SYMPOSIUM ADDRESS
The Effect of Modes of Presentation On The Evaluation of Marching Band By
Musicians and Nonmusicians
Jessie Tan
[Chairman's note: tables in this presentation could not be reliably preserved for
posting, and have been altered or deleted. For the full address with table format
intact, visit: http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/tan99510.htm - S.R.]
Abstract
Can the use of video technology assist teachers in teaching music listening?
While results of the audio-visual condition versus audio-only condition indicate
no significant difference, written evaluation analysis provided other interesting
information and raised other questions. Does the visual element possibly increase
subjects' understanding, interest, curiosity, liking or valuing?
This paper examines the effect of modes of presentation on the evaluation of
marching band by musicians and nonmusicians. For this study, 135 musicians and
78 nonmusicians were randomly assigned to three experimental groups:
audio-only, visual-only, and combined audio-visual. The stimuli used for the
experimental conditions were two contrasting marching bands commercially
recorded at a "live" marching band competition, one performing The Inferno, by
Robert Smith (One minute, 58 seconds), and the other performing Gavorkna
Fanfare, by Jack Stamp (One minute, 32 seconds). Subject demographic data
were collected by means of a questionnaire. Subjects completed a written
evaluation assigning an overall numerical-preference rating indicated no
significant between groups or among treatments. There was a significant
difference between ratings for Example One and those for Example Two. For the
free response questions, on the whole, subjects made more nonmusical comments
and musical comments. The findings of this study indicate that musicians made
more musical comments than nonmusicians. Results indicated a difference
among viewing conditions with audio-only receiving the highest percentage of
musical comments and visual-only receiving the lowest. Example Two received
higher percentage of musical comments than did Example One.
Introduction
Marching band has enjoyed a high profile in American music education for a long
time. Fans of all ages and occupations support it. During half-time shows,
parades, and other celebrations, marching bands draw crowds. Not only do
marching bands have a visual impact on audiences, but they also have an audio
impact. It is not clear whether it is the musical (or audio) aspect, the visual aspect
or a combination of both that captures the attention of so many people.
Research into the specific elements of marching bands has not received a great
deal of emphasis. However, music educators have conducted studies concerning
the evaluation of auditory versus visual aspects of teaching and ensemble
performances. Johnson (1991) found that musicians rate marching bands higher
when they are presented with audio-visual versions rather than audio-only
versions of the performances. Moreover, musicians focus on different musical
elements than do nonmusicians (Madsen and Geringer, 1990). Flowers (1983,
1984) discovered that nonmusicians most often use nonmusical, or extra musical
phrases when asked to describe music. Furthermore, musicians almost never
attempt to describe a musical event unless they have a musical term for it.
Subjects who received music only tended to respond with musical answers, while
those who received music and video tended to respond more frequently with
visual answers (Cassidy & Geringer, in press; Killian, 1995). Geringer, Cassidy,
and Byo (1996) found that subjects in a music-plus-video group received higher
scores on both cognitive and affective measures than those in a music-only group.
Previous studies that utilized videotaped musical performances were concerned
with the evaluation of musical performance and music teaching, McClaren (1988)
found that college music majors preferred videotaped to audiotaped marimba
performances. Cassidy and Sims (1991) concluded that a videotaped performance
of handicapped children's choir had a positive effect on performance evaluations
by practicing music teachers. Yarbrough and Hendel (1993) found that
videotaped and scripted presentations of sequential patterns of instruction
resulted in higher elementary and high school student evaluations of teaching
than did audio-only and video-only presentations.
In a study of violin vibrato, Gillespie (1994) found that videotaped performances
of inexperienced string players' vibrato technique were rated higher than
performances that were only audiotaped. Fredrickson (1994) designed a study to
determine the effect of losing visual and/or aural stimuli on band members'
ability to perform with an ensemble accurately. While the combination of aural
and visual stimuli received the highest ratings, visual-only and aural-only group
ratings were almost were almost identical.
However, other studies using video technology as a treatment condition have
yielded conflicting results. Neither Brown (1976) nor Blackburn (1986) found
that videotaped music lessons affected music-listening. However, Forsythe and
Kelly (1989), found that videotaped visual cues paired with audio music phrases
enhance students' musical discriminations.
