Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 425
Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, August 22-26 2006
Conceptions of musical ability
Susan Hallam Institute of Education, University of London, UK. [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Historically, musical ability has been conceptualized in
relation to aural abilities. Recently, this view has been
challenged. Musical ability is now viewed by a number of
authors as a social construction acquiring different meaning
in different cultures, sub-groups within cultures and at the
individual level. This study aimed to explore conceptions
of musical ability in the United Kingdom. An inventory
adopting a five point rating scale was developed to assess
individuals’ perceptions of musical ability. The inventory
included 77 statements derived from previous qualitative
research categorized into 21 themes (Hallam and Prince,
2003). The inventory was completed by 660 individuals.
Musical ability was most strongly perceived as relating to a
sense of rhythm, followed by the ability to understand and
interpret the music, express thoughts and feelings through
sound, being able to communicate through sound,
motivation to engage with music, personal commitment to
music, and being able to successfully engage musically
with others. Least important were having technical skills,
being able to compose or improvise, being able to read
music, and understanding musical concepts and musical
structures. Factor analysis revealed 6 factors. The first was
concerned with being able to read music and play an
instrument or sing. The second focused on musical
communication, the third valuing, appreciating and
responding to music, and the fourth to composition,
improvisation and the skills required for undertaking these.
The fifth factor related to personal commitment to music,
motivation, discipline and organisation, and the sixth to
rhythmic and aural skills. The findings suggest that the
construct of musical ability is perceived broadly in the
general population. The high proportion of participants
stressing the importance of having a sense of rhythm may
reflect the characteristics of popular music where ‘the beat’
is central. The stress on motivation and commitment also
suggests an awareness of the time required to successfully
develop musical skills.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of musical ability has a long history. The
development of tests to assess ‘musical ability’ paralleled
that of intelligence testing. In the early and mid-twentieth
century, there was an assumption that individuals were
endowed with different levels of ‘intelligence’ that were
genetically based, relatively immutable and unchanging. Such
measures of intelligence have continued to be used to identify
individuals with learning difficulties and sometimes in
situations where it is necessary to select individuals for
limited educational or employment opportunities. In parallel
with intelligence tests, musical ability tests were first
developed to assist music teachers in the selection of those
pupils most likely to benefit from music tuition. Testing
began in 1883 when Carl Stumpf suggested a number of
simple aural tests which music teachers might undertake to
select pupils. Subsequently, a range of tests have been
developed which can be administered to groups of children
of different ages. The content of the tests varies although
they all focus on aural skills (for reviews see Shuter-Dyson,
1999; Hallam, 2006). The most comprehensive set of
measures is that of Gordon (1965, 1979, 1982, 1989a,
1989b) who has devised tests to be used with pre-school
children through to adults, taking account of prevailing
cultural norms based on tonal imagery, rhythm imagery
and musical sensitivity. Recent testing procedures reflect
technological advances. Individualised computer based
In: M. Baroni, A. R. Addessi, R. Caterina, M. Costa (2006) Proceedings
of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition
(ICMPC9), Bologna/Italy, August 22-26 2006.©2006 The Society for
Music Perception & Cognition (SMPC) and European Society for the
Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM). Copyright of the content of an
individual paper is held by the primary (first-named) author of that
paper. All rights reserved. No paper from this proceedings may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information
retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the paper's
primary author. No other part of this proceedings may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by any information retrieval
system, without permission in writing from SMPC and ESCOM.
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 426
systems can assess the recognition of change in
synthesiser-produced melodies and allow for individual
speed of responding increasing validity and reliability
(Vispoel, 1993; Vispoel & Coffman, 1992) through
minimising the reliance on the general cognitive processing
skills needed to perform well on earlier tests (Doxey &
Wright, 1990). What these various tests have in common is
that they assess the ability to discriminate sounds that vary
in subtle ways.
