Factors Influencing Listener Preference for Music Therapistsâ•Ž
Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2014 Factors Influencing Listener Preference for Music Therapists' Performances of Familiar Popular Songs Chelsea Chason
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF MUSIC
FACTORS INFLUENCING LISTENER PREFERENCE
FOR MUSIC THERAPISTS’ PERFORMANCES
OF FAMILIAR POPULAR SONGS
By
CHELSEA CHASON
A Thesis submitted to the College of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2014 Chelsea Chason defended this thesis on April 17, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were:
John Geringer Professor Directing Thesis
Dianne Gregory Committee Member
Jayne Standley Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my professors, Dr. Jayne Standley, Dr. Clifford Madsen, Dr. Alice-
Ann Darrow, and Professor Dianne Gregory for their knowledge, leadership, inspiration, and encouragement. A special thanks goes to Dr. John Geringer who has overseen this research project, offering valuable guidance and support. Thank you also to Eitaro Kawaguchi, for his expertise in recording and editing the musical excerpts used in the study. A very special thank you to the four music therapists who allowed me record their renditions of popular songs for use in my survey—thank you for lending your voices to this investigation. Thank you also to the students who volunteered to complete my survey, and their professors for allowing me to recruit research participants during their classes. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, my friends, music and music therapy colleagues, and coworkers for allowing me to vent and brainstorm while they listened, and for offering me all the encouragement and support I could ever need.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... viii Abstract ...... ix 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose of Study ...... 1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 3 Music Preferences ...... 3 Influence of listener’s background and experience ...... 3 Preferences for popular music ...... 4 Listener Discrimination and Music Preference...... 5 Patient Preferred Music in Music Therapy ...... 6 Live versus Recorded Music ...... 7 Music Competency in Music Therapy ...... 8 Rationale for Study ...... 10 Research Questions ...... 10
3. METHOD ...... 12 Recruitment of Participants...... 12 Survey ...... 12 Song selection ...... 13 Recording of music therapist performances ...... 14 Procedure ...... 14
4. RESULTS ...... 16 Participant Data ...... 16 Data Analysis for Research Question One...... 17 Data Analysis for Research Question Two ...... 23 Data Analysis for Research Question Three ...... 24 Data Analysis for Research Question Four ...... 27
iv
Data Analysis for Research Question Five ...... 28 5. DISCUSSION ...... 30 Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Research...... 31 Differences from music therapy settings ...... 31 Study design ...... 32 Conclusions ...... 33
APPENDICES A Text of Web-Based Survey ...... 35 B Song Selection Survey and Results...... 41 D Performer Background Information ...... 46 E Text Responses to Survey Questions ...... 47 F Text Response Analysis Categories ...... 51 G IRB Approval Memo and Participant Consent ...... 52
REFERENCES ...... 55
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 60
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participants’ ages ...... 16
Table 2: Frequency of participants responses to questions about music experiences ...... 17
Table 3: Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, video and audio-only conditions combined...... 18
Table 4: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/ performance elements for the first performance of “The Climb,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 19
Table 5: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “The Climb,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 19
Table 6: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Don’t Stop Believing,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 20
Table 7: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Don’t Stop Believing,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 20
Table 8: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Firework,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 21
Table 9: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Firework,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 21
Table 10: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Hey Jude,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 22
Table 11: Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Hey Jude,” video and audio-only conditions combined ...... 22
Table 12: Means and standard deviations of overall preference for participants with differing levels of experience in private lessons ...... 24
Table13: Means and standard deviations of overall preference for participants with differing levels of experience in music ensembles or groups ...... 24
vi
Table 14: Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported familiarity with alternate versions of a familiar popular song ...... 25
Table 15: Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported familiarity with the original recorded version of a familiar popular song ...... 26
Table 16: Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported preference for the original recorded version of a familiar popular song ...... 26
Table 17: Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants who rated audio- only or audio-video performances of a familiar popular songs ...... 27
Table 18: Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, audio only condition ...... 27
Table 19: Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, video condition...... 28
Table 20: Songs chosen in song selection survey ...... 42
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Frequency of participants’ answers to questions about music listening ...... 17
Figure 2: Frequency with which different musical elements were found to have the highest three or lowest three correlation scores (r), across eight different performances ...... 23
Figure 3: Participants’ responses to the question “How familiar are you with the original recorded version of this song?” ...... 25
Figure 4: Participants’ responses to the question “What do you think of the recorded version of this song?” ...... 26
Figure 5: Frequency of positive, negative, and neutral/unknown text responses, by category .....29
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate factors that may influence listener preference for familiar popular songs as they might be performed live by music therapists. Participants, who were college undergrads (N = 86) enrolled in music appreciation courses, completed a web-based survey in which they rated their overall preference for video or audio excerpts of music therapists performing familiar popular songs, as well as their perceptions of performers’ musical skills and ability to match the original artists’ recordings of the same songs. Listeners’ responses were analyzed to find correlations between ratings of overall preference and other performance elements. Results indicate that the strongest correlations with preference were found for ratings of performers’ overall musical skill, singing skill, and musical expressiveness, while the lowest correlations were found for match of lyrics, match of rhythmic style, and match of accompaniment style. These results suggested that in preparing live music for use in music therapy settings, therapists may be more effective by focusing on musical skills, especially singing and expressiveness, rather than seeking to emulate rhythmic or stylistic elements from the original recording of a song.
ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Music therapists use patient preferred live music with patients or clients for a variety of reasons: to build rapport with clients, to reduce pain, stress, and anxiety, to increase relaxation, to introduce and facilitate discussions of counseling topics, to structure interventions, and to motivate clients to progress towards a wide variety of clinical outcomes. Research and clinical training support that live performance of a patient or client’s preferred music is often most effective in music therapy interventions. However, with the staggering amount of music available to listeners today, the likelihood is quite small that a music therapist will know every client’s favorite songs well enough to perform live. Music therapists focus on learning a wide variety of music from various genres and eras with the goal of having at least one song that could meet the preferences of a given client in a moment’s notice. Even if the therapist knows a favorite song, the client most likely knows and prefers a familiar recording of the song.
Popular music, the preferred music of many music therapy clients, is almost always heard in a recorded format. Listeners are accustomed to the recorded versions of the songs, which contain many musical elements that a solo performer cannot easily reproduce (for example, multi-instrumental arrangements, vocal harmonies, or electronic backing tracks). Even in a song with a simpler arrangement, listeners are accustomed to hearing a favorite artist’s distinct instrumental and vocal inflections and timbres. Are listeners likely to overlook these differences when listening to a music therapist’s unfamiliar rendition of a familiar favorite song?
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the way several factors influence listeners’ stated preference for popular songs as they might be performed by music therapists in music therapy
1 settings. The study will investigate how listener preference for a music therapist’s performance is affected by the listener’s perceptions of the performer’s skill, sincerity, and how well the musical elements of the performance match the familiar popular recording of the same song. The study will also take into account participants’ musical backgrounds and familiarity with popular recorded music. The main objective of the study is to determine what aspects of a music therapist’s performance are most important in determining whether or not the listener likes the performance, since listener-preferred music is more effective in music therapy interventions.
2
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Music Preferences
For the purposes of this study, preference is the act of choosing, esteeming, or giving advantage to one thing over another-- that is, having propensity toward something (Price, 1986).
At the most basic level, music preference is a question of whether a listener likes or dislikes a performance or piece of music at any given point in time. Musical preference is determined by a complex interaction of multiple factors. LeBlanc’s (1982) model of music preference outlined these factors in an 8-level hierarchy that considered properties of the musical stimuli, social and cultural influences, and the listener’s personal experiences, perceptions, and cognitive process in determining listener preference for a single musical experience. Berlyne (1971) and Walker
(1980) examined the relationship between music complexity and listener preference, suggesting that the relationship can be represented as an inverted U-shaped curve, where each listener has an optimal level of complexity. Further research has explored the influence of other factors on music preference, including individual personality traits (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Kopacz,
2005), the influence of emotion and meaningfulness (Schubert, 2007; Craig, 2009), and the relationship to how well the music fulfills the needs of the listener in response to various possible functions of music (Schafer & Sedlmeier, 2009, 2010).
Influence of listener’s background and experience
Individual differences in listeners’ backgrounds, including levels of musical training and experience were found to have an effect on musical preferences. Factors including age, home country, and gender were found to have effects on listening preferences, though the interaction of multiple factors were too complex to make any useful generalizations (LeBlanc, Jin, Stamou, &
3
McCrary, 1999). No substantial differences were found in aesthetic responsiveness between musicians and non-musicians (Madsen, Byrnes, Capperella-Sheldon, & Brittin, 1993). However, individuals with musical training were found to have greater preferences for non-popular styles of music, including jazz and western art music (Gregory, 1994; Ginocchio, 2009).
Preferences for popular music
Although much of the research on music preference focuses on western art music, one need only to peruse current Billboard charts to realize that popular music is preferred by the majority of listeners—as a sort of tautology, popular music is the most popular music. In a survey of over two thousand subjects across all age groups, listeners had a higher preference for rock music over jazz and western art music (LeBlanc, Sims, Siivola, & Obert, 1996). Holbrook and Schindler reported that most listeners over age 24 had developed a taste for pop music
(1989). North and Hargreaves found that popular songs were rated higher for preference and for artistic merit when compared to critically acclaimed ‘art pop’ songs (1998).
As to questions of why listeners prefer pop music, Boyle, Hosterman, and Ramsey (1981) had young listeners rate their reasons for liking their favorite pop songs. In order of most relevant to least relevant factors in determining preference, respondents cited: 1) melody 2) mood 3) rhythm 4) lyrics 5) instruments 6) sentiment 7) harmony 8) singer or group 9) radio exposure 10) dance-ability and 11) peer influence. Other research (Alpert, 1982; Webster &
Hamilton, 1981/1982) suggested that peer influence may have a stronger effect than listeners may realize or admit, especially for young people.
Familiarity could also be a large part of the reason that pop music is most preferred, as popular music is ubiquitous in western culture. Research has shown that repetition and familiarity are very important factors in determining a listener’s preference (Bradley, 1971; Getz,
4
1996; Peretz, Gaudreau, & Bonnel, 1998). In studies of preferences for world music, familiarity was found to increase listener preferences in both children (Demorest & Schultz, 2004) and college-aged students (Fung, 1996). In fact, Demorest and Schultz found that familiarity, both of specific pieces and of western style arrangements of world music songs, may have influenced children’s preferences for arranged versions of songs over more stylistically authentic versions.
