the pianist’s] movement, for me, kind of determined whether the piece came
across as expressive.
Comments regarding collaborative performance
You can just tell when one part of the ‘team’ is not completely invested in the
performance, either physically or musically.
All of the above [musical and physical expressivity of soloist and pianist] contribute to
the expressivity.
Every performance between soloist and accompanist should be collaborative. They both
should work together to convey similar expression.
Both performers must be fully engaged and committed to the music for me to perceive
expressive musicianship.
Comments regarding the importance of musical versus physical expressivity
All aspects are important, but I think sounding expressive comes before looking
expressive.
I believe that expressivity is found both in the music and the body. If the body remains
still and lifeless then it is hard for the music to overcome those boundaries.
I dislike theatrical movements because I feel they often (but not always) substitute for
expressive performance. Although I enjoy watching performers, I try to base
judgments on sound rather than visual cues.
I think the sound is more important.
I feel that my visual perception does affect my audio perception.
Body language is not as important as the music itself when it comes to determining
expressivity…
While looking expressive is nice for live performance, it has little effect on the audio.
Comments pertaining to the individuality of performers
All pianists move differently…
…Not everyone has the same physical tendencies/inflections of movement when
performing.
Movement does not always translate to sound for everyone.
109
General comments
It felt weird when there was one aspect of expressivity and not others.
The most distracting thing was when the accompanist could not follow.
There can be a distinction in the expressivity between sincerity and not.
Could tell if the pianist/soloist was into their performance by their expressivity.
I split my time between having eyes open and closed to hear the music better.
I tend to listen and gave more towards the actual performer as a whole rather than a
soloist or an accompanist. Normally I’m almost oblivious to what they are
meaning unless it purposefully doesn’t match the rest of the group.
110
REFERENCES
Accompanist. (n.d.). In Oxford Music Online. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordmusic
online.com
Adler, K. (1965). The art of accompanying and coaching. Minneapolis, Minnesota: The
University of Minnesota Press.
Alais, D. & Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal
integration. Current Biology, 14(3), 257-262.
Asmus, E. P. (February, 2009). The measurement of musical expression. Paper presented at the
Suncoast Music Education Research Symposium, Tampa, Florida.
Atterbury, B. W. & Silcox, L. (1993). The effect of piano accompaniment on kindergartners’
developmental singing ability. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 40-47.
Baker, D. (2006). A resource manual for the collaborative pianist: Twenty class syllabi for
teaching collaborative piano and an annotated bibliography (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI 3241248)
Behne, K. & Wöllner, C. (2011). Seeing or hearing the pianists? A synopsis of an early
audiovisual perception experiment and a replication. Musicae Scientiae, 15(3), 324-342.
Bernac, P. (1997). The interpretation of French song. London, England: Kahn & Averill.
Bonfiglioli, L., Caterina, R., Incasa, I., & Baroni, M. (2006). Facial expression and
piano performance. In M. Baroni, R. Addessi, R. Caterina, & M. Costa (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp.
1355-1360). Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions.
Bos, C. V. (1949). The well-tempered accompanist. Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania: Theodore Presser
Company.
Bresin, R. & Battel, G. U. (2000). Articulation strategies in expressive piano performance:
Analysis of legato, staccato, and repeated notes in performances of the andante
movement of Mozart’s Sonata in G Major (K 545). Journal of New Music Research,
29(3), 211-224.
Bresin, R., & Friberg, A. (2000). Emotional coloring of computer-controlled music
performances. Computer Music Journal, 24(4), 44-63.
Brittin, R. V. (1993). Effects of upper register and lower register accompaniments on intonation.
Journal of Band Research, 29(1), 43-50.
111
Brittin, R. V. (1996). Listeners’ preference for music of other cultures: Comparing response
modes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(4), 328-340.
Brittin, R. V. (2000). Children’s preference for sequenced accompaniments: The influence of
style and perceived tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(3), 237-248.
Brittin, R. V. (2001). Preferences for children’s music: Effects of sequenced accompaniments,
school culture, and media association. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 147, 40-45.
Brittin, R. V. (2002). Instrumentalists’ assessment of solo performances with compact disc,
piano, or no accompaniment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(1), 63-74.
Brittin, R. V. & Duke, R. A. (1997). Continuous versus summative evaluations of musical
intensity: A comparison of two methods for measuring overall effect. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 45(2), 245-258.
Brittin, R. V. & Sheldon, D. A. (1995). Comparing continuous versus static measurements in
music listeners’ preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43(1), 36-46.