The devisers of the various musical ability measures held
different beliefs about the nature of musical ability. Revesz
(1953) adopted the term ‘musicality’ to denote the ‘ability
to enjoy music aesthetically’ which was assessed by
establishing the depth to which a person could listen to and
comprehend the artistic structure of a composition.
Seashore (Seashore et al, 1960) believed that musical
ability was a set of loosely related basic sensory
discrimination skills, which had a genetic basis and would
not change over time except for variation due to lapses of
concentration or other environmental changes. He did not
believe that subtest scores should be combined to obtain a
single score, but rather that a profile should be obtained
which could be divided into a number of clearly defined
characteristics which were unrelated to each other (pitch,
loudness, rhythm, time, timbre, tonal memory). In contrast,
Wing (1981) believed in a general ability to perceive and
appreciate music rather than a profile. He believed that the
elements in his battery of tests should be related to each
other and an overall score should be reported. Gordon
(1979) viewed musical ability as consisting of three parts,
tonal imagery (melody and harmony), rhythm imagery
(tempo and metre) and musical sensitivity (phrasing,
balance and style). His tests contrasted with earlier work in
that musical ability was viewed in part as sensitivity to the
prevailing musical cultural norms.
The concept of musical ability has been severely criticised
in recent years. Focussing on the importance of effort,
some have proposed that it is time spent practising which
underpins the development of expert performance, not
inherited ability. Ericsson and colleagues (1993) suggested
a monotonic relationship between ‘deliberate practice’ and
an individual’s acquired performance, a relationship
supported by Sloboda and colleagues (1996). Interviews
with the parents of the children in Sloboda et al’s study
revealed that singing by the child at an early age was the
only sign that distinguished those children who later
succeeded in being accepted by a high status music school
reinforcing the practice explanation (Howe, Davidson,
Moore & Sloboda, 1995). However, not all the evidence is
supportive. Sloboda and Howe (1991) found that students
identified as having greater ability by their teachers had
undertaken less practice in their main instrument, their
practice time having been spread more equally across three
instruments. Wagner (1975) found that increased practice
did not lead to any greater improvement in performance
over an eight-week period and Zurcher (1972) found no
relationship between total practice time and performance
achievement. Reported correlations between achievement
and time spent practising also vary considerably and are
only moderate (Sloboda et al., 1996). In addition, skills can
be developed through playful practice and playing in
groups, not only through deliberate practice. Social factors
such as parental support, teacher’s personality, and peer
interactions have also been shown to be more important
than amount of practice time in achieving a high level of
musical performance (Moore et al., 2003).
There has also been a tendency in much of this research to
neglect the issue of drop-outs – those who may have
undertaken extensive practice, been unsuccessful and
dropped out. While Sloboda and colleagues (1996)
demonstrated that those who had dropped out had
undertaken less practice and achieved less than those who
continued, in much of the research on drop-outs no single
explanatory factor has emerged. Rather a number of
factors, including socio-economic status, self-concept in
music, reading achievement, scholastic ability, measured
musical ability, math achievement, and motivation are all
valid predictors of continuing to play a musical instrument
(Mawbey, 1973; McCarthy, 1980; Klinedinst, 1991,
Hallam, 1998a). Hurley (1995) found that students who
dropped out viewed continuing to play as demanding too
great a time cost for the relatively small rewards it offered.
When the quality of performance has been considered
rather than the level of expertise attained, the amount of
practice undertaken is not a good predictor (Hallam, 1998a;
2004; Williamon & Valentine, 2000). A further issue is that
measures of time spent practising do not take account of
the effectiveness of the practice undertaken. There are
certainly differences in the practising strategies adopted by
students and their metacognitive skills, although their
development seems to be inextricably intertwined with the
acquisition of knowledge (Hallam, 2001a; 2001b).
