coggiola-parisi 08 final submission.pdf

8/9/2019 Coggiola-Parisi 08 Final Submission.pdf

1/21

Aesthetic Response to Jazz Music 1

Running head: AESTHETIC RESPONSE TO JAZZ MUSIC

The Effect of Instruction on Musicians Aesthetic Response to Jazz Music: Selection of Instructional

Elements to Increase Aesthetic Response to Clifford Browns

I Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With You.

John C. Coggiola, Ph. D.

Setnor School of Music, Syracuse University

and

Joseph Parisi, Ph. D.

Conservatory of Music and Dance, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Contact: John C. Coggiola

110 Crouse College

Setnor School of Music

Syracuse University

Syracuse, New York 13244-1010

[email protected]


2/21


Abstract

This study investigated what musicians consider their aesthetic experience to a jazz music

selection having an intermediate/advanced level of conceptual advancement. The participants (N=96)

were undergraduate and graduate music students enrolled at two comprehensive universities in the

United States. Forty-eight participants from each university were assigned to one of two groups. The

experimental group (n=24 musicians) received written instruction describing the selected musical

stimulus immediately prior to its presentation to participants of this group. Participants in the control

group (n=24 musicians) received no instruction prior to their listening to the selected musical stimulus.

Data were gathered as participants manipulated the dial of a Continuous Response Digital Interface

(CRDI) indicating the magnitude of their aesthetic responses as they listened to the audio selection.

Written responses were collected following each session via questionnaire. Statistical analyses of

group responses indicated no statistically significant differences between the two participant groups. A

visual analysis of group graphs indicated participants from both groups experienced greater aesthetic

responses to specific musical events based on whether or not they received instruction prior to listening

to the musical stimulus. This finding suggests that targeted aesthetic responses when listening to a jazz

music selection containing an intermediate/advanced advanced level of conceptual advancement is

possible.


3/21


The Effect of Instruction on Musicians Aesthetic Response to Jazz Music: Selection of Instructional

Elements to Increase Aesthetic Response to Clifford Browns

I Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With You.

Review of Literature

Much of the research related to human responses to music has stayed within the confines of

Western art music written during a relatively short period of recorded history (Fredrickson &

Coggiola, 2003). Many of these more classically oriented studies (e.g., Adams, 1994; Frego, 1999;

Lychner, 1995; Madsen, Brittin, & Capperella-Sheldon, 1993; Madsen & Fredrickson, 1993) have

focused on the salient variables that allow the listener to experience a heightened response. While

researchers have used a variety of devices in an attempt to measure listener responses to music

(Fredrickson, 1994), the Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI), a device designed to record

ongoing responses over time, is ideally suited to the task. This device allows subjects to manipulate a

CRDI dial while listening to a musical example and records their responses as real-time data to a

computer that, once collected, can be stored for future analysis. Early CRDI research investigated

what musicians considered the emotional content of music selections and participants individual

aesthetic response (Madsen, 1990; Gregory, 1989; Madsen, Brittin, & Capperella-Sheldon, 1993;

Lychner, 1995).

In reference to an array of CRDI research investigations employing participants with varying

levels of musical background, Madsen (1996) stated it seems as though the responses of musically

trained adults do not differ appreciably from responses of musically untrained adults (p. 105). This

similarity in response was especially evident when musician and non-musician participants who

manipulated a CRDI dial while listening to a musical selection for perceived aesthetic response were

compared to musician and non-musician participants who listened without the use of a CRDI dial

while reporting on their aesthetic responsiveness to the same musical selection (Madsen & Coggiola,

2001, p. 18). Findings from Madsen & Coggiolas study (2001) also indicate the use of a CRDI dial


4/21


while listening to a musical selection may help non-musicians maintain a higher focus of attention,

allowing their responses to be more similar in magnitude to the responsiveness of trained musicians.