Listener Discrimination and Music Preference
As discussed above, music preferences are determined by extra-musical attributes, including listeners’ social, cultural, or musical background and life experiences. These factors are in play before the listener even hears the musical stimuli in question. However, properties of the musical stimuli are also important in determining preference. The research literature reflects that listeners are able to perceive and discriminate differences in various musical elements, and that this discrimination in musical perception can influence preferences.
In light of the above findings that familiar music is usually most preferred, it is important to note that listeners with and without musical training are surprisingly adept at recognizing deviations from the expected in familiar music stimuli. Both musicians and non-musicians were able to detect deviations in tempo and pitch in recorded versions of familiar songs in orchestral and popular styles (Geringer & Madsen, 1984, 1987). It was found that subjects with and without musical backgrounds seemed to have long-term memory of absolute pitch and tempo for familiar recorded pop songs (Levitin, 1994; Levitin & Cook, 1996). These studies demonstrate that listeners often come to associate preferred popular songs with a definitive familiar recording, and they have shown marked preferences for the original un-altered versions of familiar songs
(Geringer & Madsen, 1987).
5
In addition to recognizing deviations from what is expected in familiar music, listeners have been found to discriminate based on other aspects of musical stimuli. Researchers have investigated listeners’ abilities to discriminate based on tone quality and intonation (Geringer &
Madsen, 1981; Webster & Hamilton, 1981/1982), vocal vibrato, (Leblanc & Sherrill, 1986), tempo and accompaniment style (Brittin, 2000).
Listener preference may also be influenced by non-musical elements of a performance that are not acoustical properties of the musical stimulus. Research has found that a performer’s gender (LeBlanc & Sherrill, 1986; Millar, 2008), race (McCrary, 1993), physical attractiveness, dress, and stage behavior (Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 1998), or even perceived humor in song lyrics (LeBlanc, Sims, Malin, & Sherrill, 1992) can have effects on listeners’ evaluations of performances and ratings of overall preference.
Patient Preferred Music in Music Therapy
In Standley’s 2000 meta-analysis of music research in medical treatment settings, studies using patient preferred live music demonstrated the greatest effect size (ES=1.40, d=30), while those using live music presented by a trained music therapist also showed a reasonably large effect size (ES= 1.13, n=16). The largest effects were shown for improvement in grasp strength following stroke, perceived effectiveness of music, EMG, self-reported reduction in pain, relaxation, and reduction of anxiety. Pelletier’s 2004 meta-analysis supported the use of music with various relaxation techniques to reduce arousal due to stress and anxiety. In this analysis, preferred relaxing music selected by patients showed a smaller effect size (ES=.51) than use of music selected by therapist or researcher (ES= .83), and subjects with music experience showed the greatest reductions in stress overall. In a more recent analysis of 50 studies dealing with the neural effects of music on emotional regulation, Moore (2013) found that desired neural
6 activation (regulation of emotion) occurred with the use of preferred and familiar music, with singing, and when musicians engaged in improvisation, while undesired activation (stress and arousal) occurred when complexity, dissonance, and unexpected musical events were introduced.
A small sample of recent studies using music in medical and psychiatric settings confirmed that patient preferred music was effective in reducing emotional distress during radiation therapy (Clark et al., 2006), reducing reported levels of pain following open heart surgery (Jafari, Zeydi, Khani, Esmaeili, & Soleimani, 2012), and reducing time needed to complete MRI scans while improving patient perception of the MRI experience (Walworth,
2010). Listening to patient preferred heavy metal music was found to increase the positive affect of adolescents in an inpatient psychiatric setting, showing that even music that is not commonly thought to be soothing can have positive effects when it is preferred by listeners (Wooten, 1992).
Preferred music was found to reduce experimentally induced pain (Mitchell & MacDonald,
2006; Perlini & Viita, 1996) and anxiety (Walworth, 2003; Jiang, Zhou, Rickson, & Jiang,
2013). Interestingly, Walworth (2003) found that songs selected by the researcher within the subject’s preferred genre and specific songs selected by subjects were both effective in reducing anxiety, with no significant difference in effects for music selected by the researcher or the research subject.
Live verses Recorded Music
Comparison of the effects of live and recorded music have shown live music to be somewhat more effective in achieving various desired clinical outcomes. In patients undergoing
MRI scans, the music therapist’s live performance of preferred music was more effective than recorded music performed by the original artists (Walworth, 2010). Harmon (2011) reported inconclusive results in comparisons between the effects of live music, recordings of therapist, or
7 recordings of original artists on participation and behavior states of adults with dementia, though levels of participation (hand and foot tapping) were slightly higher during both live performance and recordings by the original artist. When compared to recorded music, live music was found to be more effective in eliciting alert behavior states in non-responsive hospice patients (Segall,
2007).
Although it is acknowledged that it is important to use patient preferred music in therapy, outside of song selection there is little discussion of how music elements may influence patient preference of live performances. Groene (2001) compared the effects of simple vs. complex guitar accompaniment and live vs. recorded performances of familiar songs on the attentional and responsive behaviors of older adults with dementia, finding that patients appeared to pay more attention to live performances with complex accompaniment. In his discussion of the results of a survey of music therapists using lyric analysis interventions in mental health settings,
Silverman (2009) suggested that although it is suggested that music therapists use live music whenever possible, “it has been the author’s experience that some songs do not translate well to a live performance on solo acoustic guitar” ( p. 53). According to Standley & Jones, (2007) “In order for the client’s objective to be successfully reached, the music therapist must have selected a relevant song and recreated the song in a musically sophisticated manner” (p. 223).
Music Competency in Music Therapy
The American Music Therapy Association (AMTA) is an organization dedicated to the support of the music therapy profession through the advancement of music therapy research, education, training, professional standards, and credentials. The AMTA has listed the following basic music competencies for music therapists: the abilities to lead and accompany proficiently on instruments including, but not limited to, voice, piano, guitar, and percussion, to play basic
8 chord progressions in several major and minor keys with varied accompaniment patterns, to play and sing a basic repertoire of traditional, folk, and popular songs with and without printed music, and to sing in tune with a pleasing quality and adequate volume both with accompaniment and a cappella (American Music Therapy Association, 2014). The Certification Board for Music
Therapists has made very little mention of music skills in the Scope of Practice, stating only that music therapists must employ functional skills with voice, keyboard, guitar, and percussion, and suggesting that professional development should include the expansion of music skills
(Certification Board for Music Therapists, 2014).
Competency assessments for music therapy students specify that music therapy performances should be free of wrong notes and unpleasant sounds, vocals should be in tune with a pleasing quality, and guitar accompaniment should be smooth and maintain a steady beat
(Standley & Jones, 2007). Gregory and Belgrave (2006) identified basic requisite guitar accompaniment skills for music therapists and a method for evaluating the development of these skills. No mention was made of attempts to emulate stylistic elements of the original/popular recording of a song, though another proposed evaluation instrument, the Guitar Songleading
Performance Scale, did rate expressive quality and overall aesthetic affect in a performance
(Silverman, 2011).
In summary, live patient-preferred music is shown by the research to be effective in music therapy interventions, especially those to reduce pain and anxiety, or increase positive affect. Music therapists are expected to have the music competencies to sing and play guitar accompaniment for live versions of a wide variety of patient preferred songs in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
9
Rationale for Study
This review of literature demonstrates that even though research has shown that listener preference for music is based on listeners’ abilities to perceive and discriminate based on differences in musical stimuli, there is a lack of research into how music therapy patients and potential patients evaluate and respond to musical elements of music therapists’ live renditions of familiar popular songs. The purpose of this study is to explore the way several factors influence listeners’ stated preference for popular songs as they might be performed by music therapists in music therapy settings. The study will investigate how listener preference for a music therapist’s performance is affected by the listener’s perceptions of the performer’s musical skills, sincerity, and confidence, as well as how closely the musical elements of the performance match the familiar popular recording of the same song. The study will also take into account participants’ musical backgrounds and familiarity with popular recorded music. The main objective of the study is to determine what aspects of a music therapist’s performance are most important in determining whether or not the listener likes the performance, since listener-preferred music is more effective in music therapy interventions.
Research Questions
This study will attempt to answer the following research questions about how listeners and potential music therapy patients respond to a music therapist’s performance of a popular song as it might be performed in a music therapy session:
1) Which rated performance elements have the strongest relationship to listeners’ ratings of
overall preference for music therapists’ performances of familiar popular songs?
2) Will listeners’ musical backgrounds and music experience levels have a significant effect
on their rated preferences for familiar popular songs performed by music therapists?
10
3) Will listeners’ familiarity with a recorded version or alternate renditions of a familiar
song have a significant influence on their rated preferences for music therapist
performances of the same song? Will listeners’ familiarity with alternate renditions of a
familiar popular song have a significant effect on their rated preference of music
therapists’ performances of the same song?
4) Will listeners who see videos of music therapists performing familiar popular songs have
significantly different ratings of overall preference from those who hear an audio-only
version of the same performance?
5) What do participants like most and/or least about music therapists’ renditions of familiar
popular songs?
11
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Recruitment of Participants
Participants were undergraduate students at Florida State University who were enrolled in music appreciation courses for non-music majors (two sections of ‘Music in Popular Culture, and one section of ‘American Roots Music’). Prospective participants were approached by the researcher during regular class meeting time, with the permission of the class instructors. One hundred sixty-two students submitted an email address in order to receive a hyperlink to the web-based survey. Of these, 91 began the survey, and 86 submitted usable responses. Criteria for inclusion stipulated that participants were at least 18 years of age and enrolled in undergraduate courses at Florida State University. Survey responses were included in the study only when participants agreed to consent to participate, completed survey questions about personal and musical background, and completed questions for at least one performance. Partial responses were included for respondents who left some questions blank, unless respondents failed to answer questions about overall preference for the performance.
Survey
A web-based survey (see Appendix A) was created by the researcher using the website
Qualtrics.com. Participants were asked to complete the web-based survey on a personal computer equipped with personal earphones. The survey prompted each participant to choose their favorite/most familiar song from a list of four popular songs. The survey contained an embedded video or audio excerpt of two performances of two different music therapists performing the song selected by the participant. The participants completed a questionnaire with
13 seven-point Likert-type scales to rate the following: 1) their own preference for each of the
12 performances they watched, 2) their perception of the performer’s musical skills (overall musical skill, singing skill, sound quality of voice, guitar skill, and musical expressiveness), confidence, and sincerity, and 3) how closely musical elements ( rhythmic style, singing style, musical accompaniment style, lyrics, and overall mood) of the performance matched their memory of a familiar recording of the same song. Optional text entry fields allowed participants to make comments on what they liked most and/or least about each performance, and comments on how they thought the performance did or did not match the familiar/original recording of the same song. Participants also answered questions about their level of familiarity with recorded versions of the song selection, and a brief survey on their own musical background and music listening habits.