Increasingly it has been recognised that aural skill is only
one of many skills necessary for the development of
musical expertise. In 1979, Gilbert devised tests of motor
skills, performance on which was highly correlated with
musical attainment (Gilbert, 1981). The importance of
creativity in music has been acknowledged and ways of
assessing it devised (Vaughan, 1977; Webster, 1988), the
evidence suggesting that generally, musical creativity
factors seemed to be discrete from those assessed by
musical ability tests (Swanner, 1985). In relation to
instrumental playing, McPherson (1995/6), identified five
distinct skills: sight reading; performing rehearsed music;
playing from memory; playing by ear, and improvising,
while Hallam (1998b) suggested that ‘musical skills’
included aural, cognitive, technical, musicianship,
performance and learning skills. There has also been an
increasing acknowledgement that individual musicians
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 427
have differing strengths and weaknesses within their profile
of musical skills.
There has been little research addressing the ways in which
individuals within society as a whole conceive of musical
ability. Sloboda et al. (1994) proposed the existence of a
folk psychology of talent held by non-academics which
postulated innately determined differences between
individuals in their capacity for musical accomplishment.
This was supported by the findings from a survey that
indicated that more than 75% of a sample of educational
professionals believed that playing an instrument, singing
and composing required a special gift or natural talent
(Davis, 1994). A number of researchers have explored the
conceptualisation of musical ability by different groups in
society. Haroutounian (2000) analysed the level of
importance attached to particular criteria in identifying
musically able children. General behaviours of ‘sustained
interest’ and ‘self-discipline’ received higher mean
responses than music-specific characteristics indicative of
music aptitude. A performance assessment scale showed
note and rhythmic accuracy rated highest in importance
followed by steady rhythmic performance, dynamic
contrasts, and technical fluency. Originality received the
lowest rating. However, interviews with experts across the
musical fields of research, performance, psychology, and
education, teachers involved in gifted education programs
and others regularly involved in the identification of gifted
children revealed categories of perceptual awareness and
discrimination; meta-perception; creative interpretation;
behaviour/performance; and motivation. The most decisive
factor perceived to determine musical potential in children
rested on criteria related to the child’s creative expressive
involvement in musical activities. This contrasted with the
questionnaire survey which found that creativity was found
to be an inadequate measure reinforcing the complexity and
difficulty of defining and identifying musical potential.
Hallam and Prince (2003) explored the qualitatively
different ways in which groups of people with differing
levels of involvement in active music making
conceptualised ‘musical ability’. Individuals (129
musicians; 80 non-music educators; 112 adults in other
occupations; 60 students involved in extra-curricular
music; 14 not involved in extra-curricular music) were
asked to complete in writing the statement ‘Music ability
is:’ The statements were analysed using an iterative
process of categorisation. Musical ability was
conceptualised in relation to: receptive activities;
generative activities; the integration of a range of skills; the
extent to which it is learned; metacognition; and
motivation. Overall, 28% of the sample mentioned aural
skills as indicative of musical ability, 32% included
listening and understanding, 24% having an appreciation of
music, and 15% being responsive to music. By far the
largest response in any category was that musical ability
was being able to play a musical instrument or sing (cited
by 71% of the sample). This response was highest in
children who did not take part in extra-curricular music
(86%), and adults not involved in education (83%). The
integration of a range of skills was cited by 9% of
respondents. Personal qualities including motivation,
personal expression, immersion in music, total
commitment and metacognition (being able to learn to
learn) were cited most by musicians. The findings did not
indicate a general conception of musical ability as
genetically determined. In addition, the concept of musical
ability was constructed in different ways by each group of
participants. The greater the active involvement with music
making the more detailed and complex the constructions
became. This qualitative research, relying as it did on
individuals spontaneously generating their own
conceptualisations of musical ability, did not take account
of non-articulated beliefs. The purpose of this study, using
the categorisations derived from the qualitative study by
Hallam and Prince (2003) is to explore current conceptions
of the nature of musical ability.
