761044

research-article2018
JRMXXX10.1177/0022429418761044Journal of Research in Music EducationSpringer and Silvey

Original Research Article

Journal of Research in Music Education
2018, Vol. 66(1) 92­–110
The Role of Accompaniment © National Association for
Music Education 2018
Quality in the Evaluation Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
of Solo Instrumental DOI: 10.1177/0022429418761044
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418761044
jrme.sagepub.com
Performance

D. Gregory Springer1 and Brian A. Silvey2

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of accompaniment quality on
the evaluation of solo instrumental performance. Undergraduate instrumental music
education majors (N = 71) listened to and evaluated the accuracy and expressivity
of six excerpts of Haydn’s Concerto for Trumpet in E-Flat Major, which we created by
synchronizing recordings of good and bad performances of a trumpet soloist with
good and bad performances of a piano accompaniment (as well as a no-accompaniment
condition). Participants also chose one “best aspect of the performance” and one
“aspect needing most improvement” for each excerpt. Significant main effects for
accompaniment condition (good, bad, or none) and solo condition (good or bad) were
found, in addition to interaction effects. Results of a Solo × Accompaniment interaction
signified that participants’ ratings were not independent of accompaniment condition,
and this effect was moderated by the performance quality of the trumpet soloist.
Additionally, participants noted different “best aspects” and “aspects needing most
improvement” based on both solo performance quality and accompaniment condition.

Keywords
solo performance, accompaniment, perception, solo and ensemble, performance quality

Solo and ensemble performances at adjudicated contests and festivals are essential
parts of many secondary school instrumental music programs in the United States

1University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

2University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:
D. Gregory Springer, School of Music, University of South Carolina, 813 Assembly Street, Columbia,
SC 29208, USA.
Email: gspringer@mozart.sc.edu
Springer and Silvey 93

(Hash, 2013; Meyers, 2012). These events have been described as “an important rite
of passage” (Bergee & Platt, 2003, p. 342), with many students reporting largely
favorable attitudes toward these performance experiences (Meyers, 2012). The ratings
assigned at these events have been found to function positively (Rohrer, 2002) or
negatively (Batey, 2002) by influencing students’ attitudes and their decisions to per-
sist with music study. Not surprisingly, solo performances can be very stressful for
some musicians, especially adolescents (Boucher & Ryan, 2011; Fehm & Schmidt,
2006; Osborne & Kenny, 2008). The need for ensemble directors and private teachers
to prepare their students to perform successfully at these events seems important for
the development of young musicians’ confidence and musicianship. In addition, rat-
ings at solo and ensemble events can serve as an indicator of success for school instru-
mental programs (Zdzinski, 1991), yet evaluations of performers are complicated by
variables unrelated to their performance of the music.
Previous research findings have indicated that listeners’ performance ratings are
influenced by certain visual attributes of a soloist, including his or her performance
attire (Howard, 2012), race (Elliott, 1995), gender (Lien & Humphreys, 2001), and
perceived attractiveness (Wapnick, Campbell, Siddell-Strebel, & Darrow, 2009).
Certain behavioral displays also can influence listeners’ impressions of soloists. For
instance, solo vocalists who performed their music from memory received higher
performance ratings (Howard, 2011), and solo instrumentalists who performed with
full-body movement were rated higher than those who did not move or who used
head and facial movement only (Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Juchniewicz, 2008).
Similarly, soloists who demonstrated formal stage deportment (e.g., appropriate
body alignment and weight distribution, confident entrance, and cue to the pianist)
received higher performance ratings than did those who demonstrated a more casual
deportment (Howard, 2012). Even the time of day at which a soloist performs has
been reported to influence listeners’ performance ratings (Bergee, 2006; Bergee &
McWhirter, 2005; Elliott, Schneider, & Zembower, 2000; Wapnick, Flowers,
Alegant, & Jasinskas, 1993).
Researchers have investigated numerous factors that influence the consistency of
listeners’ ratings of solo performances. For example, the use of a music score did not
improve the consistency of listeners’ evaluations of piano soloists (Wapnick et al.,
1993), although listeners’ familiarity with the works being performed resulted in
greater consistency (Kinney, 2009). In addition, primary instrumental performance
area (brass versus non-brass) of listeners was reported to have little effect on their
evaluations of solo trumpet performances (Fiske, 1975; Hewitt, 2007). Based on the
results of these studies, there are a variety of factors that affect listeners’ perceptions
of solo performances and the consistency of listeners’ ratings. There may be additional
sources that can influence solo performance evaluations, among them the accompani-
ment provided to complement the soloist.
The type and use of accompaniment has been shown to influence students’ percep-
tions of and preferences for music performances. Brittin (2002) found that middle
school and high school instrumentalists preferred solo performances that were accom-
panied by compact disc from a beginning band method book as opposed to those that
94 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