Brittin, R. V., Sheldon, D., & Lee, T. T. (2002). Instrumentalists in Singapore: Assessment of
solo performances with compact disc, piano, or no accompaniment. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 153/154, 1-7.
Broughton, M. & Stevens, C. (2009). Music, movement and marimba: An investigation of the
role of movement and gesture in communicating musical expression to an audience.
Psychology of Music, 37(2), 137-153.
Burnsed, V. (1998). The effects of expressive variation in dynamics on the musical preferences
of elementary school students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(3), 396-404.
Burnsed, V. (2001). Differences in preference for subtle dynamic nuance between conductors,
middle school music students, and elementary school students. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 49(1), 49-56.
Burnsed, V. & Sochinski, J. (1995). The effects of expressive variation in dynamics on the
musical preferences of middle school music students. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 124, 1-12.
Caterina, R., Bonfiglioli, L., Baroni, M., & Addessi, A. R. (2004). Mimic expression and piano
performance. In S. D. Lipscomb, R. Ashley, R. O. Gjerdingen, & P. Webster (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp.
258-261). Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions.
112
Castellano, G., Mortillaro, M., Camurri, A., Volpe, G. & Scherer, K. (2008). Automated analysis
of body movement in emotionally expressive piano performances. Music Perception,
26(2),103-120.
Castiglione, A. L. (2002). Choral accompanying: Identification and effective use of
important skills and attributes in choral rehearsal (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3050750)
Clarke, E. F. (1985a). Some aspects of rhythm and expression in performances of Erik Satie’s
“Gnossienne No. 5.” Music Perception, 2(3), 299-328.
Clarke, E. F. (1985b). Structure and expression in rhythmic performance. In P. Howell, I. Cross,
& R. West (Eds.), Musical structure and cognition (pp. 209-236). London, England:
Academic Press.
Clarke, E. F. (1988). Generative principles in music performance. In J. A. Sloboda (Ed.),
Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and
composition (pp. 1-26). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Clarke, E. F. (1989). The perception of expressive timing in music. Psychological Research,
51(1), 2-9.
Collaborate. (2012). In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary
Crist, M. R. (2000). The effect of tempo and dynamic changes on listeners’ ability to identify
expressive performances. Contributions to Music Education, 27(1), 63-77.
Dahl, S., Bevilacqua, F., Bresin, R., Clayton, M., Leante, L., Poggi, I., & Rasamimanana, N.
(2010). Gestures in performance. In R. I. Godøy & M. Leman (Eds.) Musical gestures:
Sound, movement, and meaning (pp 36-68). New York, New York: Routledge.
Dahl, S. & Friberg, A. (2007). Visual perception of expressiveness in musicians’ body
movements. Music Perception, 24(5), 433-454.
Davidson, J. W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo
musicians. Psychology of Music, 21(2), 103-113.
Davidson, J. W. (1994). What type of information is conveyed in the body movements of solo
musician performers? Journal of Human Movement Studies, 6, 279-301.
Davidson, J. W. (2001). The role of the body in the production and perception of solo vocal
performance: A case study of Annie Lennox. Musicae Scientiae, 5(2), 235-256.
Davidson, J. W. (2007). Qualitative insights into the use of expressive body movements in solo
piano performance: A case study approach. Psychology of Music, 35(3), 381-401.
113
Davidson, J. W. & Correia, J. S. (2002). Body movement. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson
(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance. Creative strategies for
teaching and learning (pp. 237-250). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J. W., Pitts, S. E., & Correia, J. S. (2001). Reconciling technical and expressive
elements in musical instrument teaching: Working with children. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 35(3), 51-62.
Davies, S. (1994). Musical meaning and expression. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Duke, R. A., & Stammen, D. (2009). SCRIBE 4.1.1. [Computer software] Austin, TX: The
Center for Music Learning, University of Texas.
Fong, M. (1997). Plays well with others: An annotated bibliography of materials about
accompanying (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 9803085)
Gabrielsson, A. (1985). Interplay between analysis and synthesis in studies of music
performance and music experience. Music Perception, 3(1), 59-86.
Gabrielsson, A. (1999). The performance of music. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of
music (pp. 501-602). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Gabrielsson, A. & Juslin, P. N. (1996). Emotional expression in music performance: Between the
performer’s intention and the listener’s experience. Psychology of Music, 24(1), 68-91.