Song selection
The songs used in the survey were selected based on an informal survey of music therapists about which songs they use most often in music therapy sessions with young adult clients (see Appendix B for survey questions and anonymous responses). This informal web- based survey was created using Qualtrics.com, and distributed through the researcher’s online social network, and through a national music therapy listserv, a LISTPROC mailing list hosted on a Unix server at the University of Kansas. The most commonly listed songs were selected for possible inclusion in this study. This list was modified to accommodate the song repertoire of the music therapists who agreed to participate in the creation of recordings for use in the study.
The songs selected for use in the study were: “The Climb” by Miley Cyrus, “Don’t Stop
Believing” by Journey, “Firework” by Katy Perry, and “Hey Jude” by The Beatles.
13
Recording of music therapist performances
Music therapists who were current or former post-graduate students at Florida State
University were recruited to perform in recordings to be embedded in the web-based survey. A total of four music therapist performers were used (see Appendix C for music and music therapy backgrounds of performers). Performers were assigned to play songs with which they were already familiar. The researcher requested that the performers not focus on creating a perfect and polished rendition of the song, rather that they perform the song as they would play for a client.
Two different recordings were made of each of the four songs included in the study, using different performers on each of the two renditions. The songs were recorded in a medium sized recital hall in the college of music, with only the researcher, a recording technician, and a faculty adviser present in addition to each individual performer. A Zoom H2 digital audio recorder was used to record audio, and a Sony DCR-SR200 video camera was used to record the video. The audio and video were edited together, and a black screen replaced the video of the performance for the audio-only condition. The exact same audio was used in both conditions. Excerpts were uploaded to a private channel on youtube.com, and then embedded in the web-based survey.
Procedure
The researcher obtained permission from the University’s IRB to recruit students as research subjects (see Appendix F). Participants were approached by the researcher during regular class meeting times, with the permission of the class professors. The researcher spoke to
3 separate classes in order to recruit participants for the web-based survey. The researcher provided a brief verbal description of music therapy and a description of the study, and then collected the email addresses of students who volunteered to participate in the study. An email with a link to the web-based survey was sent all participants (N=162). The email included a brief
14 description of the study, instructions and conditions for completing the survey, contact information for the principal investigator, faculty adviser, and Florida State University’s Human
Subjects Committee, and a hyperlink to the survey. The email advised that participation was voluntary, there would be no compensation for participation, and there would be no penalty for withdrawing participation. It was stated that consent was implied upon completion of the survey.
The survey was open for four weeks, and during this time participants received two reminder emails containing the hyperlink to the survey.
Participants were randomly assigned to either the audio-only, or the audio-video condition, and were sent the hyperlink to the corresponding survey. The surveys were identical with the exception that the audio-video condition displayed a video of the performance, while the audio-only condition used the same audio, but displayed a black screen. Participants were prompted to select one of the four available songs. They were asked to choose the song that they liked best, or in the event that they did not particularly like any of the songs, to choose the song that was most familiar. The web-based surveys were configured to display the song choices in random order, as well as to randomize the order in which the two performances were displayed, and randomize the order of questions following each performance.
15
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS Participant Data Participants were students enrolled in music appreciation courses (2 sections of Music in
Popular Culture, and 1 section of American Roots Music) for undergraduate non-music majors at
Florida State University. Of the participants who returned a usable web-based survey (N=86), 50 were female and 36 were male (58% female, 42% male). Participants’ ages ranged from 18-32 years (M=19.1 years), with 85% between the ages of 18 and 20 (see Table 1)
Table 1
Participants’ ages.
Age Frequency Percentage
18 41 48% 19 21 24% 20 11 13% 21 9 10% 22 1 1% 26 1 1% 32 1 1% No Response 1 1%
Most participants were not music majors (n=81, 94% non-music majors vs. n=5, 6% music majors), though participants had varying levels of music experience in private lessons or participation in music ensembles as illustrated in Table 2. A majority of participants (64%) responded to a question asking them to list their primary musical instrument or voice, while 36% did not indicate whether they played an instrument or sang.
A large majority of participants reported that they often choose to listen to music in their daily lives, and that they often have a song or a part of a song stuck in their heads (Figure 1).
16
Most participants (79%) reported that they consider music to be a very important part of their lives, with 20% reporting that music is somewhat important and only 1% reporting that music is not an important part of daily life.
Table 2
Frequency of participants’ responses to questions about music experiences.
Level of Experience Music Lessons Experience in Music Ensembles (% of Total) (% of Total)
Never 21 (24%) 24 (28%) Less Than 1 Year 13 (15%) 8 (9%) 1-2 Years 15 (18%) 10 (12%) 3-5 Years 15 (18%) 18 (21%) 6-10 Years 13 (15%) 18 (21%) 10+ Years 9 (10%) 8 (9%)
44 Very Often 64 Quite Often 31 20 How often do you have a song "stuck 11 in your head"? Sometimes 2 How often do you choose to listen to Rarely music? Never
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 1: Frequency of participants’ answers to questions about music listening.
Data Analyses for Research Question One
Which performance elements have the strongest relationship to listeners’ ratings of overall preference for music therapists’ performances of familiar popular songs?
A composite of the correlations between overall preference ratings and ratings of performance qualities for all performances of all songs combined can be found in Table 3.
17
Table 3
Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, video and audio-only conditions combined
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 3.22 1.46 171 Musical Skill* .64 10.87 <.001 3.88 1.32 170 Singing Skill* .60 9.84 <.001 3.16 1.52 170 Sound Quality of Voice* .47 6.93 <.001 3.49 1.49 170 Guitar Skill* .51 7.70 <.001 4.16 1.34 171 Expressiveness* .54 8.22 <.001 3.72 1.50 170 Sincerity* .49 7.21 <.001 3.81 1.43 171 Confidence* .37 5.19 <.001 4.11 1.51 170 Match of Rhythmic Style .21 2.73 =.001 3.81 1.58 171 Match of Singing Style* .50 7.57 <.001 2.99 1.47 170 Match of Accomp. Style* .33 4.60 <.001 3.33 1.41 171 Match of Lyrics .06 .72 >.45 5.86 1.32 170 Match of Mood* .51 7.79 <.001 3.18 1.54 170
Spearman Correlations between participants’ ratings of overall preference and ratings of each of 12 performance qualities for all eight performances of the four songs can be found in
Tables 4-11. There was some agreement about which performance elements had the strongest and weakest correlations with overall preference across the different performances. A composite of the 3 highest and 3 lowest correlations for each individual performance can be found in Figure
2. Across the eight separate performances that were rated by participants, the strongest correlations were found most frequently between overall preference and performer’s skill as singer, overall musical skill, and expressiveness. The weakest correlations were found most frequently between ratings of overall preference and match of lyrics, match of rhythmic style, and match of accompaniment style. In general it appears that evaluations of the performer’s musical skills, and especially vocal skill, were more strongly related to ratings of overall
18 preference than were evaluations of how well the performance matched the familiar original recording of the same song.
Table 4
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “The Climb,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 2.91 1.30 11 Musical Skill .39 1.25 .24 3.36 1.03 11 Singing Skill .50 1.74 .12 3.00 .89 11 Sound Quality of Voice* .90 6.15 <.001 3.27 1.10 11 Guitar Skill -.04 -.13 .90 3.18 1.08 11 Expressiveness .34 1.07 .31 2.91 1.38 11 Sincerity .73 3.18 .01 3.09 1.30 11 Confidence .23 .71 .50 2.73 1.28 11 Match of Rhythmic Style .08 .24 .82 3.82 2.14 11 Match of Singing Style .05 .16 .88 3.64 1.86 11 Match of Accomp. Style .25 .76 .47 3.18 1.33 11 Match of Lyrics .43 1.43 .19 5.91 1.81 11 Match of Mood .28 .84 .43 3.00 1.63 10
Table 5
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “The Climb,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 2.55 .93 11 Musical Skill .57 2.07 .07 3.55 1.13 11 Singing Skill .40 1.30 .23 3.00 1.27 11 Sound Quality of Voice .40 1.29 .23 3.27 1.79 11 Guitar Skill .03 .09 .93 4.46 1.29 11 Expressiveness .28 .88 .40 3.18 1.25 11 Sincerity .17 .53 .61 3.46 1.21 11 Confidence -.06 -.20 .85 4.09 1.45 11 Match of Rhythmic Style -.05 -.15 .88 3.36 1.75 11 Match of Singing Style .40 1.31 .22 2.64 1.75 11 Match of Accomp. Style -.24 -.75 .47 3.36 .92 11 Match of Lyrics 0 .01 .99 5.36 1.57 11 Match of Mood .05 .16 .88 3.18 1.40 11
19
Table 6
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Don’t Stop Believing,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 2.56 1.53 27 Musical Skill .54 3.18 .004 4.22 1.58 27 Singing Skill .43 2.38 .03 3.85 1.98 27 Sound Quality of Voice .41 2.27 .03 4.00 1.69 27 Guitar Skill .46 2.59 .02 4.26 1.23 27 Expressiveness .48 2.74 .01 4.41 1.39 27 Sincerity .33 1.76 .09 4.04 1.32 27 Confidence .26 1.36 .19 4.93 1.33 27 Match of Rhythmic Style .30 1.58 .13 3.26 1.48 27 Match of Singing Style .59 3.70 .001 2.33 1.36 27 Match of Accomp. Style .41 2.22 .04 2.78 1.40 27 Match of Lyrics -.13 -.65 .52 5.96 1.13 27 Match of Mood* .62 3.92 <.001 2.56 1.37 27
Table 7