were unaccompanied or accompanied by piano. Similar results were found when the
study was replicated with children from Singapore (Brittin, Sheldon, & Lee, 2002). In
both of these studies, preferences for certain types of accompaniments were found to
correlate with higher performance ratings, which appears to highlight a relationship
between accompaniment and perceptions of performance quality.
Performance outcomes also have been reported to vary as a function of accompani-
ment. Klee (1999) noted that flutists who prepared music with computer-generated
accompaniments performed slightly better than those who practiced without accompa-
niment. There is evidence that the use of digital accompaniment software (e.g., Vivace,
SmartMusic) accelerated college musicians’ learning (Tseng, 1996), assisted second-
ary school instrumentalists in their musical preparation (Snapp, 1997), and helped
improve the rhythm and musicianship of middle school band students who used the
digital software versus those who did not (Ouren, 1997). More experienced musicians
also may demonstrate differences in performance outcomes, as college vocal majors
sang semitones an average of three cents larger when they performed with accompani-
ment as compared to their a cappella performances (Devaney, Wild, & Fujinaga,
2011). These findings suggest that uses of certain types of accompaniment are impor-
tant because they may help develop students’ musical comprehension, encourage more
thorough preparation for solo and ensemble events, and motivate them to practice
more frequently and/or for longer durations.
Investigators also have studied the influence of accompaniment on the evaluation
of specific musical characteristics. A series of studies involving art song performances
revealed that listeners judged the intonation of accompanied excerpts better than unac-
companied excerpts (Madsen, Geringer, & Heller, 1991); distinguished between solo-
ists’ good and bad tone quality, whether those performances were accompanied or
unaccompanied (Madsen, Geringer, & Heller, 1993); and found that soloists who per-
formed with accompaniment had better phrasing, expression, rhythm, and dynamics
than those without accompaniment (Geringer & Madsen, 1998). Although the expla-
nation for these differences in ratings remains unclear, Geringer and Madsen (1998)
wrote that “accompaniment may function to provide an additional focus of attention
for listeners and may allow fewer ‘errors’ to be heard” (p. 533).
More recently, Geringer and Sasanfar (2013) investigated whether sections of
expressive or unexpressive piano accompaniment would influence listeners’ ratings of
overall expressivity in collaborative duo performances. Analysis of listeners’ responses
indicated that sections in which the pianist was playing expressively with a vocalist or
instrumentalist were rated significantly higher than those where the pianist was per-
forming unexpressively. It appears that musicians who collaborate with an accompa-
nist may have musical advantages over those who practice or perform without one.
Collaboration between soloists and accompanists is one of the hallmarks of solo
performances. Those individuals who perform with soloists do so in a concerted effort
to achieve high-quality musical performances (Wenger, 2008). Collaborative pianists
must demonstrate good listening/aural skills, sight-reading skills, performance tech-
nique, social skills, and an enjoyment of performing with other musicians (Barr, 2011).
Pedagogues have made a number of recommendations to promote successful
Springer and Silvey 95

collaboration between a soloist and pianist, such as giving the music to the pianist well
ahead of time to allow adequate preparation and working together to develop a musi-
cal interpretation through equal consensus (Estrin, 2010). When these guidelines are
followed, a greater collaboration between performing forces is likely to occur. It is
well documented that performers can communicate expressive intentions through
movement (e.g., Davidson, 1993, 2012; Silveira, 2014), and these visual aspects are an
important part of the nonverbal communication that occurs between musicians in col-
laborative performance situations (Davidson & Good, 2002). The quality of commu-
nication—both verbal and nonverbal—that occurs between performers is a prime
determinant of overall performance quality (Kokotsaki, 2007).
Researchers who have studied the effects of various accompaniment conditions (e.g.,
computer-generated, piano, or none) have found evidence that the type of accompani-
ment used influences student preferences (Brittin, 2002; Brittin et al., 2002) and perfor-
mance outcomes (Klee, 1999; Snapp, 1997). Other evidence suggests that the presence
or absence of accompaniment can be a factor that influences listeners’ perceptions of
soloists (Geringer & Madsen, 1998; Madsen et al., 1993). The type of accompaniment
used seems to be an important consideration for music educators who are seeking ways
to improve their students’ practice habits and performance skills. Beyond the issue of
accompaniment type, however, is the matter of accompaniment quality. Does the quality
of the performed accompaniment influence listeners’ evaluations of solo instrumental
performances? Given the prevalence and importance of accompanied solo performances
in contexts such as high school solo and ensemble contests, university juries, and profes-
sional recitals, we were surprised to find little empirical research addressing this ques-
tion. Because these collaborative performances influence performers, teachers,
adjudicators, and audience members, we believe that it is valuable to investigate how the
quality of the accompaniment itself might either enhance or detract from solo instrumen-
tal performances. Although Geringer and Sasanfar (2013) found that the expressivity of
the pianist influenced listeners’ ratings of overall expressivity, we were interested in
investigating how the accompaniment may influence listeners’ ratings of the soloist—
specifically the accuracy and expressivity of the solo performance.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of accompaniment quality on
the evaluation of solo instrumental performance. Specific research questions were the
following: (1) To what extent does the quality or presence of a performed accompani-
ment (good accompaniment, bad accompaniment, or no accompaniment) affect listen-
ers’ evaluations of a soloist? (2) Is the effect of accompaniment quality consistent in
the context of good and bad instrumental solo performances? and (3) In what ways
does the type of accompaniment influence listeners’ impressions of the best aspects of
a soloist’s performance and aspects that need most improvement?