Garman, B. R. (1992). The effects of accompaniment texture and contextual pitch distance on
string instrumentalists’ intonational performance (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9227197)
Garrett, M. (2007). Samuel Sanders: A name to remember. Clavier, 46(8), 61.
Geringer, J. M. (1992). An analysis of dynamic contrasts in recorded choral, orchestral, and
piano performances. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 112,
51-61.
Geringer, J. M. & Breen, T. (1975). The role of dynamics in musical expression. Journal of
Music Therapy, 12(1), 19-29.
Geringer, J. M. & Madsen, C. K. (1998). Musicians’ ratings of good versus bad vocal and string
performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 522-534.
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., & Gregory, D. (2004). A fifteen-year history of the
continuous response digital interface: Issues relating to validity and reliability.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 160, 1-15.
114
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., & MacLeod, R. B. (2007). Effects of articulation styles on
perception of modulated tempos in violin excerpts. International Journal of Music
Education, 25(2), 165-176.
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., MacLeod, R. B., & Droe, K. (2006). The effect of articulation
style on perception of modulated tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4),
324-336.
Geringer, J. M. & Sasanfar, J. K. (March, 2012). Listener perception of expressivity in
collaborative performances with expressive and unexpressive accompaniment. Paper
presented at the National Association for Music Educators Conference, St. Louis,
Missouri.
Gillespie, R. (1997). Ratings of violin and viola vibrato performances in audio-only and
audiovisual presentations. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(2), 212-220.
Gilman, B. I. (1892). Report on an experimental test of musical expressiveness. The American
Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 558-576.
Ginsborg, J. & King, E. (August, 2009). Gestures and glances: The effects of familiarity and
expertise on singers’ and pianists’ bodily movements in ensemble rehearsals. Paper
presented at the 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive
Sciences of Music, Jyräskyla, Finland.
Gregory, D. (1989). Using computers to measure continuous music responses.
Psychomusicology, 8(2), 127-134.
Griffiths, N. K. (2009). ‘Posh music should equal posh dress’: An investigation into the concert
dress and physical appearance of female soloists. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 159-177.
Grimland, F. (2005). Characteristics of teacher-directed modeling in high school choral
rehearsals. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(1), 5-14.
Guilbault, D. M. (2004). The effect of harmonic accompaniment on the tonal achievement and
tonal improvisations of children in kindergarten and first grade. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 52(1), 64-76.
Hähnel, T., & Berndt, A. (2010). Expressive articulation for synthetic music performances. In K.
Beilharz, A. Johnson, S. Ferguson, & A. Y. Chen (Eds.), NIME 2010 Proceedings: New
Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 277-282). Sydney, Australia: Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM).
Hale, M. R. (1977). An experimental study of the comparative effectiveness of harmonic and
melodic accompaniment in singing as it relates to the development of a sense of tonality.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 53, 23-30.
115
Hamann, K. L. (2003). Identification of expressiveness in small ensemble performances by
middle school students. Bulletin for the Council for Research in Music Education, 155,
24-32.
Hamann, D. L. & Banister, S. (1991). Factors contributing to high school band students’ ratings
at solo and ensemble festival. Contributions to Music Education, 18, 57-65.
Hevner, K. (1935). The affective character of major and minor modes in music. The American
Journal of Psychology, 47(1), l03-l08.
Hevner, K. (1936). Experimental studies of the elements of expression in music. The American
Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 246-268
Hevner, K. (1937). The affective value of pitch and tempo in music. The American Journal of
Psychology, 49(4), 62l-630.
Huang, J. & Krumhansl, C. L. (2011). What does seeing the performer add? It depends on
musical style, amount of stage behavior, and audience expertise. Musicae Scientiae,
15(3), 343-364.
Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis.
Perception and Psychophysics, 14(2), 201-211.
Johnson, C. M. (1996). Musicians’ and nonmusicians’ assessment of perceived rubato in musical
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 84-96.
Johnson, C. M. (1997). Comparison of the perceived musicality of skilled musicians and their
respective rhythmic timings in performances of Mozart. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 133, 45-51.
Johnson, C. M. (2003). Effect of rubato magnitude on the perception of musicianship in musical
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 115-123.
Johnson, T. A. (1993). The choral accompanist: Perceptions of competencies and attributes
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 9318518)
Juchniewicz, J. (2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical
performance. Psychology of Music, 36(4), 417-427.
Juslin, P. N. (1997). Emotional communication in music performance: A functionalist
perspective and some data. Music Perception, 14(4), 383-418.