In other words, non-musicians are not trained to stay on task while listening to a musical selection, but

through the use of the CRDI while listening, they experience an increased focus of attention that

affects their responsiveness. It is speculated by the current studys researchers that this same

phenomena affects musician participants as well when they are engaged in a listening session utilizing

CRDI technology.

As mentioned previously, most of the musical examples used in the early CRDI studies were

selected from recordings of Western art music and considered by researchers to be more familiar to

participants who were typically assigned into two groups being either university level music majors, or

non-music majors (students pursuing a degree in a field other than music). This difference between

participants (able to be categorized as training, musical experience, or instruction) has continued to

function as a main experimental design variable when employing the use of sophisticated musical

stimuli in CRDI aesthetic response research. Misenhelter and Price (2001) investigated the effect of

musical training or exposure on affective response to a musical selection with a level of compositional

complexity that would be challenging for participants with less training or exposure. The results of

their study suggested that lack of musical training or exposure-lowered subjects' overall affective

response to the complex musical selection.

In the construction of CRDI studies, the selection of musical stimuli has been an important part

of the research design. It has been stated music capable of eliciting an aesthetic response must be

considered by the musically sophisticated subject as extremely substantive and performed very well

(Madsen, Brittin, & Capperella-Sheldon, 1993, p.66). While Western art music has become more and

more complex over time, jazz, in its short history, has progressed more quickly toward a high level of

complexity in many of its essential elements including melody, improvisation, harmony, rhythm, and


5/21


form. In addition, Gridley (2003), in a historical and analytical examination of jazz history, described

the collective development of jazz music through performers consistent alteration of compositional

approaches, both written and improvisatory, with regard to varying levels of melodic, harmonic, and

rhythmic complexity. The history of jazz music has also indicated that it has the ability to engage

listeners across all ages, levels of musical sophistication, and socio-economic backgrounds. Gregory

(1994) further supports this issue as her investigation of three age groups (sixth-graders, high school

students, and college music majors) musical preference across several styles of music produced very

similar mean preference ratings for jazz excerpts regardless of age or knowledge. Given these

indications of potential, researchers have begun to look to jazz music selections that meet the criteria

for further research in aesthetic responsiveness and perception.

As a result of this potential, a relatively new line of research has emerged that has focused on

how listeners respond to different elements of jazz music. This line of research includes Coggiola

(2004), Coggiola and Lychner (2005), Fedrickson & Coggiola (2003), Orr & Ohlsson (2001) Parisi

(2004), and Williams (2005). The underlying detail in all of the preceding studies is that they

employed the use of jazz music stimuli to elicit an aesthetic response while meeting the criteria for

such musical research stimuli set forth by Madsen, Brittin, & Capperella-Sheldon (1993).

In an attempt to understand the effect of various elements found in jazz music selections on

participants aesthetic response, Coggiola (2004) developed the term conceptual advancement.

Coggiola defined the term conceptual advancement as the progressive changes noticed throughout

jazz history whereby certain structural and stylistic characteristics have evolved. (2004, p.32) Given

the broad nature of the term conceptual advancement at both individual and collective levels, Coggiola

employed an operational definition of conceptual advancement that focused on melodic complexity

during improvised solos. This study utilized a varied repertoire of four highly rated jazz excerpts,

selected by jazz experts, to represent four distinct levels of conceptual advancement. The four


6/21


recordings selected included St Louis Blues by Nat King Cole, Slats by Count Basie, St Louis Blues by

Ella Fitzgerald, andDr. Jekyllby Miles Davis. Participants in this study were comprised of university-

level music majors who were assigned to either the non-jazz musician group, for those having less than

three years of instrumental jazz ensemble experience, or the jazz musician group comprised of

musicians having greater than three years of instrumental jazz ensemble experience. All participants

listened and responded to each of the four musical stimuli and once all the data was collected, it was

graphed for further analysis. Through the statistical and visual examination of this graph, Coggiola

found that jazz musicians showed a higher magnitude of aesthetic response than the non-jazz

musicians to the most complex excerptDr. Jekyllby Miles Davis. These findings suggest that greater

instrumental jazz ensemble experience is related to greater aesthetic interest when listening to a jazz

selection containing a high level of conceptual complexity.

