Conceptions of Musical Ability

8/10/2019 Conceptions of Musical Ability

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conceptions-of-musical-ability 1/24

http://pom.sagepub.com

Psychology of Music

DOI: 10.1177/03057356093519222009; 38; 308Psychology of Music

Susan Hallam21st century conceptions of musical ability

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/308 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at:Psychology of MusicAdditional services and information for

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/3/308Citations

at Aristotle University on June 18, 2010http://pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sempre.org.uk/


http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions



http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav



http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav


http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/3/308

http://pom.sagepub.com/




http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/3/308








21st century conceptions of musicalability

S U S A N H A L L A MI N S T I T U T E O F E D U C A T I O N , U N I V E R S I T Y O F L O N D O N

A B S T R A C T This study explored conceptions of musical ability using an inventoryderived from previous qualitative research. Participants included 102 musicians, 95

educators, 132 adult amateur musicians, 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. Overall, 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

six factors which differentiated between the six sample groups, with the musicians

(professional, amateur and children) and non-musicians demonstrating that musical

ability is perceived in complex ways which depend on the environment within which

individuals are located, and their particular musical experiences or lack of them.

K E YWO R D S : children, musical ability, musicians, perceptions

IntroductionThe 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 musictuition. Testing began in 1883 when Carl Stumpf (1883) suggested a number of simple

aural tests which music teachers might undertake to select pupils. Subsequently, a

AR T IC LE 3 0 8

Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music

Copyright © 2010

Society for Education, Music

and Psychology Research

308–330

10.1177/0305735609351922http://pom.sagepub.com

sempre :





310 Psychology of Music 38(3)

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). It may be that it is the overall length of

time over which learning has taken place rather than the specific amount of practice

that is important (Hallam, 1998a; 2004). 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, Burland, & Davidson, 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 et al. (1996) demonstrated that those who had

dropped out had undertaken less practice and achieved less than those whocontinued, 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,

maths achievement, and motivation are all valid predictors of continuing to play a

musical instrument (Hallam, 1998a; Klinedinst, 1991; Mawbey, 1973; McCarthy,

1980; Young, 1971). Frakes (1984) found significant differences between musical

achievement, academic achievement and attitudes towards musical participation

between drop-outs, non-participants, and participants in musical activity. Drop-outs

perceived themselves as less musically able, received less family encouragement,

tended to feel musically inadequate and turned to sport and other leisure activitiesinstead of music. Frakes concluded that positive self-perceptions of musical skills

were linked to the desire to continue music education voluntarily. Supporting this,

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 strategiesadopted 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 instrumentalplaying, McPherson (1995/6) identified five distinct skills: sight reading, performing

rehearsed music, playing from memory, playing by ear, and improvising, while







Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 311

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 have differing strengths and

weaknesses within their profile of musical skills.

The changes in conceptualisation of musical ability in many ways parallel

thinking about intelligence, with a gradual move away from a single entity

conception with a genetic basis to a multifaceted developmental conception. While

these changes are well documented, there has been little research addressing the

ways in which individuals within society as a whole conceive of musical ability.

Sloboda, Davidson, and Howe (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 percent 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 musical 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, education, teachers involved

in gifted education programmes and others regularly involved in the identificationof 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, meta-

cognition, and motivation. Overall, 28 percent of the sample mentioned aural skills

as indicative of musical ability, 32 percent included listening and understanding,

24 percent having an appreciation of music, and 15 percent being responsive to

music. By far the largest response in any category was that musical ability was beingable 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 percent of respondents. Personal qualities including motivation, personal

expression, immersion in music, total commitment and meta-cognition (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

adopting a more structured approach.

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 used in the research reported here

were derived from the first study with some changes to the naming of categories

to better reflect the specific statements included in the questionnaire. They were:

having a musical ear, having a sense of rhythm, listening and understanding,

responding to music, appreciation of music, knowledge about music, evaluation

skills, communication through music, group performance, reading music, technicalskills, expressing thoughts and feelings through sound, being able to understand

and interpret music, motivation, personal characteristics, integration of skills, meta-

cognition, playing an instrument or singing, creativity, composing or improvising,

and the origins of musical ability, i.e. whether it was learned or innate. This last was

not included in the current analysis.

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 internalisesound. A total of 77 statements 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

following distribution by the researchers. The exception to this was for the children,

where some questionnaires were administered in music lessons.

The sample was an opportunity sample which consisted of 660 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. These groupswere selected to represent those actively engaged in making music at a range of levels

and those not actively engaged, also encompassing a wide age range. Non-musician








educators were included to provide a broader educational perspective distanced

from music education itself. The sample included: 102 musicians, 95 educators

who were not music teachers and had no active engagement with making music,

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 the school

curriculum. The musicians group consisted of those who had portfolio careers

consisting of performing and teaching (the latter mainly instrumental). The

educators were drawn mainly from school settings, did not teach music, and had

no active engagement with it. The adults, those actively engaged in making music

in an amateur capacity and those not, were an opportunistic sample and included

representatives from a wide range of occupations including professional, white

collar, and manual workers. The sample of children was drawn from a junior

conservatoire, a Local Authority youth orchestra, a Local Authority music school,and two secondary schools.