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Don’t Stop Believing,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 3.67 1.36 27 Musical Skill* .73 5.19 <.001 3.89 1.21 26 Singing Skill* .75 5.59 <.001 3.35 1.20 26 Sound Quality of Voice .57 3.47 .002 3.33 1.24 27 Guitar Skill* .72 5.15 <.001 4.37 1.04 27 Expressiveness .57 3.45 .002 3.44 1.58 27 Sincerity* .66 4.44 <.001 4.00 1.14 27 Confidence* .61 3.80 <.001 4.19 1.30 27 Match of Rhythmic Style .47 2.67 .013 4.22 1.31 27 Match of Singing Style .35 1.88 .072 3.22 1.40 27 Match of Accomp. Style .44 2.45 .022 3.56 1.40 27 Match of Lyrics .33 1.73 .096 6.12 .99 26 Match of Mood* .64 4.12 <.001 3.30 1.49 27
20
Table 8
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Firework,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 3.50 1.51 16 Musical Skill* .79 4.87 <.001 4.38 1.26 16 Singing Skill* .83 5.62 <.001 3.13 1.50 16 Sound Quality of Voice* .82 5.45 <.001 3.81 1.60 16 Guitar Skill* .78 4.68 <.001 4.94 1.65 16 Expressiveness* .82 5.16 <.001 3.73 1.49 15 Sincerity .69 3.54 .003 3.75 1.44 16 Confidence* .84 5.71 <.001 4.00 1.37 16 Match of Rhythmic Style .31 1.22 .24 3.88 1.63 16 Match of Singing Style .70 3.69 .002 2.94 1.57 16 Match of Accomp. Style .28 1.07 .30 3.25 1.44 16 Match of Lyrics .01 .04 .97 5.94 1.44 16 Match of Mood .67 3.33 .005 3.13 1.36 16
Table 9
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Firework,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD N
Overall Preference 3.06 1.57 16 Musical Skill .70 3.65 .003 4.00 1.37 16 Singing Skill .66 3.30 .005 2.63 1.15 16 Sound Quality of Voice .47 1.97 .07 3.19 1.28 16 Guitar Skill .51 2.20 .05 4.88 1.54 16 Expressiveness .62 2.98 .01 4.25 1.48 16 Sincerity .47 1.98 .68 4.19 1.38 16 Confidence .54 2.43 .03 4.81 1.68 16 Match of Rhythmic Style .27 1.03 .32 4.88 1.54 16 Match of Singing Style .69 3.59 .003 3.13 1.31 16 Match of Accomp. Style .15 .56 .58 4.06 1.53 16 Match of Lyrics -.02 -.07 .95 5.94 1.39 16 Match of Mood .35 1.42 .18 4.19 1.87 16
21
Table 10
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the first performance of “Hey Jude,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD N
Overall Preference 2.74 1.29 31 Musical Skill* .70 5.25 <.001 3.13 1.12 31 Singing Skill* .67 4.87 <.001 2.29 1.35 31 Sound Quality of Voice .39 2.27 .03 2.77 1.38 30 Guitar Skill* .65 4.66 <.001 3.29 1.04 31 Expressiveness* .62 4.24 <.001 2.97 1.28 31 Sincerity .21 1.18 .25 3.29 1.79 31 Confidence .26 1.43 .16 3.55 1.52 31 Match of Rhythmic Style .14 .77 .45 4.13 1.28 31 Match of Singing Style .41 2.45 .02 2.68 1.38 31 Match of Accomp. Style .36 2.05 .05 3.26 1.29 31 Match of Lyrics -.23 -1.27 .21 5.81 1.35 31 Match of Mood .52 3.28 .003 3.00 1.39 31
Table 11
Spearman Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for the second performance of “Hey Jude,” video and audio-only conditions combined.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD N
Overall Preference 4.09 1.30 32 Musical Skill* .78 6.79 <.001 4.31 1.23 32 Singing Skill* .81 7.55 <.001 3.66 1.49 32 Sound Quality of Voice* .56 3.73 <.001 4.00 1.44 32 Guitar Skill* .64 4.57 <.001 4.22 1.24 32 Expressiveness* .68 5.03 <.001 4.28 1.37 32 Sincerity .54 3.47 .002 4.16 1.37 32 Confidence* .62 4.29 <.001 4.10 1.40 31 Match of Rhythmic Style .31 1.81 .08 3.22 1.54 32 Match of Singing Style .46 2.81 .009 3.55 1.29 31 Match of Accomp. Style .34 1.95 .06 3.41 1.56 32 Match of Lyrics .06 .31 .76 5.72 1.37 32 Match of Mood* .57 3.76 <.001 3.38 1.66 32
22
0 2 4 6 8
Musical skill
Skill as singer
Sound quality of voice
Skill as guitarist
Musical expressiveness
Sincerity Highest Correlation to Preference Lowest Correlation to Preference Confidence
Match of rhythmic style
Match of singing style
Match of accompaniment style
Match of lyrics
Match of overall mood
Figure 2: Frequency with which different musical elements were found to have the highest three or lowest three correlation scores (r), across eight different performances.
Data Analysis for Research Question Two
Will listeners’ musical backgrounds and music experience levels have a significant effect on their rated preferences for familiar popular songs performed by music therapists?
Data were analyzed using a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine if participants with different levels of music experience had significantly different ratings of overall preference for the performances they heard in this study. ANOVA results showed no significant difference in ratings of preference between participants with differing levels of experience in private music lessons; F (4, 166) = 2.12, p = .08, or differing levels of experience in music ensembles or groups; F (4, 166) = 0.2, p = .94. Means and standard deviations for ratings of overall preference for differing levels of music experience can be found in Tables 12 and 13.
23
Table 12
Means and standard deviations of overall preference for participants with differing levels of experience in private lessons.
Number of Years in Private Lessons n M SD
None 42 3.67 1.36 0-2 Years 55 3.20 1.52 3-5 Years 30 2.87 1.60 6-10 Years 26 3.27 1.25 Over 10 Years 18 2.67 1.46
Table 13
Means and standard deviations of overall preference for participants with differing levels of experience in music ensembles or groups.
Number of Years in Music Ensembles or Groups n M SD
None 48 3.33 1.55 0-2 Years 35 3.17 1.29 3-5 Years 36 3.25 1.48 6-10 Years 36 3.14 1.75 Over 10 Years 16 3.00 1.75
Data Analysis for Research Question Three
Will listeners’ familiarity with alternate renditions of a familiar popular song have a significant effect on their rated preference of music therapists’ performances of the same song?
A One-Way Analysis of Variance revealed that listeners’ self-reported familiarity with alternate renditions of the familiar popular songs (see Table 14) had a significant effect on their overall preference for the performance; F (3, 167) = 2.98, p = .03. Those who reported familiarity with only one alternate rendition rated higher overall preference (M= 3.64) than those who reported familiarity with four or more renditions (M= 2.61). Analyses of variance were not significant for different levels of familiarity with the original recording of the song, F (3, 167) =
24
.45, p = .72, or for different levels of preference for the familiar original recorded version of the song, F (3, 167) = 1.15, p = .33. Participants’ reported levels of familiarity and preference for the original recorded version of the song can be found in Figures 3 and 4. Means and standard deviations for overall preference for listeners with differing levels of familiarity and preference for the original recorded version of the song can be found in Tables 15 and 16.
Table 14
Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported familiarity with alternate versions of a familiar popular song.
Number of Alternate Song Versions Known by n M SD Participants
None 41 3.37 1.51 One other version 46 3.61 1.39 2-3 other versions 66 3.00 1.39 4 or more other versions 18 2.61 1.58
50.00% 45.35% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.58% 25.00% 20.00% 16.28% Percentage of Responses 15.00% 10.00% 5.81% 5.81% 5.00% 1.16% 0.00% 0.00% 1- Not at 2 3 4 5 6 7- Very All Much
Figure 3: Participants response to the question “How familiar are you with the original recorded version of this song?”
25
60.00% 55.81%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00% Percentage of Responses 20.93% 20.00%
10.00% 8.14% 6.98% 4.65% 1.16% 1.16% 0.00% 1-Dislike 2 3 4 5 6 7- Like
Figure 4: Participants response to the question “What do you think of the recorded version of this song?”
Table 15
Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported familiarity with the original recorded version of a familiar popular song.
Likert-Scale rating of Familiarity n M SD
4 or lower (Not Familiar) 22 2.95 1.36 5 27 3.11 1.45 6 44 3.18 1.32 7 (Very Familiar) 78 3.33 1.58
Table 16
Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants with differing levels of self-reported preference for the original recorded version of a familiar popular song.
Likert-Scale Rating of Preference n M SD
4 or lower (Dislike) 26 2.88 1.21 5 12 3.75 1.48 6 37 3.08 1.55 7 ( Like) 96 3.28 1.48
26
Data Analysis for Research Question Four
Will listeners’ who see videos of music therapists performing familiar popular songs have significantly different ratings of overall preference from those who hear an audio-only version of the same performance?
A One-Way Analysis of Variance showed no significant difference between audio-only and audio-video conditions F (1, 169) = 0.01, p = .92. Table 17 shows the means and standard deviations for participants’ ratings of preference for audio-only and audio-video conditions.
Table 17
Means and standard deviations for overall preference for participants who rated audio-only or audio-video performances of a familiar popular song.
Audio/ Video Condition n M SD
Audio-Only 87 3.22 1.58 Audio-Video 84 3.20 1.34
Correlations between preference ratings and all other music and performance elements can be seen for the audio-only condition in Table 18, and for the audio-video condition in Table
19.
Table 18
Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, audio only condition.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 3.22 1.58 87 Musical Skill .66 8.12 <.001 3.76 1.35 86 Singing Skill .65 7.85 <.001 3.16 1.51 87 Sound Quality of Voice .53 5.70 <.001 3.56 1.44 87
27
Table 18 - continued
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Guitar Skill .46 4.73 <.001 4.05 1.39 87 Expressiveness .57 6.44 <.001 3.77 1.59 87 Sincerity .55 6.14 <.001 3.91 1.48 87 Confidence .38 3.83 <.001 4.10 1.59 87 Match of Rhythmic Style .28 2.65 .01 3.70 1.46 87 Match of Singing Style .53 5.70 <.001 2.90 1.39 87 Match of Accomp. Style .25 2.41 .02 3.40 1.43 87 Match of Lyrics .07 .65 .52 5.65 1.35 86 Match of Mood .50 5.23 <.001 3.13 1.49 86
Table 19
Correlation between ratings of overall preference and music/performance elements for all performances of all songs, video condition.
Ratings r t p (2-tail) M SD n
Overall Preference 3.20 1.34 84 Musical Skill* .63 7.34 <.001 4.01 1.29 84 Singing Skill* .56 6.04 <.001 3.16 1.53 83 Sound Quality of Voice* .42 4.13 <.001 3.41 1.55 83 Guitar Skill* .59 6.54 <.001 4.27 1.29 84 Expressiveness* .49 5.08 <.001 3.62 1.44 84 Sincerity* .40 3.93 <.001 3.70 1.38 84 Confidence .36 3.42 .001 4.12 1.42 83 Match of Rhythmic Style .14 1.27 .21 3.93 1.70 84 Match of Singing Style* .45 4.51 <.001 3.05 1.57 84 Match of Accomp. Style* .44 4.39 <.001 3.26 1.39 84 Match of Lyrics .04 .36 .72 6.08 1.25 84 Match of Mood* .55 5.90 <.001 3.24 1.61 84
Data Analysis for Research Question Five
What do listeners like most and/or least about music therapists’ performances of familiar popular songs?