In their study that replicated specific research design elements that Coggiola (2004) employed

in his previous investigation, Coggiola and Lychner (2005) utilized the same conceptually advanced

musical selection (Dr. Jekyllby Miles Davis) in an aesthetic response study that not only included jazz

musicians and non-jazz musicians, but also included non-musicians as participants. Results indicated

that jazz musicians again had a higher level of aesthetic response when compared to their non-jazz

musician and non-musician counterparts for this conceptually advanced jazz selection. Results also

indicated that the non-jazz musicians (considered musicians in other studies) and non-musicians

aesthetic response was similar in magnitude, leading researchers to speculate that if the participants

knowledge is not specific to jazz music, then it has no effect on increasing their aesthetic response to a

conceptually advanced jazz selection. Utilizing musical stimuli from Coggiolas previous study (two

distinct versions of St. Louis Blues performed by Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald), Fredrickson

and Coggiola (2003) investigated musicians and non-musicians perceptions of tension in these

selections (of low and intermediate/advanced level of conceptual advancement) finding that both


7/21


participant group responses remain consistent with results from earlier studies examining perceived

tension or aesthetic response to Western art music.

The ability to experience an affective response to music, one involving feelings and emotion as

Price (1986) suggested, is a learned behavior that results from repeated interactions with musical

stimuli over time. With this thinking in mind, several researchers have investigated musical

background, exposure, and instruction on participant response to selected musical examples.

Misenhelter and Price (2001) found that subjects with a limited musical background (less than three

years) had a lower aesthetic response than music majors while listening to more complex selections of

Western art music. Their findings being similar to Coggiola (2004) and Coggiola & Lychner (2005),

although stimuli are from different musical genres, allows researchers to speculate that repeated

behavior, through study, practice, or performance, allows for greater ability to process musical

information that may influence a listeners response to a higher degree.

Parisi (2004) found that fourth and fifth grade students who studied the blues through a

performance-based curriculum were able to discriminate between the melodic and improvisational

elements contained in the musical stimulus, and as a result, had a higher overall aesthetic response than

their non-performance based classmates. Findings from this study support the notion that when

participants are given structured opportunities for repeated performance, listening, and instruction on

jazz music (the blues), they have the potential to experience an increased aesthetic response and overall

preference to the piece that was the focal point of the instructional experiences.

Although opportunities for following a performance-based curriculum seem to be greater in a

standard music ensemble setting, it is often deemed impractical by conductors due to the notion that

this approach will take away from limited rehearsal time. As for other non-ensemble music education

classes, the use of a performance-based curriculum may not be seen as more beneficial than traditional

instructional practices involving lectures, readings, and listening examples. Given these varying


8/21


opinions in instructional practice, researchers are looking to identify specific instructional elements

that may positively increase students experiences with music outside of the ensemble setting.

Shehan (1981, 1985) investigated the effects of general or specific instruction/training on

listeners responses to world music and found that although there was no transfer of preference to all

listening examples, there was an increase in preference for the music that was taught in the curriculum,

suggesting the importance for the students to gain familiarity through exposure and training. Dekaney

& Coggiola (2005) investigated if musicians and non-musicians were capable of having an aesthetic

response when listening to a Brazilian music example in the samba-reggae style. The researchers

attempted to determine if there was a difference in response to this stimulus based on musical training,

defined by participants meeting the qualifications of either a musician or non-musician as indicated in

previous CRDI research. In addition, Dekaney & Coggiola examined if there was a difference in

participants aesthetic response when experienced with or without instruction prior to the listening

session. Although half of the musician and non-musician participants were provided with a short

instructional paragraph that described a translation of the musical selections title to English, its

musical style, main musical elements associated with this style, their origin, and a summation of the

lyrics main message, results indicated no statistically significant difference in participant groups

mean aesthetic response when examined by major or condition. Yet when graphed data was reviewed

visually, Dekaney and Coggiola observed that non-musician participants who received instruction prior

to listening consistently indicated a higher aesthetic response than their musician with instruction

group counterparts. From these findings the researchers speculated that the design of the instructions

provided in this studys with instruction condition aided the non-musician participants in

experiencing a greater magnitude in their aesthetic response, while at the same time it did not

positively influence the musician with instruction participant group. Given this result, it seems