Results

Table 1 sets out the mean responses in each category, the responses from the

statements having been summed and divided by the number of statements so that

they could be compared. 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 includingmotivation, 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.

An analysis of differences between the six groups of respondents was undertaken

in relation to the questionnaire categories. There were statistically significant

differences between the groups in relation to most of the categories (see Table 2),

the exceptions being responding to music, playing an instrument or singing, meta-

cognition, personal characteristics, and expressing thoughts and feelings through

music. No consistent pattern of responses emerged in relation to the categorieswhere there were statistically significant differences between the groups.

To attempt to provide a more coherent account of the nature of conceptions of

musical ability, a factor analysis was conducted. Statements relating to whether

musical ability was learned or innate were omitted from the analysis as the intention

was to explore the elements perceived to constitute musical ability. Principal

component analysis was used as it is essentially a descriptive technique which is

appropriate for such theory development (Bartholemew, Steele, Moustaki, & Galbraith

2002; Tabachik & Fidell, 2001). A Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was

conducted to enable the factors to be more easily interpreted. The Varimax rotation

technique is an orthogonal method which assumes that the extracted factors areuncorrelated. The sample size was broadly appropriate for the number of variables

included in the analysis (66) with a ratio of almost 1:10 (Nunnally, 1978). The








Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling which assesses the suitability of the data for

factor analysis was .92 and the Bartlett test was highly significant (.000001).

The scree test indicated that the best factor solution would be obtained by

including only the six factors 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 and 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). The six components overall explained46.8 percent of the variance.

Table 3 sets out the factors and the weightings of the statements relating to each.

Only weightings greater than .2 are included. The scores for each participant on

each factor were saved and a comparison made between scores (see Table 4).

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 analysing performance, and understanding music. In

short, skills which may be needed in playing an instrument or singing well. This

factor accounted for 23.6 percent of the variance. Those with the highest scores

on this factor were the children with little active engagement with music, followedby the children actively engaged with music. The lowest scores were from the

educators who had no active engagement with music (see Table 4).

T A B L E 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 .62Being 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

Meta-cognition 639 3.34 .81

Playing and instrument 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









T A

B L E 2

M e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s

o f g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s

M u s i c i a n s

E d u c a t o r s

A d u l t s

a c t i v e l y

e n g a g e d

w i t h m u s i c

A d u l t s n o t

a c t i v e l y

e n g a g e d

w i t h m u s i c

C h i l d r e n

a c t i v e l y

e n g a g e d

w i t h m u s i c

C h i l d r e n w i t h

l i t t l e a c t i v e

e n g a g e m e n t

w i t h m u s i c

S i g n i f i c a n c e

H a v i n g a

m u s i c a l e a r

3 . 2

( . 7 6 )

3 . 3

( . 8 1 )

3 . 4

( . 7 5 )

3 . 3

( . 7 2 )

3 . 3

( . 6 8 )

3 . 1

( . 6 6 )

. 0 4 9

H a v i n g a

s e n s e o f r h y t h m

3 . 6

( . 8 8 )

3 . 7

6 ( . 6 6 )

3 . 8

9 ( . 6 2 )

3 . 8

8 ( . 5 7 )

3 . 9

5 ( . 6 5 )

3 . 8

6 ( . 6 8 )

. 0 0 3

L i s t e n i n g

a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g

3 . 2

8 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 1

9 ( . 7 0 )

3 . 1

5 ( . 7 4 )

3 . 2

5 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 3

7 ( . 6 5 )

3 . 4

1 ( . 6 7 )

. 0 3 5

R e s p o n d i n g t o m u s i c

3 . 4

4 ( . 8 1 )

3 . 2

5 ( . 7 8 )

3 . 2

9 ( . 7 8 )

3 . 3

6 ( . 7 0 )

3 . 4

3 ( . 6 7 )

3 . 5

4 ( . 7 6 )

N S

A p p r e c i a t i o n o f m u s i c

3 . 1

7 ( . 8 8 )

3 . 1

3 ( . 8 1 )

2 . 9

5 ( . 8 9 )

2 . 8

9 ( . 8 5 )

3 . 2

4 ( . 8 7 )

3 . 3

9 ( . 7 7 )

. 0 0 2

K n o w l e d g e a b o u t m u s i c

2 . 5

( . 8 0 )

2 . 5

9 ( . 7 9 )

2 . 5

7 ( . 8 8 )

2 . 7

( . 8 5 )

2 . 7

7 ( . 8 4 )

3 . 0

7 ( . 9 1 )

. 0 0 0 1

E v a l u a t i o

n s k i l l s

3 . 0

3 ( . 8 5 )

2 . 7

4 ( . 8 9 )

3 . 0

1 ( . 9 0 )

2 . 8

6 ( . 9 3 )

3 . 1

9 ( . 8 1 )

3 . 3

4 ( . 7 3 )

. 0 0 0 1

P l a y i n g a

n i n s t r u m e n t o r s i n g i n g

3 . 2

9 ( . 8 6 )

3 . 2

( 1 . 0 )

3 . 3

3 ( . 8 8 )