In the study most closely related to this one, Johnson (1991) compared the
evaluation of auditory versus auditory and visual aspect of musical performance
in his study of marching band adjudication. He found that ratings of two different
performances by college music majors were significantly higher in the
audio-visual condition than in the audio-only presentation.
The purpose of the present study was to extend Johnson's research in two ways:
(1) to expand the treatment conditions from two (auditory vs. auditory and visual)
to three (auditory vs. visual only vs. auditory and visual); and (2) to include not
only musicians as evaluators but also nonmusicians. In addition, the present
investigation examined the amount of musical information subjects described
when presented with marching band performances. The research questions were:
Will there be a significant difference in preference and the amount of musical
information described under audio-only, visual-only, or audio-visual conditions?
Will there be a significant difference in preference and the amount of musical
information described by musicians and nonmusicians?
Will there be a significant difference in preference and the amount of musical
information described attributed to different musical and marching styles of the
selections?
Procedure
Subjects were undergraduate music (n=135) and non-music (n=78) majors at a
major southern university. Non-music subjects were defined as those students
having no more than 3 years of formal music training. Musicians and
nonmusicians were randomly assigned, respectively, to one of the three treatment
groups: audio-only, visual-only, and audio-visual. Half of the subjects in each
group heard Band 1 followed by Band 2; the other half heard Band 2 followed by
Band 1.
Groups 1 (n=41 musicians) and 4 (n=24 nonmusicians) listened to the audio-only
portion of the stimulus tape. Groups 2 (n=51 musicians) and 5 (n=28
nonmusicians) experienced the visual-only portion of the stimulus tape. Groups 3
(n=43 musicians) and 6 (n=26 nonmusicians) experienced the combined
audio-visual condition of the stimulus.
The stimulus was selected after a thorough review of videos of live marching
band performances. Two experimental bands were judged by a panel of
experienced band directors to be equal in marching and playing proficiency. In
addition, the music played by the two bands was judged by these experienced
band directors to be unfamiliar to most subjects. One important criterion was that
there should be contrasting musical and marching styles between the two bands.
Further selection criteria included quality and length of the performance as well
as placement in the marching band show (both excerpts were show openers).
Examples averaged 1 minute and 45 seconds in length, with a range of 1:32 -
1:58. Total presentation time for both examples including twenty seconds of
silence between them, was 3 minutes and 50 seconds.
A list of the two bands, the two musical excerpts, and the timing for each excerpt
is presented in Table 2.
Table 2
Videotaped Marching Band Examples
Example
Musical Excerpt
Duration
1 The Inferno by Robert Smith 1:58
2 Gavorkna Fanfare by Jack Stamp 1:32
The taped excerpts were recorded from a commercially produced recording,
Bands of America, that shows the semi-finals of the Grand National
Championship, performed and recorded live in Indianapolis, Indiana, November
7-9, 1996.
The Inferno (Example One) is the first movement of Robert Smith's work, The
Divine Comedy. This work was selected because of its strong programmatic
portrayal of Dante's The Divine Comedy in both musical and marching aspects. It
is contemporary in nature and includes furious woodwind ostinatos, huge blocks
of sound, tremendous percussion, and the imagery of Hell's Inferno. The show
began with a 16 measure count off by the drum major with some minor
percussion accompaniment in the background. It moved on to a saxophone solo
with another actor acting out a scene. The music suddenly changed into a loud
and bombastic nature with girls dressed in bright red and yellow jumping on
trampolines. The musicians were dressed in black cloaks with white painted
faces.
The compositional and marching style of Smith's The Inferno was a contrast to
Example Two, Jack Stamp's Gavorkna Fanfare. This fanfare is an exciting piece
to open the marching band show and it also depicted a more traditional marching
style. This vigorous fanfare for full wind band utilized brisk articulations and a
large percussion section including bells, chimes and vibes. The show began with
the crowd cheering in the background. The camera was focusing on the two
female conductors. Various parts of the show formations were shown throughout
the music. The musicians were wearing school band uniforms and several
sections of the band were featured specifically. This included the chimes, bells
and drumline segments.