28
Listeners were given the opportunity to answer the following optional open-ended questions within the web-based survey: 1) What do you like most about this performance? 2)
What do like least about this performance? 3) Please share any additional comments on how the performance you just heard matched or did not match the familiar recording of the song.
Appendix D shows participants’ full test responses to these optional questions. These responses were sorted into 15 possible content categories (see Appendix E) and analyzed as being positive, negative, or neutral. Fifteen responses were tested for reliability with an independent music educator, and an agreement of 77% was found between this observer and the primary investigator. Analysis of participants’ text responses to optional, open-ended questions can be found represented graphically in Figure 5.
35 32 30 25 20 14 15 12 11 11 9 9 10 8 6 6 7 7 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 Numberof Mentions Text in Responses
Categories of Performance Qualities
Positive Negative Neutral/Unknown
Figure 5: Frequency of positive, negative, and neutral/unknown text responses, by category.
29
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that in determining young adults’ overall preference for a music therapist’s live rendition of a familiar popular song, listener perception and evaluation of a performer’s musical skill was more important than listener perception of how well the performance matches the familiar recorded rendition of the song. This appears to be the case regardless of differences in participants’ levels of music experience, familiarity with original recordings, or preference for the original recordings, as there were no significant differences in overall preference found for any of these conditions. Interestingly, it was found that listeners who were familiar with only one other alternate version of a song had a significantly higher preference for music therapists’ alternate rendition than those who reported familiarity with four or more versions. This finding is interesting to note, but difficult to interpret; it may reflect differing levels of openness in listeners based on familiarity with alternate renditions of a popular song, or it may be a statistical anomaly due to the smaller number of participants who reported familiarity with multiple alternate versions of songs.
Analysis of optional text responses showed that many participants had negative perceptions of the singing in the music therapists’ performances. In light of this finding, it seems possible that listeners without extensive musical training might find it easier to point to the singing as an explanation for disliking a performance when they may not have the musical awareness or the language to identify other factors that may be influencing their evaluation and preference. Further, it is possible that music therapists need to work on improving vocal skills, or at least be more aware of the potential for negative evaluations from listeners, clients, or patients.
30
It is important to note that even though a music therapist may be evaluated as a good singer, listener comments indicate that the singer’s voice may not match the song being sung.
Limitations of Study and Suggestions for Future Research
It may seem disappointing to music therapists that the overall preference for all performances in this study was relatively low: M= 3.22 on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by
1(dislike) and 7 (like). However, consideration is due regarding how the conditions of this study differ from the conditions in an actual music therapy setting, along with other limitations of the study.
Differences from music therapy settings
In this study the music was presented without any other personal or therapeutic interaction between the music therapists and participants. In actual music therapy settings the therapist’s verbal interaction and non-verbal behavior play a large part in creating rapport with clients and shaping clients’ positive perception of the music therapy experience. Research has demonstrated that music therapists’ non-verbal behavior can have positive effects on participation and affect of individuals with Alzheimer ’s disease (Cevasco, 2010), and otherwise improve perceived rapport with patients or clients (Darrow, Johnson, Ghetti, & Achey, 2001;
Darrow & Johnson, 2009).
The setting of this study was vastly different from what is commonly encountered in a music therapy session. In this study participants were listening to music on headphones on personal computers, in what we can assume were comfortable or at least familiar environments.
In many music therapy sessions, however, listener-clients are in less familiar or less comfortable environments such as hospital rooms or treatment and rehabilitation facilities where they may be coping with stressful situations such as illness, trauma, or loss. When comparing these two
31 possible situations, it is easy to imagine a listener in a music therapy setting being more appreciative and forgiving of imperfections in a musical performance, especially if the listener realizes that the music therapist is present in a helping capacity. In actual therapy settings, the therapist is able to observe the client’s reaction to the music and adjust the music in accordance; perhaps speeding or slowing the tempo, changing vocal timbre, or altering the mood in which a song is sung. This is one of the reasons that it is advantageous to use live music, although such an opportunity for non-verbal feedback from listeners was absent from the present study.
As an additional limitation, this study used a very small sample of music therapist performers from a single university. The performers were asked to sing and play without the listener feedback they were accustomed to receiving, and some were asked to play songs that fell outside of their standard repertoire for their primary client groups (i.e., performers were asked to play songs familiar to young adults, though they worked primarily with older adults or young children.) Future research involving live music therapy sessions with therapists playing the familiar repertoire of their primary client groups may provide different results.
Study design
Since this study examined correlations between listener preference and listener ratings of various musical elements, all findings are therefore limited. Correlation only reveals the presence of relationships between two or more variables, and conceivable causal relationships between variables cannot be determined in this type of design. Future research with experimental conditions might allow the researcher to control and manipulate musical variables in order to determine more precisely how those variables may affect listener preference.
Future research into this topic should attempt to use participants from actual music therapy populations in settings that are more similar to clinical conditions. The use of a
32 convenience sample of healthy, young adult, student volunteers may have resulted in findings that do not generalize to the conditions found by music therapists working in the field. The addition of live music conditions would also allow the researcher to collect data about the ways that interaction between the therapist and the listener affects preference. Another possible limitation is the use of self-report of preference and of perception of other musical elements. A future study designed to measure behavioral indications of preference, or even clinical outcomes may yield results that transfer more accurately to clinical music therapy settings.
Conclusions
Despite the limitations described above, the results of this study show an interesting picture of how listeners might respond to the music presented in a music therapy session. The results suggest that music therapists should focus on delivering a performance that shows a reasonably high level of musical proficiency, is free from errors, and is aesthetically pleasing.
Although participants reported that they noticed deviations from the familiar recordings, these deviations did not appear to have a great influence on overall preference. Therefore music therapists may not find it beneficial to spend the time and energy to create a faithful live reproduction of the original recording of a popular song, although research does indicate that listeners may respond more positively to complex musical accompaniment (Groene, 2001).
In conclusion, this study begins to answer the question of “what happens when the listener hears an unfamiliar rendition of a familiar song?” It is possible to imagine the subsequent series of questions flowing through the listener’s mind: Do I recognize the song? Is the melody the same? Are the lyrics the same? Do I like the singer’s voice? Are the beat and tempo the same? Does the music that accompanies the singing sound the same? If anything is different, do I like the difference? Does the performance express an appropriate emotion or mood for the song?
33
Does the performer seem sincere and confident? Does the performance have an overall pleasing quality? Do the parts fit together well with the original song? Do I trust the performer’s interpretation and ability to take me on a journey with this song that I know so well?
That final question of trust is important in building therapeutic rapport between a music therapist and a client or patient. As the text responses indicate, a listener may feel so strongly about a favorite song that they feel protective of it, to the extent that he or she is offended or upset by a rendition that does not match the original, whether it is a perceived lack of performer skill or preparation, or a sense that the performer does not “get” the same meaning that the listener ascribes to the song. Even though a listener in an actual music therapy setting will likely be more forgiving and appreciative of a live performance than the subjects of this study were, it is important for music therapists to strive for performances that reach a high level of performance quality (especially in regards to vocal quality) and performer presence in order to make the best possible connections and achieve the best possible outcomes with patients and clients.
34
APPENDIX A
TEXT OF WEB-BASED SURVEY
Participant Consent
Q1.1 Listener Preference in Music Therapy Performance Study My name is Chelsea Chason, and I am a Music The ap Maste s a didate i the College of Musi at Flo ida State U i e sit . You are invited to participate in a research study regarding listener preference and perceptions of popular songs performed by music therapists. You were selected as a potential participant because you are a student at Florida State. Please read this form and feel free to EMAIL any questions that you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
The Stud : The pu pose of this stud is to e plo e the a se e al fa to s i flue e liste e s stated p efe e e for popular songs as they might be performed by music therapists in music therapy settings. In order to take part i this stud , ou ust ead the o se t fo o li e a d he k the Yes utto efo e ou ill e allo ed to complete the remainder of the survey. First you will choose your favorite from a list of available songs. Then you will be presented with two recordings of music therapists performing the song, which you will watch or listen to through headphones on your individual computer. You will hear each performance once, then you will be asked to rate your preference for the perfo a e ho u h ou like it , a d to ate ou pe eptio s of the pe fo e s musical skill, expressiveness, and sincerity. You will also be asked to rate how well several musical elements of the performance you heard match your memory of the familiar recorded version of the same song. Finally, you will be asked about your level of familiarity with recorded versions of the popular song selection, and you will also be asked to complete a short survey about your musical background and music listening habits. The entire task should take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete.
Risks and Benefits: There are no known risks involved in participating in the study. All selections will be presented at a moderate loudness level via personal earphones, and you will have the ability to adjust the loudness to a comfortable level. Although there are no direct benefits to your participation, information regarding people s pe eptio s a d p efe e es fo usi the apists pe fo a es of popula so gs a o t ibute to understanding of music preference and perception, and this may have implications for how music is prepared and performed for use in music therapy interventions. Compensation: You will receive no compensation or reward for participating in the study, nor will any costs be incurred for participation or non-participation.
Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private and confidential to the extent permitted by law. No data that identifies you will be collected in this study. The investigator will have sole access to the data collected. Data will be stored securely. Once the project is completed, data will be retained no more than 12 months and then destroyed. In any sort of report that might be published, no information will be included that will make it possible to identify any participants.
Voluntary Participation: Participation is voluntary at all times. You may choose to not participate or to withdraw from participation at any time. There are no penalties or loss of any benefits should you choose to not participate or withdraw. You are free to not answer any item. If you decide to leave the study, any information that you may have already provided will be destroyed. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study. The researcher for this study is Chelsea Chason, who is overseen by Dr. John Geringer, the major professor and faculty advisor for this study. Please feel free to ask any questions you have now, or at any point in the future. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the FSU IRB at 2010 Levy Street, Research Bldg. B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742. You may call 850.644.8633 or you may access their website at http://www.fsu.research.edu. Should you request it, you may receive a copy of this consent information for your records.
35
Consent Statement I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers. BY CLICKING THE YES BUTTON AND COMPLETING THE ‘EMAINDE‘ OF THE SU‘VEY, I CONSENT TO PA‘TICIPATE IN THIS STUDY.