3 . 0

9 ( . 8 8 )

3 . 4

2 ( . 8 8 )

3 . 4

7 ( . 6 4 )

N S

R e a d i n g m u s i c

2 . 5

9 ( . 9 9 )

2 . 5

9 ( 1 . 0 7 )

2 . 6

7 ( 1

. 0 5 )

2 . 7

6 ( . 9 3 )

2 . 9

( . 9 1 )

3 . 1

9 ( . 8 8 )

. 0 0 0 1

T e c h n i c a

l s k i l l s

2 . 8

6 ( . 9 5 )

2 . 8

9 ( . 9 6 )

2 . 9

3 ( . 8 2 )

2 . 9

8 ( . 7 9 )

3 . 1

9 ( . 8 )

3 . 3

( . 7 3 )

. 0 0 0 1

C o m m u n

i c a t i o n t h r o u g h m u s i c

3 . 7

5 ( . 9 )

3 . 4

9 ( . 7 6 )

3 . 6

( . 7 1 )

3 . 5

9 ( . 7 7 )

3 . 8

1 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 6

1 ( . 6 1 )

. 0 1

G r o u p p e

r f o r m a n c e

3 . 6

( . 8 2 )

3 . 3

4 ( . 8 5 )

3 . 3

5 ( . 8 4 )

3 . 1

6 ( . 8 5 )

3 . 6

2 ( . 7 7 )

3 . 3

( . 7 )

. 0 0 0 1

C o m p o s i n g o r i m p r o v i s i n g

2 . 6

7 ( . 8 3 )

3 . 0

9 ( . 7 9 )

3 . 1

( . 7 9 )

3 . 0

7 ( . 8 3 )

3 . 1

3 ( . 7 7 )

2 . 9

3 ( . 8 1 )

. 0 0 0 1

C r e a t i v i t y

3 . 0

1 ( . 8 4 )

3 . 0

9 ( . 8 1 )

2 . 9

9 ( . 8 3 )

3 . 0

2 ( . 7 1 )

3 . 1

7 ( . 7 4 )

3 . 3

5 ( . 7 4 )

. 0 3 2

I n t e g r a t i o n o f s k i l l s

3 . 4

( . 7 9 )

3 . 4

2 ( . 8 2 )

3 . 1

7 ( . 8 4 )

3 . 3

2 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 5

2 ( . 6 4 )

3 . 5

8 ( . 6 1 )

. 0 0 1

M e t a - c o g

n i t i o n

3 . 3

8 ( . 9 0 )

3 . 2

4 ( . 7 8 )

3 . 2

7 ( . 8 2 )

3 . 2

9 ( . 8 2 )

3 . 4

3 ( . 7 7 )

3 . 4

( . 7 3 )

N S

M o t i v a t i o

n

3 . 4

2 ( . 9 9 )

3 . 4

( . 9 1 )

3 . 5

3 ( . 9 2 )

3 . 6

4 ( . 8 6 )

3 . 7

2 ( . 8 1 )

3 . 6

4 ( . 7 6 )

. 0 2 8

P e r s o n a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

3 . 5

7 ( . 7 4 )

3 . 5

3 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 3

9 ( . 6 9 )

3 . 4

3 ( . 7 1 )

3 . 5

4 ( . 7 6 )

3 . 3

6 ( . 7 1 )

N S

E x p r e s s i n

g t h o u g h t s a n d f e e l i n g s t h r o u g h s o u n d

3 . 8

8 ( . 6 )

3 . 7

3 ( . 5 9 )

3 . 7

9 ( . 5 8 )

3 . 5

9 ( . 7 6 )

3 . 7

4 ( . 6 )

3 . 5

5 ( . 6 9 )

N S

B e i n g a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d i n t e r p r e t

t h e m u s i c

3 . 9

7 ( . 8 5 )

3 . 6

4 ( . 7 9 )

3 . 6

7 ( . 7 7 )

3 . 4

7 ( . 9 3 )

3 . 9

( . 7 6 )

3 . 4

7 ( . 7 1 )

. 0 0 0 1

* F i g u r e s i n b r a c k e t s a r e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s









T A

B L E 3

T h e f a c t o r s s t r u c t u r e

F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l

c o m m u n i c a t i o n

F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,

a p p r e c i a t i n g

a n d r e s p o n d i n g

t o m u s i c

F a c t o r 4

C o m p o s i t i o n ,

i m p r o

v i s a t i o n

a n d r e

l a t e d

s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5

C o m m i t m e n t ,

m o t i v a t i o n ,

p e r s o n a l d i s c i p l i n e

a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n

F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c

a b i l i t y

, p i t c h

s k i l l s a n d

u n d e r s t a n d i n g

T o t r a n s f e r w h a t i s w r i t t e n o n a s c o r e t o a n

i n s t r u m e

n t

. 7 4 7

. 2 8

B e i n g a b l e t o p l a y a n i n s t r u m e n t w e l l

. 7 4 0

B e i n g a b l e t o s i g h t r e a d

. 6 9 6

. 3 0 2

H a v i n g t h e t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s t o p l a y a n