The two examples were dubbed onto two Sony Grade VHS Tapes. The order of
presentation of the two examples was counterbalanced, so that approximately half
of the subjects in each group were presented with Example 1 followed by
Example 2, and the other half of the subjects were presented Example 2 followed
by Example 1. Twenty seconds of clear screen and/or silence were recorded
between each example.
Equipment used for this process were two Panasonic Hi-Fi Video Cassette Player,
AG-2550P.
Data were collected during regular class meetings in regular classrooms. Seating
was arranged that each student was able to view the television monitor easily.
Subjects then completed a short demographic questionnaire. A two-page response
sheet was provided which allowed adequate room to write comments following
each example. The researcher reviewed the questions with the subjects before the
examples were presented. They were told to pay full attention to the performance
and to write their comments after the performance. After each example, subjects
were given ample time to answer the questions on the response sheet. An
opportunity was given for questions before the tape began. No interruptions or
disturbances were allowed during the experiment.
Audio presentations were from the corresponding video soundtrack. The
television monitor was covered for the audio-only treatment condition to ensure
that the quality of sound remained consistent among all treatment groups. For
visual-only treatment, the volume control of the television monitor was turned to
zero. The equipment used for administrating the treatments was a Panasonic 20"
Stereo TV/Hi-Fi VCR combination.
Upon the completion of experimental treatments, preference ratings were
tabulated and written responses were categorized by the researcher as musical or
nonmusicial. Categorization accuracy was established by a reliability observer
who independently categorized 25% of the responses. The percentage of
agreement between the two observers was .94, using the formula, agreements
divided by agreements + disagreements.
Results
The study was designed to investigate the effect of aural, visual, and aural/visual
conditions on the evaluation of marching bands by musicians and nonmusicians
at a major southern university. Data were gathered from individual responses to
two marching band examples under the three experimental conditions through a
written evaluation assigning an overall liking and citing three things that were
liked most, liked least, and held attention during the performance. Demographic
data were collected from each subject.
Question One: Ranked Preference Responses
Question One was, "Did you like the performance?" Subjects were asked to
respond from 1(No) to 5(Very Much). Responses were analyzed using a two
factor ANOVA comparing groups (musicians vs. nonmusicians) and treatments
(audio-only vs. video-only vs. audio-visual) with repeated measures on Examples
One and Two. Results showed no significant differences in preferences between
groups or among treatments (see Table 3). There was a significant difference
between preferences for Example One and Example Two. Mean preferences for
Example One were greater (M=3.53) than Example Two (M=3.29). No other
significant differences were found.
Table 3
Summary Table: Two Way ANOVA with Repeated Measures on Examples One
and Two
SOURCE
DF
SS
MS
F
p
Groups
1
1.99
1.99
1.589
.21
Treatment
2
3.17
1.58
1.26
.29
Group*Treatment
2
2.7
1.39
1.11
.33
Subject (Group)
207
259.56
1.25
Examples
1
5.04
5.04
5.36
.02
Examples*Group
1
.20
.20
.21
.64
Examples*Treatment
2
2.75
1.38
1.46
.23
Examples*Group*Treatment
2
3.35
1.67
1.78
.17
Examples*Subject (Group)
207
194.67
.94
Free Preference Responses
For Questions Two, Three and Four, subjects' comments were categorized as
musical or nonmusicial. Musical comments were defined as "Any comments
which refer to musical sounds, instruments or events; any comments which
specifically mention sounds, instruments or events; any comments which
specifically mention music" (Killian, 1995).
Nonmusicial comments were defined as any statements referring to anything
except music. The written responses to each excerpt were analyzed by scoring
one point for each musical comment, and one point for each nonmusical
comment. An overview of the data revealed that a total of 3, 655 comments were
made by 213 subjects (ranging from a low of 7 comments on the two examples to
a high of 27 comments).
Responses to Question Two totaled 1, 328; responses to Question Three totaled
1,080; and responses to Question Four totaled 1, 247. It was found that subjects
wrote the most comments on Question Two (M = 2.08), followed by Question
Four (M = 1.95) and they wrote the least comments on Question Three (M =
1.69).
