INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting througli an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper le ft hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Uni international 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8524079 McClaren, Cort Alan THE INFLUENCE OF VISUAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOLO MARIMBISTS ON PERCEIVED QUALITATIVE RESPONSE OF LISTENERS The University of Oklahoma Ph.D. 1985 University Microfilms I ntern âti0 nel 300 N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by McClaren, Cort Alan All Rights Reserved THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE INFLUENCE OF VISUAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOLO MARIMBISTS ON PERCEIVED QUALITATIVE RESPONSE OF LISTENERS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MUSIC EDUCATION BY CORT ALAN McCLAREN Norman, Oklahoma 1985 THE INFLUENCE OF VISUAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOLO MARIMBISTS ON PERCEIVED QUALITATIVE RESPONSE OF LISTENERS A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL OF MUSIC Dr. R i v a r d GiDgon, ^ajor Professor Dr. Robert Bibens Dr. Euffehe Enrico Dr. Merlin Platt yWuy /drvt»^ Dr. Jerry Neil Smith @ Copyright by Cort Alan McClaren 1985 All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express special thanks to Dr. Richard Gipson, dissertation advisor, for his support, time, and most of all his patience. A debt of gratitude is extended to Dr. Melvin Platt, Dr. Jerry N. Smith, Dr. Eugene Enrico, and Dr. Robert Bibens. The writer is also indebted to Mrs. Barbara Bair for her cooperation and support. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................... iv LIST OF TABLES............................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES............................................ ix ABSTRACT................................................... X Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND NEED FOR THE STUDY................ 1 Introduction......................................... 1 Visual Aspects in Other Performing Arts............ 6 Visual Aspects in Musical Performance.............. 8 Congruity versus Incongruity....................... 14 Pedagogy............................................. 18 Visual Attributes................................... 21 Marimba.............................................. 23 Statement of The Problem and Purpose............... 27 Limitations.......................................... 28 II. RELATED LITERATURE.................................. 30 Affective Response.................................. 31 Nonverbal Communication............................. 37 Movement Notation................................... 42 Studies in Music.................................... 46 Conclusion........................................... 67 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY................................. 69 The Setting.......................................... 70 Selection of Performers............................. 70 Selection of Music.................................. 72 Performance Preparation............................. 73 Video Recording Procedure........................... 74 Experienced Listeners............................... 75 Selection of Subjects............................... 80 Evaluation Instrument............................... 82 Performance Evaluation by Subjects................. 84 Data Analysis........................................ 85 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) IV. RESULTS.............................................. 90 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........107 Summary.............................................. 107 Conclusions.......................................... 109 Recommendations.................... Ill BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................... 115 APPENDIXES................................................. 131 A. Evaluator Information Form.......................... 132 B. Experienced Listeners' Criteria for Evaluating Visual Attributes of Musical Performance 133 C. Directions to Experienced Listeners................. 142 D. Directions to Subjects............................... 144 E. Information Regarding Performers' Age and Classification. .................................. 146 VI LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Performers Mean Scores.............................. 79 2. Stratified Groups................................... 79 3. Performers Selected for Main Study................. 80 4. Subject Information................................. 81 5. ANOVA Summary Table/Scale One....................... 91 5. Main Effect Means/Scale One......................... 92 7. ANOVA Summary Table/Scale Two....................... 93 8. Individual Cell Means/Scale Two..................... 94 9. WSD Follow-Up Procedure/Scale Two................... 94 10. ANOVA Summary Table/Scale Three..................... 95 11. Individual Cell Means/Scale Three................... 96 12. WSD Follow-Up Procedure/Scale Three................ 97 13. ANOVA Summary Table/Scale Four...................... 98 14. Individual Cell Means/Scale Four.................... 99 15. WSD Follow-Up Procedure/Scale Four.................. 99 16. Summary of Frequencies of Shift/All Performers..... 102 17. Summary of Frequencies of Shift/Positive Performers.102 18. Summary of Frequencies of Shift/Negative Performers.103 V I 1 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 19. Sign Test Summary Table/All Performers............... 103 20. Sign Test Summary Table/Positive Performers..........104 21. Sign Test Summary Table/Negative Performers..........104 22. Performer Information................................. 146 23. Performer Information................................. 146 24. Performer Information................................. 147 Vill LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Movement Glossary.............................. 45 2. Experienced Listeners Evaluation Form.............. 77 3. Music Performance Evaluation Form.................. 86 4. Graphic Illustration of Cell Means/Scale Two....... 95 5. Graphic Illustration of Cell Means/Scale Three..... 98 6. Graphic Illustration of Cell Means/Scale Four...... 100 IX THE INFLUENCE OF VISUAL ATTRIBUTES OF SOLO MARIMBISTS ON PERCEIVED QUALITATIVE RESPONSE OF LISTENERS By: Cort Alan McClaren Major Professor: Dr. Richard C. Gipson A number of variables influence one's response to musical performance. Although it is traditionally judged on its "aural" content, judgments concerning the perceived qual­ ity of "live" musical performance may be strongly affected by the listener's evaluation of "visual" stimuli. The purpose of this study was to determine whether solo marimbists' visual attributes influence listeners' per­ ceived quality assessment. In addition, the study sought to determine the differential influence of marimbists exhibiting either "positive" or "negative" impact. Seventeen marimbists were selected to video record a solo performance. After a panel of experienced listeners viewed the recorded performances, the marimbists were desig­ nated as either "positive" or "negative" based upon an over­ all evaluation of their performance. Three performers from each of the two categories were randomly selected and evalu- X ated by thirty-seven subjects. The evaluation instrument consisted of four bipolar adjective scales; 1) sensitive-insensitive, 2) good-bad, 3) effective-ineffective, 4) positive-negative. The scales, each consisting of seven steps, were converted into numerical values allowing for the computation of means. Analyses of variance, follow-up procedures, and the sign test were then computed for each scale. Means comparison for Scale 1 indicated that listeners rated visual/aural (V/A) presentations higher than aural (A) presentations and rated "positive" performers higher than "negative" performers. Although cell means varied for Scales 2, 3, and 4, the ANOVA and