Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographkally in this copy. Higher quality 6* x 9* black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 IW h Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' THE QUALITY AND TECHNICAL DIFFICULTY OF REPERTOIRE PERFORMED BY NON-AUDITlONED, SMALL COLLEGE BANDS AND THE CRITERIA CONSIDERED IN THE SELECTION OF THIS LITERATURE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ronda E. King, B.S.Ed., M.Ed. ***** The Ohio State University 2001 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Jon Woods, Adviser Professor Patricia Flowers ^ , Adviser Professor Russell Mikkelson School of Music UMI Number 3022512 Copyright2001 by King, Ronda Ellen All rights reserved. UMI’ UMI Microform 3022512 Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Copyright by Ronda Ellen King 2001 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was: (1) to survey conductors of non-auditioned, small college bands to determine the literature that was being performed during the academic years of 1997-2000, (2) to evaluate the level of quality of this literature, (3) to evaluate the level of difficulty of this literature and, (4) to examine the criteria that guide these conductors in the selection of this literature. A written survey was administered to 45 conductors of non-auditioned, small college bands in order to discover the resources and criteria utilized when selecting literature for concert band. Respondents were also asked to return programs from concerts performed during the academic years 1997-2000. The Repertoire Evaluation Inventory (REX), developed by Craig Young, was used to determine the quality of the repertoires. Technical difficulty was determined by use of various u publications and experts in the field. Results were derived via the use of descriptive statistics, chi-squares, and t-tests. A majority (61.18%) of the compositions performed by the respondents were regarded as quality compositions. The mean quality score for all compositions was 1.15 (on a scale of 0-3), with a mean difficulty score of 4.22 (on a scale of I-VI). The ten most-performed compositions had an average difficulty score of 4.3, with an average quality score of 2.4, indicating that quality pieces were being performed at moderate degrees of difficulty. When respondents were grouped by the quality of their repertoires, it was discovered that those in the high quality group strive to expose their students to music and composers of quality. Respondents in the low quality group are more concerned with audience/student approval than the need to expose students to quality composers or compositions. In addition, respondents in the low quality group value student input above a contest/festival list as a resource for locating music for performance. This demonstrates an obvious disregard for an important resource for quality literature. Ill Ranking of criteria by the overall sample suggests more concern for performance-related criteria than for quality of music. Publisher materials did not rate highly as a resource overall. IV With love to Johnda, who brings out the best in me. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I must acknowledge my best friend and life companion, Johnda, who never wavered in her support and encouragement. There were times during this eight-year process when her love for me, and belief in me, were the only things that kept me going. Her help with the formatting and editing of this document were invaluable. I could never have completed this project without her. I must also acknowledge Jon Woods, who agreed to be my adviser at the "eleventh hour" and then proceeded to convince me that I had plenty of time to "get this thing done". His encouragement and positive attitude were contagious as well as inspiring. A special thank-you goes to Craig Young, who developed the REI, and then so willingly allowed me to use it. He also gave me several suggestions that proved to be quite valuable. I am extremely grateful to Rick Blatti, Jim Cochran, Russell Mikkelson and Jon Woods, who participated with the update of the EtEI. Without their time and effort, this vi study would not have been as effective. Jim Cochran deserves a special thank you, since he also gave his expert opinion on technical difficulty. I must express my appreciation to Patricia Flowers and Russell Mikkelson for taking the time to serve on my committee. They gave their time graciously and answered my E-mails quickly. I would certainly be remiss if I did not acknowledge the strong, independent women on both sides of my family who have nurtured and encouraged me. A big thank you to "the girls", my mother's sisters; Alice Ramsey Bruner, Dorothy Ramsey McCarty, Norma Ramsey Barnhart, Elizabeth Ramsey Walpole, Aileen Ramsey Warden and Betty Ramsey Willoughby. Each of these talented women has served as a role model at some point in my life and continue to do so to this day. To Maxine King Darnell, my father's sister, who knew I wanted to attempt this degree before I did. She helped set the idea in motion and has encouraged me every step of the way. Finally, a big thank you to my mother, Virginia Ramsey King. She bought instruments and paid for band camps at times when we didn't have the money to spare. Over the years she has sewn uniforms and flags for my students, vii concert attire for me, and she even made a cover for my marimba. Every week for the past five years she has asked "Have you finished writing that book yet?", and until very recently I have had to answer "no". Well Ma, find your reading glasses, have a seat in your rocking chair, and put your feet up. The "book" is finally finished, and I want you to read every word. vui VITA March 29, 1956 Born - Poplar Bluff, Missouri 1978 Bachelor of Science in Education - Music University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri 1979., Master of Education in Music University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri 1978-1984. Associate Director of Bands Poplar Bluff R-I School District Poplar Bluff, Missouri 1984-1988. Director of Bands Willard R-II Schools Willard, Missouri 1993-1997 Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 1997-1998. Director of Bands Mesa State College Grand Junction, Colorado 2000-present.. Director of Bands Marietta College Marietta, Ohio IX FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Music Studies in Music Education: Professors Judith. Delzell, Patricia Flowers, Timothy Gerber, Jan McCrary and Jon Woods Studies in Conducting and Band Repertoire: Professors Gary Lewis and Jon Woods TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract., ... ii Dedication----- ******* •••*••****• »****#*»**#**'.. V Acknowledgments., ****************** ... V I ^1..............M.............M... Vlll List of Tables.... ********************** XIV Chapters : 1 # Xnt roduict xon.....M................H.i I *•••••••••••*•••••*••*••**•*• 1.1 Need for the Study--»*»#»****#»****»*»*******»*#* »»**#*****»*»********* I 3 1.2 Statement of the Problem,I********************************************************************* 5 1.3 Purpose of the Study____________________________ 6 1.4 Specific Questions______________________________ 7 1.5 Limitations. ************** ... 8 1.6 Definition of Terms.. ... 9 Review Of Literature------ ------ -------------------- 11 2.1 Wind band repertoire at the high school level...12 2.2 Wind band repertoire at the collegiate level— 16 2.3 Repertoire for the non-auditioned or small college band_____________________ 21 Methodology.. 25 3.1 Population and Sample-------------------------- 25 3.2 Telephone Interview____________________________ 26 3.3 Mail Survey.____________________________________ 29 3.4 Treatment of the Data__________________________ 34 3.5 Assessment of Technical Difficulty.----------- 34 3.6 Assessment of Quality.------------------------- 36 xi 4. Analysis and Results--------------------------------- 43 4.1 Description of the sample--------------------- 43 4.2 Performed Repertoire-------------------------- 48 4.3 Exception to quality and difficulty assessment_____________________________________ 65 4.4 Quality of performed repertoire______________ 66 4.5 Technical

Load more