9/21


appropriate to continue the investigation of the effect of instructional elements, coupled with specific

musical examples, on participant aesthetic response.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of instruction on musicians aesthetic

response toI Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With You as performed by the Clifford Brown and Max

Roach Quintet on the recording Brown and Roach, Incorporated (EmArcy Records #814 644-2). The

participants (N=96) were undergraduate and graduate music students enrolled at two comprehensive

universities in the United States. Forty-eight participants from each university were assigned to one of

two groups. The experimental group (n=24) was comprised of musicians who received written

instruction describing the selected musical stimulus immediately prior to its presentation. Participants

in the control group (n=24) were musicians who received no instruction on the selected musical

stimulus prior to its presentation.

Method

Participants (N=96) were undergraduate and graduate students enrolled at two comprehensive

universities (n=48 from each university) in the United States. All were music majors pursuing degrees

granted through the school of music at one of the two universities. Participants were haphazardly

assigned to one of two groups, an experimental group (n=48) or a control group (n=48).

Data were collected in two ways--via questionnaire and via the Continuous Response Digital

Interface (CRDI). The questionnaires purpose was to determine familiarity with the music selection

and participants attitudes toward the stimulus. The questionnaire was specifically designed to

measure aesthetic response verification, CRDI dial correlation to response, familiarity of the musical

selection, identification of the melody throughout the selection, and measurement

(magnitude/intensity) of participants experience listening to the musical selection when compared to

other listening experiences. The CRDI, a potentiometer (in dial format) whose readings are recorded

by a computer as a string of numbers that can then be graphed or statistically analyzed, is specifically


10/21


designed to record ongoing responses to music without necessitating a verbal response during the

listening process. In the present study, computers collected two samples per second for each

participant during their listening session.

All participants were given instructions telling them that they were about to hear a selection of

music. They were to manipulate the CRDI dial corresponding to their aesthetic response to the

musical selection they heard and were given an opportunity to try the dial to experience how it felt.

The CRDI dial face, designed with an overlay that was marked more at the far right anchor and

less at the far left anchor, corresponded to the dial range (0-255). This overlay, employed in

previous aesthetic response research (Lychner, 1998), gave the appearance of a rounded Osgood scale

to the participants while they responded over time during the listening session. Participants also

received instructions to point the dial to the far left by the word less before listening to the musical

selection. Researchers selected the use of this starting point to encourage subjects to employ the whole

dial face as the representative continuum for their aesthetic response to each musical selection.

Participants received no definition or description of aesthetic response so that movement of

the CRDI dial corresponded to the participants personal definition or understanding of this

terminology. All participants were afforded the opportunity to ask questions, and in the very few cases

where the participant asked what was meant by aesthetic response, they were told that it was

whatever they felt it to be. This response was given to ensure individual participants supplied their

own definition of aesthetic response.

In addition, half of the participants (n=48) were haphazardly assigned to an experimental group

who were asked (before they listened to the musical selection) to read an additional instructional sheet

(see Figure 1) comprised of three paragraphs. The first paragraph provided the title of the music

selection, identification of recording information, identification of performers, their musical

instruments, and identification of the ensemble with a supporting statement indicating its importance in


11/21


jazz history. The second paragraph identified the selections composer/lyricist, described both the

compositions form and the entire arrangements structure, as well as provided an accompanying

listening map of the arrangement. The third paragraph focused specifically on the many musical

talents of Clifford Brown that were displayed as he performed as the featured trumpet soloist in this

selection.