Q1.2 After reading the statement above, do you consent to participate in this study? Yes No
Q2.1 Choose your favorite from the songs listed below. If you do not have a favorite, choose the song you are most familiar with. "Firework" by Katy Perry "Hey Jude" by The Beatles "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey "The Climb" by Miley Cyrus
Q164 PLEASE HAVE PERSONAL EARPHONES/ HEADPHONES READY for listening to the songs that follow. You will hear two different performers singing and playing the song you selected . Please answer the questions that follow each performance.
Q3.1 Please use earphones or headphones to listen to the following excerpt of a music therapist performing the song you selected
Q3.3 The following questions are about your personal opinions of the performance you just heard.
Q3.4 Overall, how much do you like the performance you just heard? Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 Like 7
Q3.5 Rate the performer's overall musical skill. Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent 7
Q3. ‘ate the pe fo e s skill as a si ge . Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excelllent 7
36
Q3. ‘ate the sou d ualit of the pe fo e s oi e. Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent 7
Q3. ‘ate the pe fo e s skill as a guitarist. Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent 7
Q3. ‘ate the pe fo e s usi al e p essi e ess. Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent 7
Q3. ‘ate the pe fo e s sincerity (honesty or realness) in his or her performance of this song. Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 High 7
Q3.11 ‘ate the pe fo e s o fide e. Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 High 7
Q3.12 What did you like most about this performance? (Optional)
Q3.13 What did you like least about this performance? (Optional)
Q3.14 Think about the recording of this song that is most familiar to you, that is, the recorded version that you have listened to most often. The following questions ask you to compare your memory of the familiar recording of the song to the performance you have just heard.
37
Q3.15 How closely did the rhythmic style/beat of the performance match the familiar recording of the song? Not Close 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Close 7
Q3.16 How closely did the style of singing in the performance match the familiar recording of the song? Not Close 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Close 7
Q3.17 How closely did the musical accompaniment of the performance (in this case, the guitar playing) match the musical accompaniment of the familiar recording of the song? (Note: for this question, musical accompaniment refers to any music that is part of the song except fo the si ge s oi e. Not Close 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Close 7
Q165 How closely did the lyrics in the performance match the familiar recording of the song? Not Close 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Close 7
Q3.18 How closely did the overall mood of the performance match the familiar recording of the song? Not Close 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Close 7
Q3.19 Please share any additional comments on how the performance you just heard matched or did not match the familiar recording of the song. (Optional)
NOTE: The preceding series of questions was repeated for the second performance of the song selected by the participant.
38
Q11.1 Answer the following questions about the recorded version of the song you selected.
Q11.2 How familiar are you with the recorded version of this song? Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Much 7
Q11.3 What do you think of the recorded version of this song? Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 6 Like 7
Q11.4 Aside from the most familiar/original recording, how many different recordings or live versions of this song have you heard? (Do not include any version of the song heard in this survey) I have never heard another version of this song One other version 2-3 other versions 4 or more versions
Q12.1 What is your age?
Q12.2 What is your gender? Male Female Other ______
Q12.3 Are you a music major? Yes No
Q12.4 How long have you participated in music lessons? Never Less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10 or more years
Q12.5 How long have you participated in a music ensemble (band, choir, rock band, etc.) inside or outside of school? Never Less than one year 1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years
39
10 or more years
Q12.6 If you perform music, what is your main performing instrument or voice?
Q12.7 How often do you choose to listen to music in your daily life? Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often
Q12.8 How often do you have a song or a part of a song stuck in your head? Never Rarely Sometimes Quite Often Very Often
Q12.9 How important is music to you in your daily life? I consider music to be a very important part of my life I consider music to be a somewhat important part of my life I do not consider music to be an important part of my life
40
APPENDIX B
SONG SELECTION SURVEY AND RESULTS
Top Songs in Music Therapy with Young Adults (Text of Web-Based Survey)
Q1 Thank you, MT-BC or Music Therapy intern, for agreeing to complete this short survey. Please list the top 5 (or more) popular songs that you perform for young adults in your music therapy sessions. For this question, young adults are individuals developmentally aged 18-25, male or female. Please try to include at least 10 songs, though more are welcome! Please enter one song per box, and include the artist if possible. The results of this survey will be used by this researcher to select songs for use in a Master's Thesis project. None of your identifying information will be collected or shared. Do you consent to have your answers used for this purpose? Yes (1) ...... 14 (100%) No (2) ...... 0 (0%)
Q2 Please list the top 5 (or more) popular songs that you perform for young adults in music therapy sessions. These would be your "most requested songs" that you would perform live for any type of group or individual music therapy intervention. For this question, young adults are individuals aged 18- 25, male or female. Please try to include at least 5 songs, though more are welcome! Please enter one song per box, and include the artist if possible. Q2 1. Song and Artist:
Q2 2. Song and Artist:
Q3 3. Song and Artist:
Q4 4. Song and Artist:
Q5 5. Song and Artist:
Q6 Optional6. Song and Artist:
Q7 Optional7. Song and Artist:
Q8 Optional8. Song and Artist:
Q9 Optional9. Song and Artist:
Q10 Optional10. Song and Artist:
SEE TABLE 20 FOR SONGS SELECTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS
41
Table 20
Songs chosen in song selection survey.
Song Artist Frequency selected
(22) Twenty-two Taylor Swift 1 A Living Prayer - Alison Krauss Alison Krauss 1 Be Ok - Ingrid Michaelson Ingrid Michaelson 1 Beautiful day; U2 U2 1 Beautiful Mariah Carey Miriah Carey 1 Bless the open road (bless the broken road) Rascal Flatts 1 Breakaway - Kelly Clarkson Kelly Clarkson 2 Bridge Over Troubled Waters by Simon and Garfunkel Simon and Garfunkel 1 Call Me Maybe - Carley Rae Jepsen Carley Rae Jepsen 1 Carry on- FUN. fun 2 Chicken Fried - Zac Brown Band Zac Brown Band 2 Comfortably Numb; Pink Floyd Pink Floyd 1 Count on Me; Bruno Mars Bruno Mars 2 Cruise- Florida Georgia Line Florida Georgia Line 1 Daylight- Maroon 5 Maroon 5 1 Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow) Fleetwood Mac 1 Don't stop Beliving Journey 4 Don't Worry Be Happy - Bobby McFerren Bobby Mc Ferren 1 Fearless - Taylor Swift Taylor Swift 1 Firework, Katy Perry Katy Perry 6 Float on Modest Mouse 1 Forget You - CeeLo Green CeeLo Green 1 Girl on Fire; Alicia Keys Alicia Keys 1 Good Riddance - Green Day Green Day 1 Halo Beyonce 1 Here Comes the Sun; The Beatles The Beatles 1 Hey Soul Sister-Train Train 1 Home; Philip Philips Phillip Phillips 2 I will wait Mumford and sons 1 I Won't Give Up; Jason Mraz Jason Mraz 1 If Today Were Your Last Day – Nickelback Nickelback 1 Just Give Me A Reason- Pink Pink 1 Just the Way You Are - Bruno Mars Bruno Mars 2 Lion Sleeps Tonight by The Tokens The Tokens 1 Little Talks(Edit)- Of Monsters and Men Of Monsters and Men 1 Love Story - Taylor Swift Taylor Swift 1 Man in the Mirror Michael Jackson 1
42
Table 20 continued –
Song Artist Frequency selected
Mean Taylor Swift 1 Bruno Mars/Travie Millionaire - Bruno Mars (billionaire) 1 McCoy My Wish - Rascal Flatts Rascal Flatts 1 Next to me- emeli sande Emeli Sande 1 No new friends drake (exp) Drake 1 Nothing Else Mattes – Metallica Metallica 1 Para more lim into you (still into you) Para more 1 Perfect – Pink Pink 1 Power Trip j Cole J Cole 1 Rollin in the Deep – Adele Adele 1 Same love mackelmore Mackelmore 1 Skyscraper - Demi Lovato Demi Lovato 1 Somebody That I Used to Know – Gotye Gotye 2 Someone Like You – Adele Adele 1 Stronger - Kelly Clarkson Kelly Clarkson 3 Super Bass by Nicki Minaj Nicki Minaj 1 The Climb by Miley Cyrus Miley Cyrus 2 Try- Pink Pink 1 Umbrella – Rihanna Rhianna 3 Wagon Wheel-Darius Rucker Darius Rucker 1 Warrior - Demi Lovato Demi Lovato 1 Waving Flag - K'naan K'naan 1 We are never getting back together- Taylor Swift Taylor Swift 1 Who You Are - Jessie J Jessie J 1 Wonderwall – Oasis Oasis 2
Q11 You may use this space for comments or to add any additional songs that you commonly perform with this age group.
Q12 Select the answer that best describes you. MT-BC ...... 12 (86%) Completed music therapy internship, though not MT-BC yet ...... 1 (7%) In process of completing music therapy internship ...... 1 (7%) Music therapy student; not yet an intern ...... 0 (0%)
43
Q13 What is the main setting and population that you work with, or that you have most recently worked with if you are not working now?