i n s t r u m e

n t

. 6 6 9

. 2 5 5

B e i n g a b l e t o p l a y a n i n s t r u m e n t / s i n g

. 6 6 3

B e i n g a b l e t o r e a d m u s i c

. 6 5 5

. 3 4 2

G e n e r a t i n g m u s i c

. 6 4 1

. 2 3 2

B e i n g a b l e t o m a s t e r t e c h n i q u e

. 6 3 2

. 2 1 9

U n d e r s t a

n d i n g m u s i c a l c o n c e p t s

. 5 5 4

. 2 4 2

. 2 6 3

K n o w i n g

a b o u t m u s i c a l f o r m

. 5 4 6

. 2 9 1

. 2 5 5

. 2 4 4

B e i n g a b l e t o r e p r o d u c e a m e l o d y o r r h y t h m

o n a n i n s

t r u m e n t

. 5 2 8

. 2 2 8

. 2 1 5

T o p l a y a

n i n s t r u m e n t , s i n g ,

a n d r e a d m u s i c

. 4 7 7

T o j u d g e

w h a t i s m u s i c a l l y g o o d o r b a d

. 4 1 0

. 4 7 3

T o b e a b l e t o a n a l y s e a p i e c e o f m u s i c

. 4 0 4

. 3 8 1

H a v i n g g

o o d o v e r a l l p h y s i c a l c o o r d i n a t i o n

. 3 8 4

. 2 4 1

. 2 8 4

B e i n g a b l e t o c o n v e y t h e e m o t i o n s i n t e n d e d

b y t h e c o m p o s e r

. 3 8 2

( C o n t i n u e d )









T A

B L E 3


F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l


F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r

4


i m p r o v i s a t i o n

a n d r e

l a t e d

s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5





F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c

a b i l i t y

, p i t c h

s k i l l s a n d


I s c o m p l e

x a n d r e q u i r e s b e i n g a b l e t o d o

m a n y t h i n g s

. 3 7 9

. 4 1 3

U n d e r s t a

n d i n g ,

k n o w i n g a n d h a v i n g

a f l a i r t o b e c r e a t i v e i n m u s i c

. 3 6 3

. 4 4 8

. 2 7

. 2 2 3

V a l u i n g m u s i c b y t a k i n g p a r t i n m a k i n g i t

. 3 5 4

. 2 2 2

. 4 4 8

B e i n g a b l e t o c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e m u s i c a l

p e r f o r m a

n c e s

. 3 3 1

. 2 1 4

B e i n g a b l e t o c o m m u n i c a t e m o o d s a n d

e m o t i o n s

t h r o u g h m u s i c

. 6 9 6

. 2 3 2

B e i n g a b l e t o p e r f o r m s h o w i n g

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f e x p r e s s i o n

. 2 1 7

. 6 8 6

P l a y i n g w

i t h f e e l i n g

. 6 5 3

B e i n g a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t t h e f e e l i n g s o f m u s i c

. 6 5 1

. 2 0 3

. 2 0 8

E x p r e s s i n

g t h o u g h t s a n d f e e l i n g s t h r o u g h

m u s i c

. 6 3 7

. 2 2 9

B e i n g a b l e t o c o n v e y y o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

s t o

a n a u d i e n c e

. 2 7 7

. 6 0 2

B e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o o t h e r s w i t h i n a n

e n s e m b l e

. 5 5 9

B e i n g a b l e t o e x p r e s s t h r o u g h s o u n d

. 5 3 9

U n i t i n g a

n d i n s p i r i n g g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e

. 5 1 6

. 2 0 6

. 2 8 5










T A

B L E 3


F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l

c o m m u n i c a

t i o n

F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r 4


i m p r o

v i s a t i o n

a n d r e

l a t e d

s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5





F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c

a b i l i t y

, p i t c h

s k i l l s a n d


C o n v e y i n

g t h e e m o t i o n s i n t e n d e d b y t h e

c o m p o s e r

. 5 1 1

U s i n g m u

s i c a s a s o u r c e o f i n s p i r a t i o n

. 4 9 6

B e i n g a b l e t o p l a y a s p a r t o f a g r o u p

. 2 0 6

. 4 7 2

. 2 0 5

H a v i n g a

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m u s i c a n d

y o u r l i f e

. 4 2 9

B e i n g a b l e t o m a k e d e c i s i o n s a b o u t

p e r f o r m a

n c e a n d c o m p o s i t i o n s

. 4 1 4

T h e i n t e g

r a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t d i s t i n c t s k i l l s