METHOD
The present study is an extension of the research carried
out by Hallam and Prince (2003), which used qualitative
methods to determine how participants perceived the
construct ‘musical ability’. In the qualitative study,
respondents completed the statement ‘Musical ability is’.
The constructs derived from the first study were Musical
Ear; Rhythmic Ability; Listening and Understanding;
Response to Music; Appreciation of Music; Knowledge
about Music; Evaluative Activities; Performing; Reading
Music; Technical Skills; Emotional Sensitivity;
Communication and Interpretation; Performing in a Group;
Composition/ Improvisation; Organisation of Sound;
Creativity; Integration of Skills; Metacognition;
Motivation; Personal expression; and the Origins of
Musical Ability, i.e. whether it was learned or innate.
In the current study each of these categories was
represented by several statements derived from the
qualitative study. For instance, the statements relating to
having a musical ear were: Musical ability depends on
having perfect pitch; Musical ability is being able to play
by ear; Musical ability is being able to internalise sound. A
total of 77statements were included in the questionnaire.
Statements were responded to through levels of agreement
on a 5 point rating scale. Statements relating to the origins
of musical ability were not included in the analyses
described here. Respondents were also asked to provide
information regarding age, gender, occupation and musical
experience. The questionnaire was self-administered.
The sample was an opportunity sample which consisted of
650 individuals aged 14 to 90. There were 212 males and
447 females, one participant did not indicate their gender.
The sample was balanced between several different groups:
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 428
102 musicians, 95 educators who were not musicians, 132
adults who were actively engaged in music making in an
amateur capacity, 60 adults who were not actively engaged
in making music, 193 children actively engaged in making
music in addition to their engagement with the school
curriculum and 71 children with no engagement with music
outside of the school curriculum.
FINDINGS
Table 1 and Figure 1 set out the mean responses in each
category. Having a sense of rhythm was the most highly
supported conception of musical ability. Other highly rated
categories related to being able to express oneself through
sound, being able to understand and interpret music and
being able to communicate through music. A range of
personal factors including motivation, personal
characteristics and being able to work in a group followed.
Having a musical ear received relatively low ratings given
its high rating in musical ability tests. The lowest ratings
were for reading music and knowledge about music.
Table 1: Mean responses to each category
Musical ability is N Mean SD
Having a sense of rhythm 645 3.84 .69
Expressing thoughts and
feelings through sound 475 3.75 .62
Being able to understand
and interpret the music 644 3.74 .81
Communication through
music 640 3.66 .75
Motivation 627 3.56 .88
Personal characteristics 635 3.48 .73
Group performance 639 3.44 .82
Integration of skills 626 3.39 .75
Responding to music 648 3.37 .75
Metacognition 639 3.34 .81
Playing or singing 641 3.32 .88
Having a musical ear 637 3.29 .74
Listening and
understanding 643 3.27 .71
Appreciation of music 644 3.13 .87
Creativity 641 3.10 .79
Evaluation skills 644 3.04 .87
Technical skills 647 3.03 .86
Composing or
improvising 638 2.99 .82
Reading music 642 2.77 .99
Knowledge about music 648 2.68 .86
Figure 1: Mean responses in each category
sense of rhythm
to express thoughts and feelings through sound
to understand and interpret the music
comm
unication
motivation
personal characteristics
group performance
integration of skills
responding
metacognition
playing or singing
musical ear
listening and understanding
appreciation
creativity
evaluation skills
technical skills
composing or im
provising
reading music
knowledge
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Mean
To further explore the nature of conceptions of musical
ability a factor analysis was conducted. Principal
component analysis was used followed by a Varimax
rotation with Kaiser Normalization. Six factors were
identified which had eigenvalues of above 2. The factors
were: being able to read music and play an instrument or
sing (Eigenvalue 15.5); musical communication (5.01);
valuing, appreciating and responding to music (3.1);
composition, improvisation and the skills needed to
undertake them (2.5); commitment, motivation, personal
discipline and organisation (2.4); and rhythmic ability,
pitch skills, and understanding (2.3). Factor 1 included high
ratings for statements relating to reading music, being able
to play an instrument or sing, having appropriate technical
and physical skills, critically evaluating and analyzing
performance, and understanding the music. In short, all of
the skills required to play an instrument or sing well (see
Table 2). Only weightings above .3 are included.