After participants in the experimental group read these three instructional paragraphs, or as in

the case of the participants in the control group who only received instructions on how to use the

CRDI, all participants began listening to the musical example and manipulating the CRDI dial. Each of

the eight listening stations was visually separated from the next and included a CRDI dial, a set of

headphones, a pencil, and a questionnaire. Written responses entered into the questionnaire packet

provided to all participants regardless of their subgroup orientation, were collected following the

conclusion of the listening session. Reliability was established through an immediate test-retest format

that equally represented all participant groups' responses with the musical stimulus. Thirty-two

participants (sixteen from the experimental group reading the instructional paragraphs prior to their

listening, and sixteen from the control group receiving no instruction before their listening) of the total

96 participants agreed to participate in the immediate test-retest reliability process.

The recorded musical selection used in this study wasI Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With

You as performed by the Clifford Brown and Max Roach Quintet on the compact disc Brown and

Roach, Incorporated (EmArcy Records #814 644-2). The accompanying performers on this selection

were Richie Powell; piano, George Morrow; bass, Max Roach; drums, and featured soloist Clifford

Brown; trumpet, whose overall collective performance makes this selection one that would provide a

great deal of aesthetic interest to the participants. The researchers of the present study, when

comparing this musical selection with Coggiolas four levels of conceptual advancement (2004, p. 33),

assigned the level of intermediate/advanced to the present studys musical stimulus. This musical


12/21


selection features from its performers an advanced stylization of the melody, changing feels with

regard to tempo, improvised solos featuring extensive motivic development, a high level of interaction

between performers, and displays of virtuosic technique that all contribute to establishing its ability to

promote a high level of aesthetic interest. In confirmation with this breakdown of musical events and

their level of quality, Catalano (2000, p. 124) states the following analysis:

Brownies balladeering is splendid, especially the punctuation that takes place at the last fourbars of the melody. A doubled chorus follows containing playful, yet natural lines. His

feeling for the old standby reflects great maturity that has impressed critics ever since.

Given the length of any musical stimulus can adversely influence participants aesthetic

response if too long, researchers for the current study agreed that the timing for this musical selection

of 7:19 would be well within the time limits established by prior aesthetic response research utilizing

the CRDI dial.

Results

Data from the present study were collected and researchers followed analysis procedures in

accordance to past CRDI investigations examining participant aesthetic response to a musical selection

(Geringer, Madsen, & Gregory, 2004). Individual response data were combined within groups for

group mean scores. Based on the participant groups mean CRDI dial positions expressed on a

continuum from 0 to 255, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no statistically

significant difference between participant groups mean aesthetic response [F = 0.80, df = 1, p = 0.37].

Analysis of the CRDI mean data revealed no statistically significant difference (p< .05) between

participants receiving instruction (M = 148) and participants receiving no instruction (M = 157) before

listening to the music selection. Mean standard deviations were 45.34 and 49.26 for participants

receiving instruction, and participants receiving no instruction, respectively.

A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was calculated to compare test and retest group mean

samples calculated from each participant groups collected samples across the musical stimulus.


13/21


Thirty-three percent of all participants took part in the immediate test-retest reliability process. Results

from participant groups test-retest data indicated an r = .78 for those participants receiving no

instruction, and an r = .80 for those participants who received instruction prior to listening to the

musical selection.