Examination of the overall comments scored indicated that musicians were more
verbal (M = 8.81) than nonmusicians (M = 8.19). However, the differences were
minimal. In the different treatment conditions, subjects made the most comments
(M = 8.71) under the audio-only condition, followed by the visual-only condition
(M = 8.53), and the least comments under the audio-visual condition, (M=8.48).
Here again, the differences were minimal.
After musical and nonmusical comments were counted, frequencies were
converted into percentages of musical and nonmusical comments by examples
(one and two), group (musicians and nonmusicians) and treatments (audio-only,
visual-only, and audio-visual).
Questions Two and Three: Liked Most vs. Liked Least
Question Two was, "List three things that you like most about the performance."
Question Three was, "List three things that you like least about the performance."
First, I examined musical comments for these two questions. Combining
responses from Questions Two and Three, it was found that overall musicians
(44.50%) made more musical comments than nonmusicians (42.18%) (see Table
4). However, there were several instances where nonmusicians made more
musical comments than musicians. There were under Question Two, Example
Two video-only; Question Three, Example One audio-only; and Question Three,
Example One and Example Two of the visual-only condition. Results indicated
some differences in the percentage of musical comments among viewing
conditions with audio-only (72.22%) receiving the highest percentage of musical
comments, followed by audio-visual (33.47%), and visual-only (24.29%)
receiving the lowest. Finally, Example Two (45.83%) received more musical
comments overall than Example One (40.91%). There were four instances where
Example One received more musical comments than Example Two. These were
musicians' responses to Question Two in the audio-only and visual-only
conditions as well as nonmusicians' responses to Question Three in the
audio-only and visual-only conditions.
Next, I examined the nonmusical comments. Combing the responses from
Questions Two and Three, it was found that nonmusicians (57.82%) made more
nonmusical comments than musicians (55.4%) (see Table 5). However, there
were several examples in which musicians made more nonmusicial comments
than nonmusicians. There were for: Question Three, Example One, audio-only;
Question Two, Example Two, visual-only; and Question Three, Example One and
Two, visual-only condition. On the whole, all subjects wrote more nonmusicial
comments for Question Two (57.07%) compared to Question Two (56.20%).
Results indicated a difference among viewing conditions with visual-only
(75.51%) receiving the highest nonmusical comments, followed by the
audio-visual (66.53%), and audio-only (27.78%) receiving the least.
Table 5
Mean percentages of Nonmusical Comments: Questions (Liked Most vs. Liked
Least) by Examples, Groups (Musicians vs. Nonmusicians), and Treatment
Conditions (Audio-only vs. Visual-only vs. Audio-visual).
Questions Two
Liked Most
Question Three
Liked Least
Treatment
Group
Example 1
Example 2
Example 1
Example 2
Musicians
11.38
12.40
42.64
40.45
Audio
Nonmusicians
26.39
13.32
32.99
43.30
Musicians
87.65
91.14
67.09
63.63
Visual
Nonmusicians
98.81
91.01
44.35
60.42
Musicians
68.95
50.39
71.55
57.95
Audio- visual
Nonmusicians
73.91
59.49
83.33
66.67
Finally, Example One (59.09%) received more nonmusical comments than
Example Two (54.17%). There were four instances where Example Two received
more nonmusical comments than Example One. They were for: musicians under
the audio-only and visual-only condition for Question Two; and nonmusicians
under the audio-only and visual-only conditions for Question Three.
Question Four: Held Attention
Question Four was "List three things that held your attention in this performance."
First, I examined the musical comments. For Question Four, it was found that
musicians (41.76%) made more musical comments than nonmusicians (38.70%)
(see Table 6). However, for Example Two, audio-only condition, nonmusicians
made more musical comments than musicians.
Table 6.
Mean percentages of Musical Comments: Question (Held Attention) by
Examples, Groups (Musicians vs. Nonmusicians), and Treatment Conditions
(Audio-only vs. Visual-only vs. Audio-visual).