Table 2: Factor 1- Being able to read music and play an
Instrument
Factor 1
To transfer what is written on a score to an
instrument .747
Being able to play an instrument well .740
Being able to sight read .696
Having the technical skills to play an
instrument .669
Being able to play an instrument/sing .663
Being able to read music .655
Generating music .641
To master technique .632
Understanding musical concepts .554
Knowing about musical form .546
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 429
Reproduce a melody or rhythm on an
instrument .528
To play an instrument, sing, read music .477
Judge what is musical good or bad .410
Analyse a piece of music .404
Good overall physical coordination .384
To convey the emotions intended by the
composer .382
Is complex and requires being able to do
many things .379
Understanding, knowledge and a flair to be
creative in music .363
To value music by taking part in making it .354
To critically evaluate musical performances .331
Factor 2 focused on those issues relating to musical
communication including conveying emotions and moods
to an audience, playing and performing with feeling and
emotion, interpreting the music, and making decisions
about performance. There were also weightings related to
being sensitive to other musicians within the group and
inspiring group performance. High weightings were also in
evidence in relation to making sense of the world through
music, being inspired by music and taking risks (see Table
3).
Factor 3 took into account those aspects of engagement
with music which focus on listening and appreciation
including responding to music, valuing music through
listening, hearing and understanding music, and being able
to describe music in words and gestures (see Table 4).
Table 3: Factor 2 - Musical communication
Factor 2
To communicate moods and emotions
through music .696
To perform showing understanding of
expression .686
To play with feeling .653
To interpret the feelings of music .651
To express thoughts and feelings
through music .637
To convey your interpretations to an
audience .602
To be sensitive to others within an
ensemble .559
Expression through sound .539
To unite, inspire group performance .516
To convey the emotions intended by the
composer .511
To use music as a source of inspiration .496
To play as part of a group .472
Understanding, knowledge and a flair to
be creative in music .448
A relationship between music and your
life .429
To make decisions about performance
and compositions .414
Is complex and requires being able to
do many things .413
The integration of different distinct
skills .399
To help others enjoy or play music .397
To perceive what is musically beautiful .363
To use music to express one's
personality .340
To make sense of the world through
musical stimuli .315
Risk taking .307
Table 4: Factor 3 - Valuing, appreciating and
responding to music
Factor 3
Being able to value music by listening
to it
.696
Being able to enjoy music .637
Being able to appreciate music .596
Respond to the mood of the music .577
Respond creatively to music .569
To perceive what is musically beautiful .519
To value music by taking part in making
it
.488
Judge what is musical good or bad .472
Being able to describe music in words
and gestures .463
Respond to a musical stimuli .431
To hear and understand music .378
To critically evaluate musical
performances .372
Move in time with a rhythm .360
The focus of Factor 4 was composition, improvisation and
the skills needed to undertake them (see Table 5). This
included making decisions, integrating different distinct
skills, taking risks, being able to read music, and play by
ear.
Table 5: Factor 4 - Composition, improvisation and the
skills needed to undertaken them
Factor 4
Compose using new styles .691
To compose .646
To improvise .637
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 430
To integrate listening, performing and
composing .617
To organise sound .552
To play an instrument, sing, read music .508
To make decisions about performance and
compositions .472
Risk taking .388
The integration of different distinct skills .384
Being able to describe music in words and
gestures .348
Analyse a piece of music .340
Being able to read music .324
Able to play by ear .318
Factor 5 focused on personal commitment, motivation and
organisation – all of the elements which enable an
individual to develop high level skills in music.