Juslin, P. N. (2003). Five facets of musical expression: A psychologist’s perspective on music
performance. Psychology of Music, 31(2), 273-302.
116
Juslin, P. N. & Laukka, P. (2004). Expression, perception, and induction of musical emotions: A
review and a questionnaire study of everyday listening. Journal of New Music Research,
33(3), 217-238.
Juslin, P. N., & Madison, G. (1999). The role of timing patterns in recognition of emotional
expression from musical performance. Music Perception, 17(2), 197-221.
Juslin, P. N. & Persson, R. S. (2002). Emotional communication. In R. Parncutt & G. E.
McPherson (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative
strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 219-236). New York, New York: Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Kamenetsky, S. B., Hill, D. S., & Trehub, S. E. (1997). Effect of tempo and dynamics on the
perception of emotion in music. Psychology of Music, 25(2), 149-160.
Kantorski, V. J. (1986). String instrument intonation: The effects of accompaniment. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 34(3), 200-210.
Karlsson, J. & Juslin, P. N. (2008). Musical expression: An observational study of instrumental
teaching. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 309-334.
Katz, M. (2009). The complete collaborator. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Kendall, R. A., & Carterette, A. C. (1990). The communication of musical expression. Music
Perception, 8(2), 129-164.
King, E. (2006). Supporting gestures: Breathing in piano performance. In A. Gritten, & E. King
(Eds.), Music and gesture (pp. 142-164). Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing
Company.
Kokotsaki, D. (2007). Understanding the ensemble pianist: A theoretical framework. Psychology
of Music, 35(4), 641-668.
Kubota, Y. (2009). The nature of professional accompanists and their roles: performing
with musical excellence and enjoying communicative interaction. In A. Williamon, S.
Pretty, & R. Buck (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Performance
Science, 309-314.
Kuwano, S., Namba, S., Yamasaki, T., & Nishiyama, K. (1994). Impression of smoothness of a
sound stream in relation to legato in musical performance. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 56(2), 173-182.
Laukka, P. (2004). Instrumental music teachers’ views on expressivity: A report from music
conservatories. Music Education Research, 6(1), 45-56.
Lee, P. (2009). The collaborative pianist: Balancing roles in partnership (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI 3415684)
117
Lehmann, A. C. & Ericsson, K. A. (1993). Sight-reading ability of expert pianists in the context
of piano accompanying. Psychomusicology, 12, 182-195.
Lehmann, A. C. & McArthur, V. (2002). Sight-Reading. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson
(Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance. Creative strategies for
teaching and learning (pp. 135-150). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, A. C., Sloboda, J. A., & Woody, R. H. (2007). Psychology for musicians:
Understanding and acquiring the skills. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindo, A. H. (1916). The art of accompanying. New York, New York: G. Schirmer, Inc.
Lindström, E., Juslin, P. N., Bresin, R., & Williamon, A. (2003). “Expressivity comes from
within your soul”: A questionnaire study of music students’ perspectives on expressivity.
Research Studies in Music Education, 20(1), 23-47.
Livingstone, S. R., Thompson, W. F., & Russo, F. R. (2009). Facial expressions and emotional
singing: A study of perception and production with motion capture and
electromyography. Music Perception, 26(5), 475-488.
Lucas, K. V. & Teachout, D. J. (1998). Identifying expressiveness in small ensemble
performances. Contributions to Music Education, 25(1), 60-73.
Luck, G., Toiviainen, P. & Thompson, M. R. (2010). Perception of expression in conductors’
gestures: A continuous response study. Music Perception, 28(1), 47-57.
McGurk, H. & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
Madsen, C. K. (1990). Measuring musical response. Music Educators Journal, 77(3), 26-28.
Madsen, C. K. (1999). Research in music behavior. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 33(4), 77-92.
Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M., & Heller, J. J. (1991). Comparison of good versus bad
intonation of accompanied and unaccompanied vocal and string performances using a
continuous response digital interface (CRDI). Canadian Music Educator: Special
Research Edition, 33, 123-130.
Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M., & Heller, J. J. (1993). Comparison of good versus bad tone
quality of accompanied and unaccompanied vocal and string performances. Bulletin of
the Council for Research in Music Education, 119, 93-100.
Mark, T. (2003). What every pianist needs to know about the body. Chicago, Illinois: GIA
Publications, Inc.