Questions Four
Held Attention
Treatment
Group
Example 1
Example 2
Musicians
77.76
83.74
Audio
Nonmusicians
76.04
84.58
Musicians
13.40
14.28
Visual
Nonmusicians
7.14
13.51
Musicians
22.75
38.60
Audio- visual
Nonmusicians
20.64
30.26
Results indicated a difference among viewing conditions with audio-only
(80.53%) receiving the most musical comments, followed by the audio-visual
(28.06%), and visual-only (12.08%) receiving the least. Finally, Example Two
(44.16%) received more musical comments than did Example One (36.29%).
Next, I examined nonmusical comments. For Question Four, it was found that
nonmusicians (61.30%) made more nonmusical comments than musicians
(58.24%) (see Table 7). However, under Example Two, audio-only, musicians
made more nonmusical comments than nonmusicians.
Results indicated a difference between viewing conditions with visual-only
(87.92%) receiving the most nonmusical comments percentage, followed by the
audio-visual (71.94%), and audio-only (10.47%) receiving the least. Finally,
Example One (63.29%) received more nonmusical comments than did Example
Two (55.84%).
Table 7.
Mean percentages of Nonmusical Comments: Question (Held Attention) by
Examples, Groups (Musicians vs. Nonmusicians), and Treatment Conditions
(Audio-only vs. Visual-only vs. Audio-visual).
Questions Four
Held Attention
Treatment
Group
Example 1
Example 2
Musicians
22.24
16.26
Audio
Nonmusicians
23.96
15.42
Musicians
86.60
85.72
Visual
Nonmusicians
92.86
86.49
Musicians
77.25
61.40
Audio- visual
Nonmusicians
79.36
69.74
A summary of the results is as follows:
For the ranked preference responses from Question One, there was no significant
differences between musicians and nonmusicians or among treatment conditions;
but, there was a significant difference preference for between Example One and
Example Two; with a greater preference for Example One; For the free
preference responses from Questions Two, Three, and Four, musicians wrote
more musical comments than nonmusicians; the audio-only condition received
the most musical comments, followed by audio-visual condition, with the
visual-only receiving the least; Example Two received more musical comments
than Example One; and overall, subjects wrote more nonmusical than musical
comments.
Discussion
Results of this study showed in the ranked preferences, there was no significant
differences between musicians and nonmusicians or among treatment conditions;
but, there was a significant difference preference for between Example One and
Example Two; with a greater preference for Example One. This finding is similar
to that of Geringer, Cassidy, Byo (1996, 1997) where the animated example
scored higher than the abstract example.
For the free preference responses from Questions Two, Three, and Four,
musicians wrote more musical comments than nonmusicians; the audio-only
condition received the most musical comments, followed by audio-visual
condition, with the visual-only receiving the least; Example Two received more
musical comments than Example One. It should be remembered that overall,
subjects wrote more nonmusical than musical comments.
It is interesting to note that Smith's Inferno (Example One) is more popular than
Stamp's Gavorkna Fanfare (Example Two). Reasons for this were noted: visual
effects, the originality and creativity of the performance, colorful costumes,
incorporation of drama, and different types of props. On the other hand, subjects
wrote more musical comments on Stamp's Gavorkna Fanfare. The chimes and
bells as well as the percussion segments in the work caught the attention of most
subjects in all the three different conditions. Subjects in the visual-only and
audio-visual conditions were not distracted by the costumes, props, and drama.
Something worth taking note of is that the music vocabulary that musicians and
nonmusicians used was different. Musicians used a wider range of musical
descriptive terms than nonmusicians. Nonmusicians tended to mention "drums,"
"bells," and "tempo." Musicians, on the other hand, used more specific and
precise music terms like "brass," "percussion," "quads," "intonation," and
"drumline." Moreover, most of the subjects in this study made references to the
tempo, timbre, and dynamics which supports the Flowers (1987) and Robinson
(1987) studies.
In addition, the use of marching band terminology was found among musicians.
Descriptions like "phasing problem," "intervals," "forms hits together," "marching
style rolling feet," and "spacing wasn't exact," were used. Moreover, words like
"pit" and "drumline" were used by people who were more familiar with the
marching band context. This could be due to the fact 48.15% of the musicians
had more than three years of marching band experience.