. 3 9 9

. 2 1

H e l p i n g o

t h e r s t o e n j o y o r p l a y m u s i c

. 3 9 7

. 2 4 5

. 2 8 6

B e i n g a b l e t o p e r c e i v e w h a t i s m u s i c a l l y

b e a u t i f u l

. 3 6 3

. 5 1 9

U s i n g m u

s i c t o e x p r e s s o n e ’ s p e r s o n a l i t y

. 3 4 0

. 2 6 4

M a k i n g s

e n s e o f t h e w o r l d t h r o u g h m u s i c a l

s t i m u l i

. 3 1 5

. 2 0 7

. 2 6 4

T a k i n g r i s k s

. 3 0 7

. 3 8 8

. 2 8 4

B e i n g a b l e t o v a l u e m u s i c b y l i s t e n i n g t o

i t

. 6 9 6

B e i n g a b l e t o e n j o y m u s i c

. 6 3 7

B e i n g a b l e t o a p p r e c i a t e m u s i c

. 5 9 6

. 2 1 6

R e s p o n d i n g t o t h e m o o d o f t h e m u s i c

. 2 9

. 5 7 7

R e s p o n d i n g c r e a t i v e l y t o m u s i c

. 3

. 5 6 9










T A

B L E 3


F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l

c o m m u n i c a

t i o n

F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r

4



a n d r e

l a t e d

s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5





F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c

a b i l i t y

, p i t c h

s k i l l s a n d


B e i n g a b l e t o j u d g e w h a t i s m u s i c a l l y g o o d

o r b a d

. 4 7 2

B e i n g a b l e t o d e s c r i b e m u s i c i n w o r d s a n d

g e s t u r e s

. 2 4 6

. 4 6 3

. 3 4 8

R e s p o n d i n g t o a m u s i c a l s t i m u l i

. 4 3 1

. 2 9 3

H e a r i n g a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g m u s i c

. 3 7 8

. 3 3 0

B e i n g a b l e t o c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e m u s i c a l

p e r f o r m a

n c e s

. 3 7 2

B e i n g a b l e t o m o v e i n t i m e w i t h a r h y t h m

. 3 6 0

. 4 8

B e i n g a b l e t o c o m p o s e u s i n g n e w s t y l e s

. 2 2 6

. 6 9 1

B e i n g a b l e t o c o m p o s e

. 2 4 4

. 6 4 6

B e i n g a b l e t o i m p r o v i s e

. 6 3 7

B e i n g a b l e t o i n t e g r a t e l i s t e n i n g ,

p e r f o r m i n g a n d c o m p o s i n g

. 2 5 1

. 2 6 7

. 6 1 7

B e i n g a b l e t o o r g a n i z e s o u n d

. 2 2 7

. 2 4 4

. 5 5 2

B e i n g a b l e t o p l a y a n i n s t r u m e n t , s i n g ,

a n d r e a d

m u s i c

. 4 5 3

. 5 0 8

B e i n g a b l e t o m a k e d e c i s i o n s a b o u t

p e r f o r m a

n c e a n d c o m p o s i t i o n s

. 4 7 2

T h e i n t e g

r a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t d i s t i n c t i v e s k

i l l s

. 3 7 6

. 3 8 4

B e i n g a b l e t o a n a l y s e a p i e c e o f m u s i c

. 3 4 0

. 3 4 6 ( C

o n t i n u e d )









T A

B L E 3


F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l


F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r 4


i m p r o

v i s a t i o n

a n d r e

l a t e d

s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5





F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c

a b i l i t y

, p i t c h

s k i l l s a n d


B e i n g a b l e t o r e a d m u s i c

. 3 2 4

B e i n g a b l e t o p l a y b y e a r

. 3 1 8

. 4 9 5

T h e c o m m i t m e n t t o p r a c t i s e

. 7 7 1

T h e m o t i v a t i o n t o s u c c e e d

. 7 6 3

W o r k i n g

t o w a r d s s e t g o a l s

. 7 1 8

P e r s o n a l

o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d d i s c i p l i n e

. 6 6 6

S h o w i n g

a n i n t e r e s t o r d e s i r e t o m a k e m u s i c

. 2 8 7

. 6 0 4

B e i n g s e l f - c r i t i c a l i n p e r f o r m a n c e s

. 2 6 9

. 4 9 4

I m m e r s i n

g y o u r s e l f i n m u s i c

. 2 4 7

. 3 0 5

. 4 0 2

H a v i n g a

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n m u s i c a n d

y o u r l i f e

. 4 3 7

. 2 3 4

. 3 9 2

U s i n g m u

s i c a s a s o u r c e o f i n s p i r a t i o n

. 5

. 3 9 1

U s i n g m u

s i c t o e x p r e s s o n e ’ s p e r s o n a l i t y

. 3 6 2

. 2 8 3

. 3 8 4

P e r c e i v i n

g a r h y t h m i c a l p r o g r e s s i o n

. 7 0 7

B e i n g a b l e t o s i n g i n t i m e

. 2 1 9

. 6 8 2

H a v i n g a

g o o d s e n s e o f r h y t h m

. 6 3 5

B e i n g a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e t o n e / p i t c h

. 6 1 7

B e i n g a b l e t o i n t e r n a l i z e s o u n d

. 5 1 9

B e i n g a b l e t o m o v e i n t i m e w i t h r h y t h m

. 3 8 4









T A

B L E 4

G r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s o n t h e f a c t o r s

