University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Doctoral Dissertations University of Connecticut Graduate School 7-10-2013 The eP rception of Movement through Musical Sound: Towards a Dynamical Systems Theory of Music Performance Alexander P. Demos University of Connecticut, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Demos, Alexander P., "The eP rception of Movement through Musical Sound: Towards a Dynamical Systems Theory of Music Performance" (2013). Doctoral Dissertations. 155. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/155 The Perception of Movement through Musical Sound: Towards a Dynamical Systems Theory of Music Performance Alexander Pantelis Demos, PhD University of Connecticut, 2013 Performers’ ancillary body movements, which are generally thought to support sound- production, appear to be related to musical structure and musical expression. Uncovering systematic relationships has, however, been difficult. Researchers have used the framework of embodied gestures, adapted from language research, to categorize and analyze performer’s movements. I have taken a different approach, conceptualizing ancillary movements as continuous actions in space-time within a dynamical systems framework. The framework predicts that the movements of the performer will be complexly, but systematically, related to the musical movement and that listeners will be able to hear both the metaphorical motion implied by the musical structure and the real movements of the performer. In three experiments, I adapted a set of statistical, time-series, and dynamical systems tools to music performance research to examine these predictions. In Experiment 1, I used force plate measurements to examine the postural sway of two trombonists playing two solo pieces with different musical structures in different expressive styles (normal, expressive, non-expressive). In Experiment 2, I recorded the postural sway of listeners as they listened to the performances recorded in Experiment 1 while “conducting” them. In Experiment 3, I asked the same two performers to mirror the expression of their own and the other musician’s performances while their postural sway was recorded. Experiment 1 showed that performers changed their patterns of movement to reflect musical boundaries (places of change in musical structure), but did so differently Alexander Pantelis Demos – University of Connecticut, 2013 depending the larger musical context, showing a complex, but systematic relationship between the musical structure, expression, and movement. Further, Experiment 1 showed that ancillary movements are not ancillary, but an intimate part of the creative process which produces musical performance. Experiment 2 and 3 showed that listeners and performers, when asked to mirror the expression of the recorded performance, mirrored both the real movements of performers as well as the metaphorical motion implied by the musical structure. This dissertation provides a new framework for the study of musical performance that treats the body as an important factor in the both the creation and experience of listening to music. The Perception of Movement through Musical Sound: Towards a Dynamical Systems Theory of Music Performance Alexander Pantelis Demos BA, New York University, 2003 MA, New York University, 2006 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy At the University of Connecticut 2013 Copyright by Alexander Pantelis Demos 2013 APPROVAL PAGE Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation The Perception of Movement through Musical Sound: Towards a Dynamical Systems Theory of Music Performance Presented by Alexander Pantelis Demos, B.A., M.A. Major Advisor________________________________________________ Roger Chaffin Associate Advisor_____________________________________________ Kerry L. Marsh Associate Advisor_____________________________________________ Whitney Tabor University of Connecticut 2013 Dedication This work is dedicated to those individuals who have changed the course of my life and put me on this path (in chronological order): Ellen & Ed Zacko, Janet Smithers, Rita Aiello, and Roger Chaffin. i Acknowledgments First and foremost the person who has made this work possible is Dr. Roger Chaffin. Dr. Chaffin has been mentor, advisor, collaborator, and cheerleader. This work is the culmination of our many long and fruitful discussions and debates on psychology, music, and music performance. Further, Dr. Chaffin allowed me the flexibility to question everything and the time to seek the answers under his kind and careful guidance. This work is as much a product of him as it is of me. Next, I thank my committee, Dr. Kerry Marsh and Dr. Whitney Tabor, who were instrumental in both my dissertation and my education in general. Dr. Marsh was the first to introduce and guide me through the idea of interpersonal synchrony, which greatly framed and broadened my thinking on music performance. Dr. Tabor showed me it is possible to think on a broad canvas and incorporate disparate ideas, while still remaining grounded. This work would not have been possible without the major sacrifice of two musicians, my participants that I cannot mention by name, who freely gave their time so I could collect data and also for the insight they provided in understanding movements in music performance. I thank some individual faculty members who provided me with various tools and theories which I co-opted for the study of music performance. Specifically, Drs. Till Frank, Jay Dixon, Bruce Kay, Leonard Katz, Carol Fowler, James Magnuson, Jay Rueckl, Claire Michaels, Peter Kaminsky and of course Michael Turvey. There are two graduate students in particular, Vivek Kant and Pyeong Whan Cho, who were indispensable to my research process over the course of my five years at UConn. Vivek Kant for being my personal theoretician who introduced me to theories, then disentangling them ii for me, and finally helping to bend them together so they fit together in a tight little internally consistent package. Pyeong Whan Cho for arguing and discussing methodology which helped me to clarify my positions and thinking, and of course for teaching me so many new ways of approaching methodological problems. I also thank my friends, Stephanie Del Tufo and Rachael Rock-Blake for keeping me grounded and sane during this lengthy process. Also to my aunt, Nicole Gerasimopoulos, and my brother Kosta Demos for their constant support and cheerleading. Finally, my gratitude to Dr. Rita Aiello for starting me on this path many years ago and continuing to guide me. Last but not least, I must thank the entire support staff in the UConn psych department for helping make research possible, specifically however I must thank Debba Vardon, Carol Valone, and Kathy Foley. Finally, I am gratefully indebted to all the people who helped make this work possible. Their sacrifice of time and effort is a gift I plan to pass on to others as thoughtfully, respectfully and patiently as was shown to me during my studies. I hope the pages below are worthy of their efforts. iii Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. xvi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................1 Music Performance ....................................................................................................................2 Body Movements in Performance .............................................................................................5 Research Questions and Goals ...................................................................................................8 Chapter 2: Musical Structure and Expression ..........................................................................11 Overview ..................................................................................................................................11 Musical Form ...........................................................................................................................11 Musical Expression ..................................................................................................................13 Timing & Intensity Cues ....................................................................................................14 Chapter 3: Body Movement in Music Performance .................................................................17 Overview ..................................................................................................................................17 Production/Perception Studies .................................................................................................17 From Structure to Movement .............................................................................................17 Movement’s Effect on Sound Production ..........................................................................20 Perception Studies ....................................................................................................................22