Under the audio-only condition, the written evaluation forms showed the greatest
number of musical comments which is similar to the Killian (1995), Cassidy and
Geringer (1996), Geringer, Cassidy and Byo (1996, 1997) findings. Moreover,
this condition received the most responses contradicted the Burnsed and Etters
(1997) where the audio-visual condition stimulated more responses.
Written comments taken from the test concerning positive and negative aspects of
the performance appeared to be similar between musicians and nonmusicians.
Things most liked about Example One were "flute" and "drums." Characteristics
most liked about Example Two included: "bells," "drums," "chimes," "tempo,"
"rhythm," and "upbeat." The least liked aspects of the performance reported by
groups were: "the count-off," "the towel," "recording quality," and "no video."
One subject commented that the "Drum major 16 count-off was distracting but
necessary."
One musician wondered, "Why they didn't use a radio?" for this exercise. A
number of subjects expressed their frustration, but not as strongly, in the
visual-only condition. If this activity had been listening to a compact disc
recording or concert recording, they might have more readily accepted the
performance. The fact that subjects recognized that it was a marching band made
it more difficult to accept listening without watching the show.
For the ranked preference responses, under the audio-visual condition, were not
significantly different from those in the audio-only or video-only conditions. This
finding was similar to those of earlier studies by Adams (1994), Brown (1976),
Blackburn (1986), and Burnsed and Etters (1997). However, this result conflicts
with the findings found by Fredrickson (1992), Cassidy and Sims (1991),
Yarbrough and Hendel (1993), Gillespie (1994), and Johnson (1991) where the
audio-visual condition was rated higher than the audio-only performance.
It is interesting to note that proportion of nonmusical comments under the
audio-visual condition was more than 50%. This conflicts with Killian's study
(1995) where there were more musical comments in the audio-visual condition.
The main reason could be that the marching band performance was more
appealing and there are other variables involved. Not surprisingly, audio-visual
subjects made more comments referring to visual information than the
music-only listeners (Cassidy & Geringer, 1995; Geringer, Cassidy & Byo, 1996,
1997). Most visual-related comments had to do with the coordination of marching
and music. For example, the costumes and props were mentioned quite
frequently.
One musician commented that, "What was the music? I didn't even listen because
of all this. The costumes + props were distracting." Visual stimuli might possibly
increase subjects overall attentive behavior. However, since some research
suggests that high levels of simultaneous focus of attention do not exist (Madsen,
1987), it might be assumed that the presence of a visual stimulus might also
"compete" for listeners' attention. Another musician made a negative comment
about "the bell front tubas used rather than contras or sousaphones. This was not
practical for anything but a competition." On the whole, most of the musicians
did not recognize this as a marching band competition.
It is interesting to note that visual-only condition is similar to Killian (1995).
Watching a screen without sound and responding may be new for many subjects
and might have created a level of uncertainty causing hesitation, confusion, or a
general inability to make firm decisions concerning the task. The nonmusicians
were more affected than musicians when they expressed displeasure for the task.
Nonmusicians expressed more frustration than musicians at not being able to hear
the music, and expressed a feeling of being "left out" of something. Musicians
seemed to better understand and appreciate the nature of the task.
Is watching a marching band video something different? Obviously watching and
listening to marching band videos is not a "pure" music listening experience, nor
is it the experience of a live band performance. High quality recording equipment
may approximate the sound of live music to a degree of listener satisfaction, but
the visual aspect of commercially produced concert videos is much different than
that of live performances. For example, video productions provide viewers with
close-ups, and views of performers not possible in a live performance.
Network television uses unlimited camera shots and special effects to insure high
entertainment value. In an attempt to hold viewers attention, the picture changes
an average of every 3.5 seconds (Postman, 1986). Most concert video producers
do not attempt to film the "music" but rather the intensity and commitment of the
performers. "The rule of thumb ... is that the camera goes for the principal player
as well as for the instruments that are most visually dramatic" (p. 37).