F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l

c o m

m u n i c a t i o n

F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r 4



a n d r e l a t e d s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5


m o t i v a t i o n

,

p e r s o n a l d

i s c i p l i n e

a n d o r g a n

i z a t i o n

F a c t o r 6

R h y t h m i c a b i l i t y

,

p i t c h s k i l l s a n d


F

S i g

M u s i c i a n

s

- . 1

7

. 4 8

. 0 3

- . 1

6

- . 2

7

- . 3

4

4 . 5

8

. 0 0 0 1

N o n - m u s

i c i a n

e d u c a t o r s

- . 2

5

- . 0

1

- . 1

7

. 2 9

- . 0

9

- . 0

1

1

0 . 6

4

. 0 0 0 1

A d u l t s w h o h a v e

a c t i v e l y e

n g a g e d

w i t h m u s i c

- . 0

2

- . 1

- . 1

8

- . 0

6

. 2 1

. 2 9

3 . 1

3

. 0 0 9

A d u l t s n o t a c t i v e l y

e n g a g e d w i t h m u s i c

. 0 2

- . 4

5

. 0 0 5

. 1 5

. 1 9

. 0 5

3 . 9

5

. 0 0 2

C h i l d r e n

a c t i v e l y

e n g a g e d w i t h m u s i c

. 2 2

. 1

. 1 3

- . 1

6

. 0 6

. 0 2

3 . 0

7

. 0 1

C h i l d r e n

w i t h l i t t l e

a c t i v e e n g a g e m e n t

w i t h m u s i c

. 4 6

- . 6

6

. 4 5

. 3 8

- . 1

6

- . 1

4 . 1

3

. 0 0 1




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. This factor accounted for 7.6 percent of the variance. Those with the

highest scores on this factor were the musicians. Those with the lowest were the

children with little active engagement with music, and the adults with no active

engagement (see Table 4).

Factor 3 accounting for 4.7 percent of the variance included 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. Those with the

highest scores on this factor were the children with little active engagement withmusic, the lowest scores were from the adults actively engaged with music and the

educators who had no active engagement with music (see Table 4).

The focus of Factor 4 was composition, improvisation, and the skills needed to

undertake them. This included making decisions, integrating different distinct skills,

taking risks, being able to read music, and playing by ear. This factor accounted for

3.8 percent of the variance. Those scoring highest on this factor were the children

with little active engagement with music and the non-music educators. The lowest

scores were from the musicians and the children actively engaged with music.

Factor 5, accounting for 3.6 percent of the variance, focused on personal

commitment, motivation and organisation – all the elements which enable anindividual 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 organization 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. Those scoring highest on this factor were the adults who had no

active engagement with music and those who did. The lowest scores were from the

musicians and the children with little active engagement with music.

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, internalise sound, and analyse music. This factor accounted for 3.5 percent of

the variance. Those scoring highest on this factor were the adults who were actively

engaged in making music, the lowest the musicians.

Further analysis of the mean scores on the categories was undertaken to

explore whether there were differences between those who were actively engaged

in music making, as professionals, amateurs or children, and those who had a

more passive engagement with music. This analysis revealed that those actively

engaged with music had statistically significantly higher scores for expressing

thoughts and feelings through sound, being able to understand and interpret

the music, communication through music, and group performances. Thosewith a more passive engagement with music scored higher on composing and

improvising (see Table 5). Comparison of the factor scores provided further support








for these differences with those actively engaged in music having a statistically

significant higher factor score on musical communication and those with no active

engagement scoring higher on composition, improvisation and related skills (seeTable 6).

Discussion

The findings described above indicate that conceptions of musical ability as

perceived by this opportunity sample were 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 recognition of motivation and commitment

as elements of musical ability also suggests an awareness of the time required tosuccessfully 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

T A B L E 5 Mean responses to each category of musicians and non-musician groups

Musicians Non-musicians

Musical ability is Mean SD Mean SD Sig

Having a sense of rhythm 3.85 .72 3.82 .64 NSExpressing thoughts and feelings

through sound

3.79 .59 3.64 .67 .018

Being able to understand and

interpret the music

3.85 .79 3.54 .81 .0001

Communication through music 3.73 .76 3.56 .72 .005

Motivation 3.58 .89 3.53 .86 NS

Personal characteristics 3.50 .74 3.45 .70 NS

Group performance 3.53 .81 3.28 .81 .0001

Integration of skills 3.38 .76 3.44 .73 NSResponding to music 3.39 .74 3.37 .76 NS

Meta-cognition 3.37 .82 3.4 .77 NS

Playing an instrument or singing 3.36 .87 3.25 .88 NS

Having a musical ear 3.3 .73 3.24 .75 NS

Listening and understanding 3.28 .72 3.27 .70 NS

Appreciation of music 3.13 .89 3.15 .83 NS

Creativity 3.09 .80 3.15 .77 NS

Evaluation skills 3.09 .85 2.96 .89 NS

Technical skills 3.03 .86 3.04 .87 NSComposing or improvising 2.91 .83 3.17 .77 .0001

Reading music 2.76 .98 2.81 1.01 NS

Knowledge about music 2.65 .85 2.77 .87 NS

*420 respondents were categorized as musicians, 222 as non-musicians









T A

B L E 6

D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n m u s i c i a n a n d n o n - m u s i c i a n g r o u p s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e