118
Morrison. S. J. & Selvey, J. D. (February, 2011). The effect of conductor expressivity on choral
ensemble evaluation. Paper presented at the 17th International Symposium on Research in
Music Behavior, Barcelona, Spain.
Morrison, S. J., Price, H. E., Geiger, C. and Cornacchio, R. A. (2009). The effect of conductor
expressivity on ensemble performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 57(1), 37-49.
Moore, G. (1944). The unashamed accompanist. New York, New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., Grewe, O., & Altenmüller, E. (2007). EMuJoy: Software for continuous
measurements of perceived emotions in music. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 283290.
Nakamura, T. (1987). The communication of dynamics between musicians and listeners through
musical performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 41(6), 525-533.
Napoles, J. (February, 2011). The influences of presentation modes on high school musicians’
perceptions of expressive choral performance. Paper presented at the 17th International
Symposium on Research in Music Behavior, Barcelona, Spain.
Nusseck, M., Wanderley, M. M., & Schoonderwaldt. (November, 2007). Validating kinematic
displays for the perception of musical performance. Paper presented at the 4th
International Conference on Enactive Interfaces, Grenoble, France.
Osgood, C. E, Suci, O. J, & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Ouren, R. W. (1997). The influence of the VIVACE accompaniment technology on selected
middle school instrumental students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9738468)
Palmer, C. (1997). Music performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 115-138.
Palmer, C. (1989). Mapping musical thought to musical performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(2), 331-346.
Pierce, A. (2010). Deepening musical performance through movement: The theory and practice
of embodied interpretation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Poggi, I. (2006). Body and mind in the pianist’s performance. In M. Baroni, R. Addessi, R.
Caterina, & M. Costa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music
Perception and Cognition (pp. 1044-1051). Adelaide, Australia: Causal Productions.
Price, H. E. (2006). Relationships among conducting quality, ensemble performance quality, and
state festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(3), 203-214.
119
Price, H.E., & Chang, E. C. (2001). Conductor expressivity and ensemble performance: An
exploratory investigation. Contributions to Music Education, 28(2), 9-20.
Price, H. E., & Chang, E. C. (2005). Conductor and ensemble performance expressivity and
state festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 66-77.
Price, H. E., Morrison, S. J., & Mann, A. (February, 2011). Effect of conductor expressivity on
ensemble evaluation by nonmusic majors. Paper presented at the 17th International
Symposium on Research in Music Behavior, Barcelona, Spain.
Quinto, L., Thompson, W. F., Russo, F. A., & Trehub, S. E. (2010). A comparison of the
McGurk effect for spoken and sung syllables. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,
72(6), 1450-1454.
Radocy, R. E., & Boyle, J. D. (2003). Psychological foundations of musical behavior.
Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, Publisher, Ltd.
Repp, B. H. (1992). Diversity and commonality in music performance: An analysis of timing
microstructure in Schumann’s “Träumerei.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
92(5), 2546-2568.
Repp, B. H. (1997). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two
preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14(4), 419-444.
Repp, B. H. (1998). A microcosm of musical expression. I. Quantitative analysis of pianists’
timing in the initial measures of Chopin’s Etude in E major. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 104(2), 1085-1100.
Repp, B. H. (2000). Pattern typicality and dimensional interaction in pianists’ imitation of
expressive timing and dynamics. Music Perception, 18(2), 173-211.
Rich, C. A. (2002). A manual for the vocal accompanist (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3053548)
Rose, E. L. (1981). Competencies in piano accompanying (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8128290)
Rosenthal, R., Durairaj, M., & Magann, J. (2009). Musicians’ descriptions of their expressive
musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 181, 37-49.
Ryan, C. & Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Attractiveness bias in the evaluation of young pianists’
performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(2), 141-154.
Saldaña, H. M., & Rosenblum, L. D. (1993). Visual influences on auditory pluck and bow
judgments. Perception and Psychophysics, 54(3), 406-416.
120
Schubert, E. (1999). Measuring emotion continuously: Validity and reliability of the twodimensional emotion-space. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 154-165.
Schubert, E. (2011). Continuous self-report methods. In P. N. Juslin, P. N. & J. A. Sloboda
(Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 223-253).
NewYork, New York: Oxford University Press.
Schutz, M. & Lipscomb, S. (2007). Hearing gestures, seeing music: Vision influences perceived
tone duration. Perception, 36(6), 888-897.
Seitz, J. A. (2005). Dalcroze, the body, movement and musicality. Psychology of Music, 33(4),
419-435.