Results frompost hoc questionnaire data verified the majority of participants (92%) had an

aesthetic experience while listening to the musical selection while 44% of participants reported having

several aesthetic experiences. In a question asking participants if their movement of the CRDI dial

roughly corresponded to variations in their aesthetic experience, 93% of all participants answered

yes. After listening to the musical selection, 82 (85%) of the participants indicated no when

asked, do you recognize the tune? Out of the other 14 participants who indicated they did recognize

the tune, 10 (71%) were participants who received the instruction prior to their listening to the musical

selection. Although the term melody was never defined by the researchers to either participant

group, 79 participants (82%) indicated on the questionnaire they could keep track of the melody

throughout the piece while 13 (14%) indicated they could not. Four participants (4%) chose not to

respond to the melody tracking question.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to determine if listening to I Dont Stand a Ghost of a

Chance With You as performed by the Clifford Brown and Max Roach Quintet would elicit a

measurable aesthetic response from musicians. In addition, researchers investigated if there was a

difference in participant groups aesthetic response to this selection when experienced with or without

instruction just prior to the listening session. The musical selection in this study was chosen to be

purposefully distinct in its level of melodic complexity and researchers speculated that it would elicit a

measurable aesthetic response from both musician and non-musician participants. Due to the lack of

prior research investigating aesthetic response to this musical selection, researchers did not speculate


14/21


on the comparison of aesthetic response magnitudes between participant groups prior to this

investigation.

Examination of CRDI dial means indicated a slightly greater aesthetic response magnitude for the

no-instruction participant group for this selection. It is speculated that this musical selection provided

the musical elements needed to evoke an aesthetic response for the no-instruction participants because

certain musical elements categorized under its intermediate/advanced level of conceptual advancement

were consistently appealing to this group.

In comparison to the no-instruction participant group, marked variations in responses at

points in time exhibited by the with-instruction group were visually identified when Figure 2 was

examined. These comparisons suggested that the musical selection evoked a different level of

response in the with-instruction participant group when specific musical events took place within the

performance. Researchers speculate that the design of the instructions provided in this studys with-

instruction condition, influenced those participants to listen differently and experience focused

aesthetic response based on the specific musical event taking place at that time.

The first example of this separation of response took place during the statement of the 32-bar

melody. Although both groups displayed similar response footprints (yet separated by magnitude) in

the first 24 measures, the last 8 bars indicated a drop in aesthetic response by the with-instruction

group that does not increase again until the start of the first improvised trumpet solo. It is believed by

researchers that this increase in aesthetic response is due to the focus of the instructions read by

these participants prior to listening to the musical stimulus. Further examination of the with-

instruction group response during the middle 16 bars of the first improvised trumpet solo indicates a

greatly differing aesthetic response curve when compared to the more steady response curve from

the no-instruction group for the same musical events. Continued examination during the 16 bar piano

solo indicated an aesthetic response spike for the no-instruction group while the with-instruction


15/21


participants remained at a general level of aesthetic activity. Researchers speculate that given the

focus of the instructions prior to listening, the with-instruction group did not respond in a similar

fashion due to this musical events display of the pianists melodic stylization and less

improvisational characteristics like those exhibited in the improvised trumpet solo immediately

preceding this section. During the last 8 bar trumpet solo and final 8-bar statement of the melody,

visual analysis indicate another spike in the aesthetic response of the with-instruction group while

their participant counterparts remained somewhat steady with their response magnitude until the last 4

bars of this musical event and the following 4 bar cadenza where an aesthetic response drop was

exhibited. Again, researchers speculate that the instructions gave a level of importance to the

activity of the trumpet that allowed for a greater aesthetic response by the with-instruction participant

group to these final musical events in the stimulus.

Agreeing with similar speculation as stated by Dekaney & Coggiola (2005), it may be that

when listening to a musical selection from the jazz tradition, trained musicians need to receive

instructional elements that are more consistent with their day-to-day learning experiences describing

music in a similar presentation found in Western art music training. The results for the current study

support this approach especially when the music educator is trying to focus the attention of the listener

to specific musical events or elements. Yet it seems, as the current results indicate, if a greater overall

aesthetic experience is desired for students listening to a musical example, the music educator may

want to refrain from discussing specific musical events as focal points or quality examples as not

to alter the listeners focus of attention. Beyond listening sessions, non-jazz musicians may also

benefit more from successful performance experiences with jazz music found outside of their standard

training. It may be that this type of exposure to the jazz musical style would allow for the

establishment of positive preferences leading to increased aesthetic responsiveness to future exposure

of jazz music as seen previously in the results of Parisi (2004). For this type of performance-based


16/21


curriculum to be successful, educators will need to devise curricula that are specific to students age

level, musical knowledge, and performance abilities all of which should be validated through

continued research and assessment.