F a c t o r 1

P l a y i n g a n

i n s t r u m e n t

o r s i n g i n g

F a c t o r 2

M u s i c a l


F a c t o r 3

V a l u i n g ,



t o m u s i c

F a c t o r 4


i m p r o v i s a t i o n a n d

r e l a t e d s k i l l s

F a c t o r 5



p e r s o n a l

d i s c i p l i n e a n d

o r g a n i z a t i o n

F a c

t o r 6

R h y t h m i c a b i l i t y

,

p i t c h s k i l l s a n d


M u s i c i a n

g r o u p

. 0 0 8

. 1 4 1

. 0 0 3

- . 1

2 8

. 0 1 8

. 0 0 8

N o n - m u s

i c i a n

g r o u p

- . 0

1 0

- . 2 8

7

. 0 2 1

. 2

7 5

- . 0

2 4

- . 1

2 5

F

. 0 3 6

2 0 , 3

3

. 0 3 6

1 7

. 3 7 9

. 1 8 4

. 0 5 7

S i g n i f i c a n c e

N S

. 0 0 0 1

N S

. 0

0 0 1

N S

N S




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.

The first and strongest factor to emerge focused on being able to read music and

sing or play an instrument along with all the skills required to do this, reflecting that

which is the most visible exemplification of musical ability in everyday life – playing

an instrument or singing. It seems that for most people, whether they are engaged in

active music making or not (there were no statistically significant differences in the

mean scores between the groups on the specific category relating to the playing of

an instrument or singing as exemplifying musical ability), being able to perform well

provides the clearest indication of someone’s musical ability. Scores on this factor

indicated that this was particularly salient for all of the children. Interestingly, the

lowest factor score was from the non-music educators. Perhaps their conception of

musical ability is influenced by the UK school context where music is included in the

statuary requirements of the National Curriculum (NC) for children aged 5–14. Therequired elements for music include listening, appraising, performing, composing,

and applying knowledge and understanding. These broad requirements do not focus

exclusively on playing an instrument or singing.

The second factor identified is closely related to the performance of music and

encapsulates elements relating to musical communication – elements which again

are highly visible in the engagements which people have with music on a day to

day basis. In addition to communicating with the audience, both emotions and

specific interpretations, this element also included communication with other

performers as a crucial facet of musical activity for those engaged in making music.

Unsurprisingly, the highest scores on this factor were recorded by the musicians.The lowest scores were from the children and adults with little or no active

engagement with music, possibly because understanding of the importance of

communication with other players and the audience only comes from experience

of music making. This interpretation is further supported by the statistically

significant differences in scores on this factor between musicians (professional,

amateur, and children) and non-musicians.

The third factor reflected the work of the music critic and what for many people

is the most frequent way of engaging with music, through listening, enjoying,

and responding to music. While some tests of musical ability have acknowledgedthe importance of musical appreciation, for instance, 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, in general listening to and enjoying

music have not been seen as key elements of musical ability. The highest scores on

this factor were from the children with little active engagement with music, perhaps

reflecting their main mode of engaging with music out of school and aspects of their

music education within school. The lowest scores were recorded by the adults actively

engaged with making music and the non-music educators, the former perhaps

believing that passive engagement is insufficient to ascribe musical ability, the latterperhaps reflecting a perception that in education listening and appraising are only one

element of a broader musical curriculum.









The remaining three factors accounted for similar amounts of variance. In each

case their contribution to the production of music as it appears in everyday life is

hidden compared with those of performing and communicating. Factor 4 centred

on the skills required for composition and improvisation. The highest weighting

within this factor was on composing using new styles – a form of creativity.

Other elements with high weightings were those which might be considered to be

necessary in order to compose and improvise: integrating listening, performing and

composing, reading music, playing by ear, making decisions, analysis, description,

and risk taking. The highest scores on this factor came from children with little

active engagement with music and the non-music educators, once again, perhaps

reflecting the requirements of the National Curriculum which include composition.

The lowest scores were recorded by the musicians and the children actively

engaged with making music. For these groups making music is mainly focused

on performance rather than creation. The statistically significant differences in

responses relating to this factor between the musicians (professional, amateur, andchildren) and non-musicians support this.

Factor 5 related to personal commitment to music, motivation, discipline,

and organization, acknowledging the importance of these in developing musical

expertise. The adults (those actively participating in music making and those

not) scored the highest on this factor, the former perhaps because of awareness

of their own commitment, the latter because of their lack of it. The lowest scores

were recorded by the musicians, who, although they may acknowledge their own

commitment in attaining high levels of expertise, may not view this as a specific

element of musical ability. Other low scorers were the children with little active

engagement with music, perhaps because they fail to recognize the importance ofmotivation and commitment in developing high level skills or as a reflection of their

own lack of commitment to engage with music outside the curriculum.

The sixth factor focused on rhythmic and aural skills. The highest scores on this

factor came from the adults who were actively engaged in amateur music making,

the lowest from the professional musicians. The amateur musicians may perceive

these historically recognized forms of musical ability as important because they

have come to believe that they distinguish them from those who do not engage

with music as a hobby, or indeed because their lack of them has prevented them

from becoming professional musicians. The professionals may take these aural skillsfor granted or have relegated them to a less important role as other elements, e.g.

musical communication becomes more important with increasing expertise.

