An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: a Second Update
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Student Research, Creative Activity, and Performance - School of Music Music, School of 8-2011 An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Second Update Clifford Towner University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/musicstudent Part of the Music Practice Commons, and the Other Music Commons Towner, Clifford, "An Evaluation of Compositions for Wind Band According to Specific Criteria of Serious Artistic Merit: A Second Update" (2011). Student Research, Creative Activity, and Performance - School of Music. 44. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/musicstudent/44 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Music, School of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Research, Creative Activity, and Performance - School of Music by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AN EVALUATION OF COMPOSITIONS FOR WIND BAND ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC CRITERIA OF SERIOUS ARTISTIC MERIT: A SECOND UPDATE by Clifford N. Towner A DOCTORAL DOCUMENT Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Musical Arts Major: Music Under the Supervision of Professor Carolyn Barber Lincoln, Nebraska August, 2011 AN EVALUATION OF COMPOSITIONS FOR WIND BAND ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC CRITERIA OF SERIOUS ARTISTIC MERIT: A SECOND UPDATE Clifford Neil Towner, D.M.A. University of Nebraska, 201l Adviser: Carolyn Barber This study is an update to the 1978 thesis of Acton Eric Ostling, Jr. and the 1993 replication study by Jay Warren Gilbert. These two studies explore a process for evaluating specific compositions, from a selected list, against a set of ten criteria defining serious artistic merit. This study reevaluates those compositions that met the criteria in the previous studies, as well as those compositions that were within ten points of meeting the criteria in the previous studies. Additional compositions, especially those composed since 1993, are also included. The study utilizes eight procedures for accomplishing its objective, including defining the ensemble, setting parameters for the types of compositions to be evaluated, formulating a method for creating an expansive list of included compositions, and selecting expert evaluators. In all, a list of 1,680 compositions, using 589 compositions from the previous studies as a foundational core, were evaluated in this study. The core included the 362 works from the Ostling and/or Gilbert studies that met the serious artistic merit criteria. These 1,680 works were evaluated against the ten criteria defining serious artistic merit that were created in the original study by Ostling. A select panel of wind-band literature experts, using a modified five-point Likert scale, rated the list of compositions. From this data, 144 compositions were identified as meeting the criteria for serious artistic merit while being known to at least a majority of the evaluator panel. A further 161 compositions met the criteria but were only known to a small number of evaluators. An additional 188 compositions were also distinguished because they were known to at least a majority of the panel and were within ten points of the serious artistic merit delineation. Finally, comparisons are made between the three studies, and eighty-nine compositions are proposed as a beginning core foundation in the wind-band repertory on account of having met the serious artistic merit criteria in all three studies. iv Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking my wife Gina for sharing her life, love, and support with me throughout our marriage. Without her, this degree would never have been possible. Thank you, Gina, for keeping me sane, and for being a great partner in raising our two beautiful children. A special thank you to my mentor, advisor, and committee chair, Dr. Carolyn Barber. You continually push me further than I think possible and never let me become complacent. For this I am truly grateful. You demonstrate pure artistry in everything you do and have inspired me to give my all in emulating that example. I would like to thank Dr. Peter Lefferts, Dr. Rhonda Fuelberth, Dr. Helen Moore, and Dr. Darryl White for serving on my graduate committee. Their guidance and influence throughout my degree program is gratefully appreciated. I would like to thank all of the faculty and staff, especially those in the band area, at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln from whom I have had the privilege of learning. You have guided me through an outstanding education, for which I am forever grateful. I would like to thank all of the talented student musicians at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln and Morningside College for making music with me during my three recitals and numerous other performances. You have taught me much about myself, both musically and personally. I would like to thank Acton Ostling, Jr. for designing and carrying out the original literature study. This groundbreaking work has contributed much to the wind-band field. I would also like to thank Jay Gilbert for not only updating Ostling’s original study, but for also sharing his research with me and starting me on this path with such caring guidance. Finally, I would like to thank the eighteen colleagues that shared their time and expertise on this project by serving on the evaluator panel. Those dedicated individuals are; Frank Battisti, Richard Clary, Eugene Corporon, Steve Davis, Gary Green, Michael Haithcock, Felix Hauswirth, Gary Hill, Donald Hunsberger, Jerry Junkin, John Lynch, Steve Pratt, Timothy Reynish, Eric Rombach-Kendell, Tim Salzman, Kevin Sedatole, Jack Stamp, and Mallory Thompson. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv! List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii! Chapter 1 Introduction and Problem ................................................................................... 1! I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1! 2. History of this Study ................................................................................................................ 3! 3. Problem .................................................................................................................................... 5! 4. Need for the study .................................................................................................................... 6! Chapter 2 Procedures .......................................................................................................... 8! I. Ensemble Definition ................................................................................................................. 9! 2. Types of Compositions .......................................................................................................... 11! 3. Criteria for Determining Serious Artistic Merit .................................................................... 13! 4. Development of the List of Compositions ............................................................................. 21! 5. Development of the Rating Scale .......................................................................................... 27! 6. Selection of Evaluators .......................................................................................................... 29! 7. Analysis of Results ................................................................................................................ 34! Chapter 3 Results .............................................................................................................. 38! 1. Update and deletion of titles from the master composition list ............................................. 38! 2. First Survey Results ............................................................................................................... 40! 3. The Evaluator Panel ............................................................................................................... 45! 4. Results of the Evaluation Panel ............................................................................................. 72! 5. Ratings of Each Composition ................................................................................................ 75! 6. Additional Compositions ..................................................................................................... 138! Chapter 4 Analysis, Comparison and Conclusions ......................................................... 142! 1. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 142! 2. Comparison of the Three Studies ........................................................................................ 172! 2A. Analysis of Unfamiliar Works ..................................................................................... 173! 2B. Evaluator Ratings in the Three Studies ........................................................................ 174! 2C. Comparison of Compositions Included