Commitment to practice loaded highly on this factor, as did
motivation to succeed, setting and attaining goals and
personal organisation and discipline. Immersion in music,
using it as a source of inspiration and as a means of
expressing oneself were also important as was being self-
critical.
Table 6: Factor 5 -Commitment, motivation, personal
discipline and organisation
Factor 5
The commitment to practice .771
The motivation to succeed .763
Working towards set goals .718
Personal organisation and discipline .666
Showing in interest or desire to make music .604
To be self critical in performances .494
To immerse yourself in music .402
A relationship between music and your life .392
To use music as a source of inspiration .391
To use music to express one's personality .384
Factor 6 loaded on those elements which have traditionally
been considered in musical ability tests, for instance,
rhythmic ability, being able to recognise tone/pitch and
internalise sound, and analyse music (see Table 7).
Table 7: Factor 6- Rhythmic ability, pitch skills, and
understanding
Factor 6
Perceive a rhythmical progression .707
Sing in time .682
A good sense of rhythm .635
Able to recognise tone/pitch .617
Internalise sound .519
Able to play by ear .495
Move in time with a rhythm .384
Analyse a piece of music .346
To hear and understand music .330
DISCUSSION
The findings described above indicate that conceptions of
musical ability in the general population are much broader
than those identified by traditional tests of musical ability.
The high proportion of participants stressing the
importance of having a sense of rhythm may reflect the
characteristics of popular music where ‘the beat’ is central.
The stress on motivation and commitment also suggests an
awareness of the time required to successfully develop
musical skills. There was also considerable emphasis on
being able to work well with other musicians in a group.
Of the factors that emerged only one reflected traditional
conceptions relating to aural abilities (rhythm and pitch),
the remaining factors focused on other elements which
contribute towards expert musical behaviour in its various
forms. Factor 1 focused on being able to read music and
sing or play an instrument along with all the skills required
to do this effectively including technical skills, having the
appropriate physical characteristics to play an instrument,
being able to evaluate performance, understand music and
be creative.
The second factor encapsulated elements relating to
musical communication. These not only included
communicating with the audience, both emotions and
specific interpretations, but also communication with other
performers reflecting the recent interest in research in these
areas, for instance, research on group rehearsal (e.g.
Davidson and King, 2004; Goodman, 2000; 2002), the role
of movement in musical communication (e.g. Davidson,
1993), the role of playing from memory in communication
(e.g. Williamon, 1999), and research on music and emotion
(Juslin and Sloboda, 2001).
The third factor related to valuing, appreciating and
responding to music. Some of the earlier tests of musical
ability acknowledged the importance of musical
appreciation. Revesz (1953) considered that ‘musicality’
included the ‘ability to enjoy music aesthetically’, Wing
(1981) described a general ability to perceive and
appreciate music and Gordon’s (1979) conceptualisation
included musical sensitivity. The findings from this
research reinforce the importance of these elements.
The fourth factor centred around the skills required for
composition, improvisation and the skills required for
undertaking these. The highest weighting was on
composing using new styles - a form of creativity. Other
elements were those which might be considered to be
necessary in order to compose and improvise - including
integrating listening, performing and composing, reading
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 431
music, playing by ear, making decisions, analysis,
description, and risk taking. Traditional tests of musical
ability have tended to neglect creative musical outcomes,
although as we saw earlier some authors have recognized
its importance and devised ways of assessing it (Vaughan,
1977; Webster, 1988).
The fifth factor related to personal commitment to music,
motivation, discipline and organisation, and acknowledged
the importance of these in developing musical expertise
reflecting research findings referred to earlier which
suggest that time spent practising underpins the
development of expert performance, not inherited ability
(Ericsson et al., 1993; Sloboda et al., 1996). However, the
range of other elements identified as contributing to
musical ability support findings which contest a simple
relationship between amount of practice and attainment
(Sloboda and Howe, 1991; Wagner, 1975; Zurcher, 1972;
Hallam, 1998a; 2004).