Did any patterns emerge for particular groups of respondents? The children

with little active engagement with music tended to hold a broad conception of

musical ability which seemed to encapsulate their experiences outside school,

where presumably their main engagement is listening, and inside school where

they are required to actively participate in making and creating music. In contrast,

the children actively engaged in making music seemed to have a more focused

conception related to appreciating music making and performance reflecting

their own experiences. For the musicians at high levels of expertise, musicalcommunication, central to their everyday work, was considered the most important

constituent of musical ability. In contrast, the non-music educators perceived the








creative aspects of musical engagement as central, perhaps reflecting not only their

knowledge of music education within the school National Curriculum but also the

requirements of the music syllabus of the General Certificate of Secondary Education

(GCSE) taken by children at age 16, which places high importance on composition.

For the amateur musicians issues relating to aural skills and motivation were key,

the latter a perception shared by those not actively engaged in making music and

clearly crucial if music making is to constitute a major portion of an individual’s

leisure time.

What is clear from the findings of this research is that musical ability is perceived

in complex ways which depend on the environment within which individuals

are located. This infers that conceptions may change over time. There was also

a tendency for conceptions to focus on observable outcomes reflecting the type

of musical end-states which Gardner (1999) argues are necessary for describing

an ‘intelligence’. At a general level, there was a tendency to perceive musical

ability as being 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 which have

traditionally been the means through which musical ability has been assessed

played a part, they were perceived to be less important in indicating ability than

generative skills. Despite these general trends, specific groups and individuals within

those groups held different conceptions dependent on their particular musical

experiences or lack of them. This can be interpreted within a social constructive

perspective which assumes that the development of cognition depends on the

interactions between individuals and their social surroundings (Cole, 1996; Gergen

& Gergen, 2000; Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch, 1988). We might therefore expect that asthe means to create and perform music become increasingly accessible to everyone

through more advanced computer technology there will be marked changes in the

way that musical ability is conceptualised.

What are the implications of this for education? Teachers of music, whether

class or instrumental teachers, need to be aware that others may hold very different

conceptions of musical ability to their own and that what they perceive as important

in developing high levels of musical expertise, for instance, musical communication,

may not be readily recognized by others. Teaching will need to take account of

this, with particular emphasis being given to those key elements which may not beeasily recognized by others. Teachers who have to operate a process of selection for

playing an instrument because resources are limited should take account of a wider

range of factors than has previously been the case. While aural skills as assessed by

traditional tests may be important, other factors such as previous experience and

motivation, without which it is impossible to achieve high levels of expertise, should

perhaps be given greater weighting.

R E F E R E N C E S

Bartholomew, D.J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., & Galbraith, J.I. (2002). The analysis ofinterpretation of multivariate data for social scientists. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman

and Hall/CRC.









Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

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.

Frakes, L. (1984). Differences in music achievement, academic achievement and attitude among

participants, dropouts and non-participants in secondary school music. Unpublished PhD thesis,

University of Iowa.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New York,

NY: Basic Books.

Gergen, M.M., & Gergen, K.J. (2000). Qualitative enquiry: Tensions and transformations. In

N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025–1046).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gordon, E.E. (1979). Primary measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.

Gordon, E.E. (1982). Intermediate measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.

Gordon, E.E. (1989a). Advanced measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.

Gordon, E.E. (1989b). Audie: A game for understanding and analysing your child’s musical

potential. Chicago, IL: 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 meta-cognition in musicians: Implications for

education. The British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27–39.

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.

Nunnally, J.O. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill.

Revesz, G. (1953). Introduction to the Psychology of Music. London: Longmans.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Seashore, C.E., Lewis, L., & Saetveit, J.G. (1960). Seashore measures of musical talents. New

York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.

Shuter-Dyson, R. (1999). Musical ability. In D. Deutsch (Ed.). The Psychology of Music (pp.

627–651). New York, NY: 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.

Tabachik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn

and Bacon.

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, NY: Teachers College Press.

Webster, P.R. (1988). New perspectives on music aptitude and achievement.

Psychomusicology, 7(2), 177–194.

Wertsch, J.V. (1988). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Williamon, A. (1999). The value of performing from memory. Psychology of Music, 27,

84–95.

Williamon, A., & 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.

Young, W.T. (1971). The role of musical aptitude, intelligence and academic achievement in

predicting the musical attainment of elementary instrumental music students. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 14, 385–398.

Zurcher, W.Z. (1972). The effects of model-supportive practice on beginning brass instrumentalists.

Unpublished EdD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

S U S A N HA L L AM is Professor of Education at the Institute of Education, University of London

and currently Dean of the Faculty of Policy and Society. She is the author of several books

including Instrumental Teaching: A Practical Guide to Better Teaching and Learning (1998), The

Power of Music (2001), Music Psychology in Education (2005), and co-editor of The Oxford

Handbook of Psychology of Music (2009). She is past editor of Psychology of Music, Psychology of

Education Review and Learning Matters.Address: Institute of Education, University of London 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, UK.

[email: [email protected]]

Documents

Conceptions of Musical Ability