The results of this study suggest that future research also needs to investigate ways in which

music educators can successfully teach about jazz music so that commonalities and differences with

the standard Western art music instructional process may be recognized and used as building

blocks for a students comprehensive music education, instead of functioning as elements for

preferential exclusion. Further investigation exploring the use audio only (pod casting models), audio

with written support materials, and combined video and audio stimuli while experiencing a musical

selection all seem to be important given many students exposure to these combined media

presentation styles, all of which are considered common instructional practices experienced in North

American classrooms. Given these aspects, future research seems warranted for the success of jazz

music education whose developing curriculum will need to meet the requirements of its students who

are becoming increasingly dependent on technological advancements incorporated into their learning

process within other non-music and music environments.


17/21


References

Adams, B.L. (1994). The effect of visual/aural conditions on the emotional response to music.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation , The Florida State University.

Catalano, N. (2000). Clifford Brown. The life and art of the legendary jazz trumpeter. Oxford

University Press.

Coggiola, J. C. (2004). The effect of conceptual advancement in jazz music selections and jazz

experience on musicians aesthetic response. Journal of Research in Music Education,

52, (1), 29-42.

Coggiola, J. C. & Lychner, J. (2005). A Comparison of non-musicians', non-jazz musicians',

and jazz musicians' aesthetic response to jazz music with a high level of conceptual

advancement.International Association of Jazz Educators Jazz Research Proceedings

Yearbook, 25

Dekaney, E. M. & Coggiola, J. C. (2005). A comparison of Musicians and Non-Musicians

Aesthetic Response to Brazilian Music With and Without Instruction. In Richards, J. K. (Ed.),

International Perspectives on Education and Training, 177-188.

Fredrickson, W. (1994). Devices for recording ongoing responses to music in education and

therapy. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 1-9.

Fredrickson, W., & Coggiola, J. C. (2003). A comparison of music majors and non-majors

perceptions of tension for two selections of jazz music. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 51, (3), 259-270.

Frego, D. (1999). The effect of aural, visual, and aural/visual conditions on subjects response to

perceived artistic tension to music and dance.Journal of Research in Music Education,

47, 31-43.

Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., & Gregory, D. (2004). A fifteen-year history of the continuous


18/21


response digital interface: Issues relating to validity and reliability. Bulletin of the

Council for Research in Music Education, 160, 1-15.

Gregory, D. (1989). Using computers to measure continuous music responses.

Psychomusicology, 8, 127-134.

Gregory, D. (1994). Analysis of listening preferences of high school and college musicians.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, (4), 331-342.

Gridley, M. (2003). Jazz styles: History and analysis (8th

ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Lychner, J. (1995). An empirical study concerning technology relating to aesthetic response to

music.Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 303-319.

Madsen, C.K. (1990). Measuring musical response. Music Educators Journal. 77, (3), 26-28.

Madsen, C.K. (1996). Empirical investigation of the aesthetic response to music: Musicians

and non-musicians. In B. Pennycook & E. Costa-Giomi (Eds.),Proceedings of the 4th

International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 103-110). Montreal: McGill

University.

Madsen, C. K., Brittin, R. V., & Capperella-Sheldon, D. A. (1993). An empirical investigation

of the aesthetic response to music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 57-69.

Madsen, C. K., & Coggiola, J. C. (2001). The effect of manipulating a CRDI dial on the focus of

attention of musicians/non-musicians and perceived aesthetic response. Bulletin of the

Council for Research inMusic Education, 149, 13-22.