The sixth factor focused on rhythmic and aural skills
indicating that these are still perceived as constituting an
important element of musical ability albeit with a greater
focus on rhythm than may have previously been the case.
The emphasis on rhythm in much contemporary popular
music may explain why it is perceived as an important
element of musical ability.
Overall, the research suggests that in a Western musical
culture at this time, musical ability is perceived to be
exemplified by actual musical skills in performing,
composition and improvisation, through listening, valuing
and appreciating music and through being able to
communicate through music. While aural skills play a part
they are perceived to be less important than generative
skills. The acquisition of these skills is perceived to require
high levels of commitment and motivation, a way of life of
which music is a crucial part. In the long term, the truly
defining element of musical ability may come to be
perceived as interest and commitment as the means to
create and perform music become increasingly accessible
to everyone through more advanced computer technology.
What are the implications of the findings for education?
Where a process of selection for playing an instrument is
necessary because resources are limited it may be better to
take account of a wider range of factors than those assessed
in traditional tests with a particular emphasis on
motivation. While aural skills may be important, without
sufficient effort and commitment on the part of the learner
little will be achieved.
REFERENCES
Davidson, J.W. (1993) ‘Visual perception of performance
manner in the movement of solo musicians’. Psychology of
Music, 21(2), 103-113.
Davidson, J. & King, E.C. (2004) ‘Strategies for ensemble
practice’. In A. Williamon (ed.) Musical Excellence. (pp
105-122) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. (1994) Folk music psychology. The
Psychologist, 7(12), 537.
Doxey, C. & Wright, C. (1990) ‘An exploratory study of
children’s music ability’. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 5, 425-440.
Ericsson, K.A. , Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993)
‘The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert
performance’. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406.
Gilbert, J.P. (1981) ‘Motoric music skill development in
young children: A longitudinal investigation’. Psychology
of Music, 9 (1), 21-25.
Goodman, E. (2000) ‘Analysing the ensemble in Music
Rehearsal and Performance: The Nature and Effects of
Interaction in Cello-Piano Duos’. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of London.
Goodman, E. (2002) ‘Ensemble performance’. In J. Rink
(ed) Musical Performance: A Guide to Understanding (pp.
153-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, E.E. (1965). Musical Aptitude Profile manual.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gordon, E. E. (1979). Primary measures of music
audiation. Chicago: GIA
Gordon, E.E. (1982). Intermediate measures of music
audiation. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E.E. (1989a). Advanced measures of music
audiation. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E.E. (1989b). Audie: A game for understanding
and analysing your child’s musical potential. Chicago:
GIA
Hallam, S. (1998a) ‘Predictors of Achievement and Drop
Out in Instrumental Tuition’. Psychology of Music, 26(2),
116-132.
Hallam, S. (1998b) Instrumental Teaching: A practical
guide to better teaching and learning. Oxford: Heinemann
Hallam, S. (2001a) ‘The development of metacognition in
musicians: Implications for education’. The British Journal
of Music Education, 18 (1), 27-39.
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 432
Hallam, S. (2001b) ‘The Development of Expertise in
Young Musicians: Strategy Use, Knowledge Acquisition
and Individual Diversity’. Music Education Research,
3(1), 7-23.
Hallam, S. (2004) ‘How important is practicing as a
predictor of learning outcomes in instrumental music?’ In
S.D. Lipscomb, R. Ashley, R.O. Gjerdingen & P. Webster.
Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Music
Perception and Cognition, August 3-7th 2004,
Northwestern University, Evanston, USA (pp 165-168)
Hallam, S. (2006) ‘Musicality’. In G. McPherson (Ed) The
child as musician: A handbook of musical development.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallam, S. & Prince, V. (2003) ‘Conceptions of Musical
Ability’. Research Studies in Music Education, 20, 2-22.
Haroutounian, J. (2000). Perspectives of musical talent: a
study of identification criteria and procedures. High Ability
Studies, 11 (2), 137-160.