1. Interned at a children's hospital; currently working with adults in outpatient cancer settings 2. Special Needs, Pediatric, Parkinson's 3. Premature infants 4. Medical 5. Psychiatric 6. Psychiatric adult patients with mental illness and patients with mental retardation who have committed criminal offenses. 7. Psych and children's hospital 8. General hospital 9. Acute Inpatient Psych 10. Mental Health/Corrections (criminal population) 11. Pediatric 12. Adolescents with trauma and behavioral issues 13. Mental health 14. adult inpatient psych/ pediatric medical
Q14 How many years of experience do you have working as a music therapist with young adults (developmentally aged 18-25)? Less than one year ...... 5 (36%) 1-2 years ...... 5 (36%) 3-4 years ...... 0 (0%) 5 or more years ...... 4 (29%)
Q15 How often do you lead music therapy sessions with young adults, developmentally aged 18-25? Never ...... 0 (0%) Rarely ...... 2 (14%) Sometimes ...... 6 (43%) Quite Often ...... 4 (29%) Very Often ...... 2 (14%)
Q16 The young adults you have worked with are: Mostly female ...... 1 (7%) Mostly male ...... 2 (14%) Roughly equal numbers of male and female ...... 11 (79%)
44
Q17 What is your age? 18-24 ...... 3 (21%) 25-34 ...... 7 (50%) 35-44 ...... 3 (21%) 45-54 ...... 1 (7%) 55-64 ...... 0 (0%) 65+ ...... 0 (0%)
45
APPENDIX C
PERFORMER BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Performer One Gender ...... Female Education Level ...... BA in Music Therapy; completing MM in Music Therapy Number of Years as Music Therapist ...... 1 Primary Instrument ...... Saxophone Number of Years Singing ...... 5 Number of Years Playing Guitar ...... 6 Primary Music Therapy Population ...... Special Education
Performer Two Gender ...... Female Education Level ...... MM in Music Therapy; PhD in Music Therapy in progress Number of Years as Music Therapist ...... 7 Primary Instrument ...... Voice Number of Years Singing ...... 20 Number of Years Playing Guitar ...... 9 Primary Music Therapy Population ...... Geriatrics
Performer Three Gender ...... Male Education Level ...... 3rd year Doctoral Student in Music Therapy Number of Years as Music Therapist ...... 7 Primary Instrument ...... Saxophone Number of Years Singing ...... 9 Number of Years Playing Guitar ...... 9 Primary Music Therapy Population ...... Older adults and psychiatric
Performer Four Gender ...... Male Education Level ...... BA in Music Therapy; MM in Music Therapy Number of Years as Music Therapist ...... 2 Primary Instrument ...... Piano Number of Years Singing ...... 5 Number of Years Playing Guitar ...... 10 Primary Music Therapy Population ...... Mental Health
46
APPENDIX D
TEXT RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS
Audio condition What did you like most about the performance? 1. I like the song itself, and the guitar was good. 2. I liked the guitar, that's about it. 3. Good guitar playing 4. The guitar chord changes near the end of the song (1:08-1:28) 5. I liked the fact that it was a live acoustic version of the song. 6. Very down-home sounding. Good ol boy sounding. 7. I like the acoustical guitar. 8. Confidence 9. I liked the feel of it. Unlike the original, it was more soothing. 10. Not much 11. I like that this individual sounds more expressive. 12. Skill with the guitar 13. I liked the beat and feel of the music. 14. At least he so e hat k e ho to pla guita … 15. Didn't try to emulate the [original artist] perfectly, sung with his natural voice and despite poor intonation and relatively simple guitar inflections, was very resolute in the way he presented the song. 16. Closer to the original song 17. He match the melodies to the best of his abilities, and he got the lyrics right. Other than that, nothing about this was good. 18. At least he somewhat matched the pitch (compared to the performer before). The guitar part wasn't as bad as the last one's either. 19. Better use of the guitar and vocal precision was greater and more close to the original contour of the line. 20. The interpretation of the guitar 21. I didn't like much about the performance actually. He sounded like he was passionate about singing but his guitar and vocal skills weren t a thi g to ja d op a out.
What did you like least about the performance? 1. The way her voice sounded was very distracting 2. The singer. Not a good version of the song. 3. The voice vibrato throughout 4. I did not like her voice; she was attempting to make the notes longer than they needed to be. 5. Singer/acoustic guitar 6. The singing 7. Doesn't sound like the song.
47
8. The singer started off doing well, but eventually got majorly off key with the chords he was playing on the guitar, It was not in synchronization. 9. Singer does sound energetic 10. Kinda boring 11. High notes were just not happening. 12. Her voice was shaky and often out of tune. 13. Singing 14. going off key sometimes 15. The guitar chords barely changed, he was off rhythm, and pitchy the entire performance. 16. The vocals were strong, however, not in tune. 17. singing 18. The singer's voice was kind of nasally. 19. The performance was jarring and the chords were played too quickly/strummed too harshly. Also, the singing lacked emotion and did not flatter the song in any way 20. technical and formal aspects of music were lacking; intonation was off, little or no embellishment with guitar. Even though singer was sincere in his performance, it could have been more expressive. 21. No dynamic changes, off key in many vocal selections, no vocal inflections or pitch changes 22. The vocals. 23. Guitar was rather boring and not expressive enough. 24. His voice was hard to listen to, and the guitar work was even more basic than the last. There was no expression in his voice. 25. He didn't fully match the pitch, his voice was shaky, and the performance overall lacked the genuity of the real song. 26. The metric implication was different than the original performance. Kind of destroyed the emotional intent, but transformed into a more "lilting" "giddy" feel. 27. The singer lacked confidence and their voice was not great 28. The performance doesn't feel polished - as though the performer is simultaneously a poor musician and only learnt the song the day before. 29. His musical ability. His voice and guitar were very basic and need much improvement.
Additional comments about how this performance did or did not match the familiar recorded version of the song? 1. Faster tempo 2. Original is way better 3. It was more upbeat than the original song performed by [Original Artist]. 4. Singer seems indifferent 5. There was no emotion or emphasis in this version. The other version, gives a feeling of enthusiasm, giving you the urge to dance or sing along. 6. Although it did not match the original song very well, I liked the musical therapist recorded version better.
48
7. Where is the emotion?! [Original Artist’s] beautiful voice?? Nowhere near as comforting as the original. 8. Lyrics aren't really subject to a lot of interpretation, which is fine. Overall mood, now that I think about it, was pretty close. Could be the physical limitations of the therapist's abilities or environmental factors (whether or not he could make a quality recording etc.) but the solo vocals and guitar conveyed the same emotional appeal, albeit not as strong. 9. This was just a horrible cover. It sounded as if they had learned the song five minutes before performing it. I hope this doesn't get used as therapy for anyone. 10. Very different in almost every aspect. Not necessarily in a bad way, however there were not many similarities other than the lyrics. 11. the tempo wasn't consistent and he didn't really push for the soul that the original had.
Video condition What did you like most about this performance? 1. I really liked the guitar' 2. It was kind of soothing 3. None of it 4. I like the beginning. I definitely heard the words more clearly than in the [Original Artist’s] version. I think overall with her guitar skills she was good to watch. 5. She had a lovely voice and she started off with a mood appropriate to the song 6. I liked his face and presence. 7. He looked up at the camera several times when he wasn't reading music and he is a great guitarist. 8. The effort and confidence in the performance 9. The guitar part of the song. 10. I really like this song, and I enjoy it any time I hear it, regardless of how it is being performed. However, I was not enjoying listening to his singing voice. 11. The song is on beat rather than off beat like the other video. 12. the song 13. The flow of the voice and guitar together. It sounded very smooth and melodic. 14. His rendition is comforting, smooth, and not forced. 15. There is no part in this rendition that is better than the original song/ 16. the song
What did you like least about this performance? 1. A little off beat and once again missed some words and skipped over some parts. 2. the way her voice changed in the long notes of the singing 3. No personal feeling when she was singing 4. She missed some words and sang some of the lyrics wrong 5. Voice 6. Her voice drags and is too high pitched for the song
49
7. All of it 8. Off key, weak voice. Boring. 9. The guitar playing was not as good on this one. Too subtlety played for this song. 10. She said oh instead of ah and there were weird musically interpreted stuff I didn't care for. 11. Constantly looking at sheet music, boring. 12. The singer's voice was annoying to me. 13. I disliked his voice the most. 14. There is something about his voice that I don't like I became use to it through the song. 15. The actual musical aspects. Neither the performer's voice or guitar playing ability was all that great. 16. His voice, unfortunately. 17. The quality of singing 18. His voice 19. I felt like he was trying to be bad 20. When the singer tried to sing the da da da da part in the high pitch. It was a little ear rattling, but overall, he had a smooth voice. 21. The singer is flat, making the intonation of the piece as a whole off key. Moreover, the rhythm of the song was manipulated in a manner that did not support the true intention of the original piece. 22. it s ha d to hea a so g that's ot the o igi al
Additional comments on how the performance matched or did not match the familiar recording of the song:
1. The familiar recording definitely had more to it. 2. There is so much power and energy in [Original Artist’s] version that is not translated into this version so I did not care for it 3. I felt like she was a good singer, but this specific song was not one of her strong ones. 4. Too much creative licensing on a song that didn't need it in the first place 5. The guitar playing was not as good on this one. Too subtlety played for this song. 6. The rhythm wasn't as prominent to the song as the gu s e sio a d she did 't sa ah she said oh which threw me off. 7. It's very different hearing it acoustic and it adds emphasis to his voice, which isn't female and I didn't feel that same dance happy feeling that makes me want to jump, instead it was more bobbing my head feeling. 8. His performance was monotone and somewhat flat in comparison to [Original Artist’s] original form. 9. It had soul which was refreshing to compare it to the other version 10. The original song has harmonies at some points, the use of several instruments (such as the tambourine and piano), and a breakdown at the end that was not included in this rendition.
50
APPENDIX E
TEXT RESPONSE ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
Text analysis categories 1. Voice (singing; singer) 2. Guitar 3. Mood (emotion) 4. Style/interpretation (musical choices made by performer: arrangement; accompaniment) 5. Performer presence (visual aspects; non-verbal behavior; confidence, sincerity, passion, etc.) 6. Rhythm (tempo; beat) 7. Lyrics 8. Expressiveness (dynamics; embellishment; inflection) (or lack of expressiveness) 9. Intonation (pitch; on or off-key; sharp or flat) 10. Matching/not matching original 11. Undefined bad or boring 12. Overall musical skill/ability 13. Lack of preparation 14. Other 15. The song
51
APPENDIX F
IRB APPROVAL MEMO AND PARTICIPANT CONSENT
Office of the Vice President for Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 08/26/2013
To: Chelsea Chason : Dept.: MUSIC SCHOOL
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Young adults’ perceptions of and preferences for music therapy performances of popular songs
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited per 45 CFR § and has been approved 46.110(7) by an expedited review process.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects. If the project has not been completed by you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of 08/25/2014 the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
Cc: John Geringer
HSC No . 2013.10974
STUDY PARTICIPANT CONSENT
My name is Chelsea Chason, a d I a a Maste s a didate i the College of Musi at Flo ida State University. You are invited to participate in a research study regarding listener preference and perceptions of popular songs performed by music therapists. You were selected as a potential participant because you are a student at Florida State. Please read this form and feel free to EMAIL any questions that you may have before agreeing to be in the study.
The Study: The pu pose of this stud is to e plo e the a se e al fa to s i flue e liste e s stated p efe e e fo popular songs as they might be performed by music therapists in music therapy settings. In order to take part in this study, you must read the conse t fo o li e a d he k the Yes utto efo e ou ill be allowed to complete the remainder of the survey. First you will choose your favorite from a list of available songs. Then you will be presented with a recording of a music therapist performing the song, which you will watch or listen to through headphones on your individual computer. You will hear the performance once, then you will be asked to rate your preference for the performance (how much you like it), and to rate our perceptions of the perfo e s usi al skill, e p essi it , a d si e it . You ill also be asked to rate how well several musical elements of the performance you heard match your memory of the familiar recorded version of the same song. Finally, you will be asked about your level of familiarity with recorded versions of the popular song selection, and you will also be asked to complete a short survey about your musical background and music listening habits. The entire task will take no more than 20 minutes to complete.