Moreover, the question is whether a marching band should include the use of
theatrics to enhance the performance and or remain as a traditional marching
band. The marching band has evolved over the years from playing in a parade to
providing an entertaining performance at halftime shows. Is the marching band
heading towards a new direction in the 21st century? Can a video performance
replace the "live" performance at the football stadium?
This somewhat new listening experience might have strong implications for the
music classroom and needs further investigation. The study of changes in music,
music education, music society, and technology is a responsibility of the music
research community. Not only is research needed to discover and test the
innovations in music education, it is needed to improve existing aspects of music
education that continue to have value.
References
Adams, B.L. (1994). The effect of visual/aural conditions on the emotional
response to music. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1994).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 2312A.
Blackburn, G.B. (1986). The effects of videotaped musical treatment on learning
of dolch sight words by kindergarten students (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Mississippi, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2449A.
Brown, A. (1978). Effects of televised instruction on student music selection,
music skills, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26 (4),
445-455.
Burnsed, C.V., & Etters, S. (1997). The effects of viewing videotaped music
performances on the perception of the elements of music. Update: The
applications of research in music, 15 (2), 12-18.
Cassidy, J.W., & Geringer, J.M. (in press). Effects of animated videos on
preference and indicators for music among nonmusic majors.
Cassidy, J.W., & Sims, W.L. (1991). Effects of special education labels on peers'
and adults' evaluations of a handicapped youth choir. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 39 (1), 23-34.
Flowers, P.J. (1983). The effect of instruction in vocabulary and listening on
nonmusicians' descriptions of changes in music. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 31 (3), 179-190.
Flowers, P.J. (1984). Attention to elements of music and effect of instruction in
vocabulary on written descriptions of music by children and undergraduates.
Psychology of Music, 12, 17-24.
Forsythe, J.L., & Kelly, M.M. (1989). Effects of visual-spatial added cues on
fourth graders' melodic discrimination. Journal of Research in Music Education,
37 (4), 272-277.
Fredrickson, W.E. (1994). Band Musicians' performance and eye contact as
influenced by loss of a visual and/or aural stimulus. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 42 (4), 306-317.
Geringer, J.M., Cassidy, J.W., & Byo, J.L. (1996). Effects of music with video on
affective and cognitive responses to music among nonmusic majors: An
Exploratory Study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44 (3), 240-251.
Geringer, J.M., Cassidy, J.W., & Byo, J.L. (1997). Nonmusic majors' cognitive
and affective responses to performance and programmatic music videos. Journal
of Research in Music Education, 45 (2), 221-233.
Gillespie, R. (1997). Ratings of violin and viola vibrato performance in
audio-only and audiovisual presentations. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 45 (2), 212-220.
Johnson, C.M. (1991). Use of the continuous response digital interface in
evaluation of auditory versus visual aspects of music performance. Southeastern
Journal of Music Education, 3, 97-108.
Killian, J.M. (1995). A comparison of listener response to audio-visual versus
audio versus visual musical stimuli. Paper presented at the Symposium for
Research in Music Behavior, Granville, Ohio.
Madsen, C.K. (1987). Background music: Effects of competing musical versus
nonmusical tasks. In C.K. Madsen & C.A. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of
research in music behavior (pp. 315-326). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama
Press.
Madsen, C.K. & Geringer, J.M. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening:
Focus of attention of musicians versus nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 105, 45-57.
McClaren, C.A. (1988). The influence of visual attributes of solo marimbists on
perceived qualitative responses of listeners. Dialogue in Instrumental Music
Education, 12 (1), 1-11.
Mccormick, K. (Producer). (1996). 1996 Grand national championships bands
semi-finals show [Videotape]. Palatine, IL: 800 Video Express Inc.
Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death. New York: Penguin.
Robinson, C.R. (1987). Musicians' and nonmusicians' taxonomies for the
evaluation of music performance. Unpublished manuscript, The Florida State
University.
Smith, R.W. (1995). The Inferno. Miami: Warner Bros. Publications.
Stamp, J. (1991). Gavorkna Fanfare. San Diego, CA: Neil A. Kjos Music
Company.
Yarbrough, C., & Hendel, C. (1993). The effect of sequential patterns on
rehearsal evaluations of high school and elementary students. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 41 (3), 246-257.