Howe, M.J.A., Davidson, J.W., Moore, D.M. & Sloboda,
J.A. (1995) ‘Are there early childhood signs of musical
ability?’ Psychology of Music, 23, 162-76.
Hurley, C.G. (1995) ‘Student motivations for beginning
and continuing/discontinuing string music tuition’. The
Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(1),
44-55.
Juslin, P., & Sloboda, J. (2001) Music and emotion: theory
and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Klinedinst, R.E. (1991) ‘Predicting performance
achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental
students’. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3),
225-238.
Mawbey, W.E. (1973) ‘Wastage from instrumental classes
in schools’. Psychology of Music, 1, 33-43.
McCarthy, J.F. (1980) ‘Individualised instruction, student
achievement and drop out in an urban elementary
instrumental music program’. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 28, 59-69.
McPherson, G.E. (1995/6) ‘Five aspects of musical
performance and their correlates’. Bulletin of the Council
for Research in Music Education, Special Issue, the 15th
International Society for Music Education, University of
Miami, Florida, 9-15 July, 1994.
Moore, D., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. (2003) The social
context of music success: A developmental account. British
Journal of Psychology, 94, 529-549.
Revesz, G. (1953) Introduction to the Psychology of Music,
London: Longmans
Seashore, C.E., Lewis, L., & Saetveit, J.G. (1960)
Seashore measures of musical talents. New York: The
Psychological Corporation.
Shuter-Dyson, R. (1999). Musical Ability. In D. Deutsch
(Ed.), The Psychology of Music, (pp 627-651). New York,
Harcourt Brace and Company
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. & Howe, M. J. A. (1994) ‘Is
everyone musical?’ The Psychologist, 7(8), 349-354.
Sloboda, J.A., Davidson, J.W., Howe, M.J.A. & Moore,
D.G, (1996) ‘The role of practice in the development of
performing musicians’. British Journal of Psychology, 87,
287-309.
Sloboda, J.A. & Howe, M.J.A. (1991) ‘Biographical
precursors of musical excellence: An interview study’.
Psychology of Music, 19, 3-21.
Stumpf, C. (1883) Tonpsychologie. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Swanner, D.L. (1985) ‘Relationships between musical
creativity and selected factors, including personality,
motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence as
measured in third grade children’. Unpublished
dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland,
Ohio.
Vaughan, M.M. (1977) ‘Measuring creativity: Its
cultivation and measurement’. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 50, 72-77.
Vispoel, W.P. (1993) ‘The development and evaluation of
a computerized adaptive test of tonal memory’. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 41, 111-136.
Vispoel, W.P. & Coffman, D.D. (1992) ‘Computerized-
adaptive and self-adapted tests of music listening skills:
Psychometric features and motivational benefits’. Applied
measurement in Education, 7, 25-51.
Wagner, M.J. (1975) ‘The effect of a practice report on
practice time and musical performance’. In C.K. Madsen,
R.D. Greer, & C.H. Madsen, Jr., (Eds), Research in Music
Behaviour, New York: Teachers College Press.
Webster, P.R. (1988) ‘New perspectives on music aptitude
and achievement’. Psychomusicology, 7(2), 177-194.
Williamon, A. (1999) ‘The value of performing from
memory’. Psychology of Music, 27, 84-95.
ICMPC9 Proceedings
ISBN 88-7395-155-4 © 2006 ICMPC 433
Williamon, A. and Valentine, E. (2000) ‘Quantity and
quality of musical practice as predictors of performance
quality’. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353-376.
Wing, H.D. (1981) ‘Standardised Tests of Musical
Intelligence’. Windsor, England: National Foundation for
Educational Research
Zurcher, W.Z. (1972) ‘The effects of model-supportive
practice on beginning brass instrumentalists’.
Unpublished, EdD dissertation, Teachers College,
Columbia University.