Madsen, C. K., & Fredrickson, W. (1993). The experience of musical tension: A replication of

Nielsens research using the Continuous Response Digital Interface.Journal of Music Therapy,

30, 46-63.

Misenhelter, D. & Price, H. E. (2001). An examination of music and nonmusic majors' response


19/21


to selected excerpts from Stravinsky'sLe Sacre du printemps.Journal of Research in Music

Education, 49, 323-329.

Orr, M.G., & Ohlsson, S. (2001). The relationship between musical complexity and liking in

jazz and bluegrass.Psychology of Music, 29, 108-127.

Parisi, J. (2004). Fourth- and fifth-grade students affective response and ability to discriminate

between melody and improvisation after receiving instruction in singing and/or playing a

piece in the blues style. International Journal of Music Education, 34, 151-159.

Price, H. E. (1986). A proposed glossary for use in affective response literature in music.Journal

of Research in Music Education, 49, 323-329.

Shehan, P. K. (1981). Student preferences for ethnic music styles. Contributions to Music

Education, 9, 20-27.

Shehan, P.K. (1985). Transfer of Preference from Untaught Pieces of Non-Western Music

Genres.Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, (3), 149-158.

Williams, L.R. (2005) Effect of Music Training and musical complexity on focus of attention to

melody or harmony.Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, (3), 210-221.


20/21


Figure 1. Instruction sheet received by experimental participant group.

The musical selection you are about to hear is titled I Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With You asperformed by the Clifford Brown and Max Roach Quintet on the compact disc Brown and Roach, Incorporated

(EmArcy Records #814 644-2). The accompanying performers on this selection are Richie Powell; piano,George Morrow; bass, Max Roach; drums, and the featured soloist is Clifford Brown; trumpet. This group of

musicians, along with Harold Land on tenor saxophone (not heard in this selection) comprised the Clifford

Brown-Max Roach Quintet, which proved to be one of the leading groups in jazz history even though they were

only active between the years of 1954-56.

The selectionI Dont Stand a Ghost of a Chance With You, composed by Victor Young and Bing Crosby, is a

ballad whose compositional form is based on the 32-bar popular song that follows an AABA form with 8 bars

comprising each of its sections. The performance you are about to listen to includes a four-bar intro, a statement

of the melody by the trumpet (32 bars long), one chorus of improvised trumpet solo (32 bars long), a half chorus

(16 bars) of piano solo, a second trumpet solo (8 bars), and a final statement of the last A section of the melody

by the trumpet followed by a short cadenza and final chord of the selection. The form of this performance can

be visualized as follows:

INTRO (4 bars) || MELODY/Trumpet (32 bars) || IMPROVISED SOLO/Trumpet (32 bars) ||

IMPROVISED SOLO/Piano (16 bars) | IMPROVISED SOLO/Trumpet (8 bars) |

MELODY/Trumpet (8 bars) | CADENZA/ Trumpet (Final bar) ||

Although the other members of the ensemble provide an interactive accompaniment, the substantial musical

talents of Clifford Brown are truly featured throughout this performance. Browns ability to stylize the melody

with rhythmic clarity is made possible by his ultimate control over the multitude of articulations he employs as

he plays. As a soloist, Brown displays his mastery of motivic development by providing statements containing

melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic content that he develops in varied ways until the idea has been presented to thepoint of recognition by the listener. While developing his improvisatory material in this way, Brown creates a

sense of swing feel that provides a strong sense of buoyancy, propelling the ensembles time feel forward while

also creating a dynamic tension and release relationship within the ensembles rhythmic performance. Withinthis selection, Brown also displays his mastery of dynamic contrast and technical facility that allows him to

create an intense level of excitement for the listener while offering a multitude of tone colors providing interest

and authenticity to his emotional performance of this selection. Now please enjoy this performance by theClifford Brown - Max Roach Quintet.


21/21


Figure 2. Participant groups' composite aesthetic response with musical events.

coggiola-parisi 08 final submission.pdf

Documents