Shaffer, L. H. (1984). Timing in solo and duet piano performances. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 577-595.
Sheldon, D. A. (2004). Listeners’ identification of musical expression through figurative
language and musical terminology. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(4),
357-368.
Sheldon, D. A., Reese, S., & Grashel, J. (1999). The effects of live accompaniment,
intelligent digital accompaniment, and no accompaniment on musicians’
performance quality. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(3), 251-265.
Shimosako, H., & Ohgushi, K. (1996). Interaction between auditory and visual processing in
impressional evaluation of a piano performance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 100(4), 2779-2779.
Silvey, B. A. (2011). The effect of ensemble performance quality on the evaluation of
conducting expressivity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(2), 162-173.
Small, A. R. (1982). The effect of a simultaneous melodic stimulus on harmony intonation of
college singers. Psychology of Music, 10(2), 18-25.
Snapp, D. R. (1997). The uses and effectiveness of the Vivace Intelligent Accompanist © system
in K-12 instrumental music programs (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9827971)
Sterling, P. (1985). The effects of accompanying harmonic context on vocal pitch accuracy of a
melody. Psychology of Music, 13(2), 72-80.
Thompson, W. F., Graham, P., & Russo, F. A. (2005). Seeing music performance: Visual
influences on perception and experience. Semiotica, 156(1), 203-227.
Thompson, M. R. & Luck, G. (2011). Exploring relationships between pianists’ body
movements, their expressive intentions, and the structural elements of the music. Musicae
Scientiae, 16(1), 19-40.
121
Thompson, S., Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2007). Time-dependent characteristics of
performance evaluation. Music Perception, 25(1), 13-29.
Tseng, S. A. (1996). Solo accompaniments in instrumental music education: The impact of the
computer controlled Vivace on flute student practice (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9625203)
Vines, B. W., Krumhansl, C. L., Wanderley, M. M., & Levitin, D. J. (2006). Cross-modal
interactions in the perception of musical performance. Cognition, 101(1), 80-113.
Wapnick, J., Darrow, A. A., Kovacs, J., & Dalrymple, L. (1997). Effects of physical
attractiveness on evaluation of vocal performance. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45(3), 470-479.
Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A. (1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage
behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 46(4), 510-521.
Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A. (2000). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage
behavior, and dress on evaluation of children’s piano performances. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 48(4), 323-335.
Watkins, A. & Hughes, M. A. (1986). The effect of an accompanying situation on the
improvement of students’ sight reading skills. Psychology of Music, 14(2), 97-110.
Woody, R. H. (1997). Perceptibility of changes in piano tone articulation. Psychomusicology, 16,
102-109.
Woody, R. H. (1999). The relationship between explicit planning and expressive performance of
dynamic variations in an aural modeling task. Journal of Research in Music Education,
47(4), 331-342.
Woody, R. H. (2000). Learning expressivity in music performance: An exploratory study.
Research Studies in Music Education, 14(1), 14-23.
Woody, R. H. (2003). Explaining expressive performance: Component cognitive skills in an
aural modeling task. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(1), 51-63.
Woody, R. H. (2006a). Musicians’ cognitive processing of imagery-based instructions for
expressive performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(2), 125-137.
Woody, R. H. (2006b). The effect of various instructional conditions on expressive music
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(1), 21-36.
Young, M. M. (2010). The use of functional piano skills by selected professional musicians and
its implications for group piano curricula (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3445996)
122
Zenter, M. & Eerola, T. (2011). Self-report measures and models. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda
(Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 187-221).
NewYork, New York: Oxford University Press.
123
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Name:
Justine Karmel Sasanfar
Date of Birth:
May 29, 1979
Birth Place:
St. Paul, Minnesota
Home Town:
Tonka Bay, Minnesota
Higher Education:
St. Olaf College
Northfield, Minnesota
Major: Piano Performance
Degree: B. M. (2001)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Major: Collaborative Piano Performance
Degree: M. M. (2009)
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
Major: Piano Pedagogy
Degree: M. M. (2009)
The Florida State University
Tallahassee, Florida
Major: Music Education
Degree: Ph. D. (2012)
Experience:
Independent Piano Studio
Lansing, Michigan & Tallahassee, Florida
2007-2012
Mount Calvary Academy of Music
Excelsior, Minnesota
Co-founder, Director, & Instructor (2002-2007)
Mount Calvary Lutheran Church
Excelsior, Minnesota
Associate Director of Music (2001-2007)
124