Risks and Benefits: There are no known risks involved in participating in the study. All selections will be presented at a moderate loudness level via individual earphones, and you will have the ability to adjust the loudness to a comfortable level. Although there are no direct benefits to your participation, information regarding people s pe eptio s a d p efe e es fo usi the apists pe fo a es of popula so gs a contribute to understanding of music preference and perception, and this may have implications for how music is prepared and performed for use in music therapy interventions.
Compensation: You will receive no compensation or reward for participating in the study, nor will any costs be incurred for participation or non-participation.
Confidentiality: The records of this study will be kept private and confidential to the extent permitted by law. No data that identifies you will be collected in this study. The investigator will have sole access to the data collected. Data will be stored securely. Once the project is completed, data will be retained no more than 12 months and then destroyed. In any sort of report that might be published, no information will be included that will make it possible to identify any participants.
53
Voluntary Participation: Participation is voluntary at all times. You may choose to not participate or to withdraw from participation at any time. There are no penalties or loss of any benefits should you choose to not participate or withdraw. You are free to not answer any item. If you decide to leave the study, any information that you may have already provided will be destroyed. You must be at least 18 years of age to participate in this study.
The researcher for this study is Chelsea Chason, who is overseen by Dr. John Geringer, the major professor and faculty advisor for this study.
Please feel free to ask any questions you have now, or at any point in the future. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the FSU IRB at 2010 Levy Street, Research Bldg. B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742. You may call 850.644.8633 or you may access their website at http://www.fsu.research.edu.
Should you request it, you may receive a copy of this consent information for your records.
Consent Statement
I have read the above information. I have asked questions and received answers. BY CLICKING THE YES BUTTON AND COMPLETING THE REMAINDER OF THE SURVEY, I CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY.
54
REFERENCES
Alpert, J. (1982). The effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher approval of music on music selection and preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(3), 173-186.
American Music Therapy Association (2014). AMTA professional competencies. Retrieved from http://www.musictherapy.org/about/competencies/
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Boyle, D., Hosterman, G. L., Ramsey, D. S. (1981). Factors influencing pop music preferences of young people. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 47-55.
Bradley, I. L. (1971). Repetition as a factor in the development of musical preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(3), 295-298.
Brittin, R. V., (2000). Children’s preference for sequenced accompaniments: the influence of style and perceived tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(3), 237-248.
Certification Board for Music Therapists (2014). CBMT code of professional practice. Retrieved from http://www.cbmt.org/about-certification/code-of-professional-practice/
Cevasco, A. (2010). Effects of the therapist’s nonverbal behavior on participation and affect of individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease during group music therapy sessions. Journal of Music Therapy, 47(3), 282-299.
Clark, M., Isaacks-Downton, G., Wells, N., Redlin-Frazier, S., Eck, C., Hepworth, J., Chakravathy, B. (2006). Use of preferred music to reduce emotional distress and symptom activity during radiation therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 43(3), 247-265.
Craig, D. (2009). Exploring music preference: meaningfulness of music as a function of emotional reactions. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 18(1), 57-69.
Darrow, A., Johnson, C., Ghetti, C., Achey, C. (2001). An analysis of music therapy student practicum behaviors and their relationship to clinical effectiveness: an exploratory investigation. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(4), 307-320.
Darrow, A., Johnson, C. (2009). Preservice music teacher’ and therapists’ nonverbal behaviors and their relationship to perceived rapport. International Journal of Music Education, 27(3), 269-280.
Demorest, S., & Schultz, S. (2004). Children’s preference for authentic versus arranged versions of world music recordings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(4), 300-313.
55
Fung, C. V. (1996). Musicians’ and non-musicians ‘preferences for world musics: Relation to musical characteristics and familiarity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 60-83.
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K. (1981). Verbal and operant discrimination-preference for tone quality and intonation. Psychology of Music, 9(1), 26-30.
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K. (1984). Pitch and tempo discrimination in recorded orchestral music among musicians and nonmusicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32(3), 195-204.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1987). Pitch and tempo preferences in recorded popular music. In Eds. Madsen, C. K., Prickett, C. A., Applications of research in music behavior, p 204-212. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Getz, R. P. (1966). The effects of repetition on listening response. Journal of Research in Music Education, 14, 178-192.
Ginocchio, J. (2009). The effects of different amounts and types of music training on music style preference. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 182(1), 7-18.
Gregory, D. (1994). Analysis of listening preferences of high school and college musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 42(2), 331-342.
Gregory, D., Belgrave, M. (2009). Identification of requisite skills for guitar accompaniment proficiency. Music Therapy Perspectives, 27(2), 97-102.
Groene, R. (2001). The effect of presentation and accompaniment style on attentional and responsive behaviors of participants with dementia diagnoses. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(1), 36-50.
Harmon, B. (2011). The effect of song rendition on participation and behavior states of older adults with Alzheimer’s disease. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 4264. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/4264
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1989). Some exploratory findings on the development of musical tastes. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 119-124.
Jafari, H., Zeydi, A. E., Khani, S., Esmaeili, R., & Soleimani, A. (2012). The effects of listening to preferred music on pain intensity after open heart surgery. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 17(1), 1-6.
Jiang, J., Zhou, L., Rickson, D., Jiang, C. (2013). The effects of sedative and stimuliative music on stress reduction depend on music preference. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 40(2), 201- 205.
56
Kopacz, M. (2005). Personality and music preferences: the influence of personality traits on preferences regarding musical elements. Journal of Music Therapy, 42(3), 216-240.
LeBlanc, A. (1982). An interactive theory of music preference. Journal of Music Therapy, 19(1), 28-45.
LeBlanc, A., Jin, Y., Stamou, L., McCrary, J. (1999). Effect of age, country, and gender on music listening preferences. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141(1), 72-76.
LeBlanc, A., Sherrill, C. (1986). Effect of vocal vibrato and performer’s sex on children’s music preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(4), 222-237.
LeBlanc, A., Sims, W., Malin, S., Sherrill, C. (1992). Relationship between humor perceived in music and preferences of different-age listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(4), 269-282.
LeBlanc, A., Sims, W., Siivola, C., Obert, M. (1996). Music style preferences of different age listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 49-59.
Levitin, D. J. (1994). Absolute memory for musical pitch: evidence from the production of learned melodies. Perception and Psychophysics, 56(4), 414-423.
Levitin, D. J., & Cook, P. R. (1996). Memory for musical tempo: Additional evidence that auditory memory is absolute. Perception and Psychophysics, 58(6), 927-935.
Madsen, C., Byrnes, S., Capperella-Sheldon, D., Britten, R. (1993). Aesthetic response to music: musicians versus nonmusicians. Journal of Music Therapy, 30(3), 174-191.
McCrary, J. (1993). Effects of listeners’ and performers’ race on music preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(3), 200-211.
Millar, B. (2008). Selective hearing: gender bias in the music preferences of young adults. Psychology of Music, 36(4), 429-445.
Mitchell, L., MacDonald, R. (2006). An experimental investigation of the effects of preferred and relaxing music listening on pain perception. Journal of Music Therapy, 43(4), 295- 316.
Moore, K. S., (2013). A systematic review on the neural effects of music on emotion regulation: implications for music therapy practice. Journal of Music Therapy, 50(3), 198-242.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1998). Affective and evaluative responses to pop music. Current Psychology, 17(1), 102-108.
57
Pelletier, C. (2004). The effect of music on decreasing arousal due to stress: a meta-analysis. Journal of Music therapy, 41(3), 192-214
Peretz, I., Gaudreau, D., Bonnel, A. (1998). Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 884-902.
Perlini, A. H., Viita, K. A. (1996). Audioanelgesia in the control of experimental pain. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(4), 292-301.
Price, H. E. (1986). A proposed glossary for use in affective response literature in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 34(3),151-159.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1236-1256.
Schafer, T., Sedlmeier, P. (2009). From the functions of music to music preference. Psychology of Music, 37(3), 279-300.
Schafer, T., Sedlmeier, P. (2010). What makes us like music? Determinants of music preference. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 223-234.
Schubert, E. (2007). The influence of emotion, locus of emotion and familiarity upon preference in music. Psychology of Music, 35(3), 499-515.
Segall, L. (2007). The effect of patient preferred live versus recorded music on non-responsive patients in the hospice setting as evidenced by physiological and behavioral states. Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 282. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/282
Silverman, M. (2011). Developing and testing the guitar songleading performance scale (GSPS). International Journal of Music Education, 29(3), 283-294.
Silverman, M. (2009). The use of lyric analysis interventions in contemporary psychiatric music therapy: descriptive results of songs and objectives for clinical practice. Music Therapy Perspectives, 27(1), 55-61.
Standley, J. (2000). Music research in medical treatment. In Effectiveness of music therapy procedures: documentation of research and clinical practice (3rd edition). Silver Spring, MD: The American Music Therapy Association, Inc.
Standley, J., & Jones, J. (2007). Music techniques in therapy, counseling, and special education, 3rd edition. Silver Springs, MD: American Music Therapy Association, Inc.
Walker, E. L. (1980). Psychological complexity and preference: A hedgehog theory of behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
58
Walworth, D. (2003). The effect of preferred music genre selection versus preferred song selection on experimentally induced anxiety levels. Journal of Music Therapy, 40(1), 2- 14.
Walworth, D. (2010). Effect of live music therapy for patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Music Therapy, 47(4), 335-350.
Wapnick, J., Mazza, J, Darrow, A. (1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 510-521.
Webster, P. R., & Hamilton, R. A. (1981/1982). Effects of peer influence, rhythmic quality, and violin timbre on the musical preferences of fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children. Contributions to Music Education, 5, 11-20.
Wooten, M. (1992). The effects of heavy metal music on affects shifts of adolescents in an inpatient psychiatric setting. Music Therapy Perspectives, 10(2), 93-98.
59
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Chelsea Chason grew up in Tallahassee, Florida. Her early interest in music was sparked by her Grandmother’s piano, and she went on to play the clarinet in middle school band and the double bass in high school. Chelsea completed her Bachelor of Music in Jazz Performance at
The University of North Florida in 2000. After several years performing and touring as a jazz and folk bassist, her interests turned to music therapy, singing, and studying guitar and harp.
Chelsea was accepted to the Music Therapy Equivalency and Masters program at Florida State
University. This thesis is submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master of
Music Degree in Music Therapy from The Florida State University, to be awarded in the spring of 2014.
60