Method
Participants
Participants (N = 71) in this study were undergraduate instrumental music educa-
tion majors at one of four large schools of music in the western, southeastern, or
96 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

midwestern United States who had completed at least 1 year of college music study,
which included music theory and ear training. We chose this population of musi-
cians because they were likely to help prepare their own students to perform as
soloists at adjudicated festivals and would conceivably serve as solo and ensemble
judges themselves in the future. Participants were recruited through in-person visits
during music education courses by cooperating faculty members at each institution.
Demographic data indicated our participants’ performing emphasis (woodwind, n =
32; brass, n = 29; percussion, n = 10), gender (male, n = 45; female, n = 26), year
in school (sophomore, n = 19; junior, n = 31; senior, n = 21), and age (M = 20.6
years, SD = 0.9). Of the participants, 63 reported familiarity with solo and ensem-
ble adjudication procedures, and 61 indicated that they had participated in solo and
ensemble festivals previously as performers (with a mean of 5.9 festivals reported,
SD = 5.2).
Before recruiting participants, we conducted an a priori power analysis using
G*Power 3.1.9.2 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to identify a
minimum sample size with an acceptable level of statistical power to identify an
effect (Cohen, 1992). Based on our research design, we conducted the analysis for
a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with repeated measures (within-
between interaction), the results of which indicated a minimum sample size of 58
(input parameters included a projected effect size of f = .2, α = .05, and a power
level [1 – β] of .8).

Stimulus Materials
We used a within-subjects design to examine the effect of accompaniment quality
on the evaluation of solo instrumental performances. To help answer our research
questions, we created stimulus audio recordings of a solo trumpeter performing an
excerpt from the third movement (Allegro) of Haydn’s Concerto for Trumpet in
E-Flat Major, Hob. VIIe/1, in two quality levels (good or bad) and three accompa-
niment conditions (good, bad, or no accompaniment). This movement was chosen
because it is a standard work in the solo trumpet repertory, as verified by the applied
trumpet faculty member at both of our institutions. To create audio stimuli, we
recruited two doctoral students, one majoring in trumpet performance and the other
in piano performance. Both were accomplished and experienced performers. The
trumpeter had 16 years of performance experience at the time of the study, and he
was a previous winner of an auditioned position in a regional orchestra. The pianist
had 17 years of total performance experience with 11 years performing as a col-
laborative pianist with instrumental soloists, and she was a previous winner of a
university concerto competition.
We decided to use the first 83 measures of the third movement as our music stimu-
lus because this excerpt encompassed a piano introduction, a trumpet episode with
piano, a piano interlude, and another trumpet episode with piano. This excerpt seemed
suitable for this study because it provided opportunities for listeners to hear the pianist
alone (during the introduction and interlude) and the trumpet soloist while performing
with piano.
Springer and Silvey 97

Recording Procedure
The solo and accompaniment recordings were recorded independently so that we
could generate individual solo recordings that could be paired with different accompa-
niment conditions. Both were recorded in the same university studio, which was a
room designated for solo/ensemble recording, to allow for a consistent acoustical
environment. Stimuli were recorded using a Zoom H2n Handy recorder (44,100-hertz
sampling rate and 16-bit stereo).
Based on protocols used in previous research (Geringer & Madsen, 1998; Geringer,
Madsen, & Dunnigan, 2001; Madsen & Geringer, 1999), we instructed the trumpeter
and pianist to perform numerous repetitions of “good” and “bad” performances, per
our instructions. For the “good” performance, they were asked to perform the excerpt
as accurately and expressively as possible. For the “bad” performance, they were
instructed to perform the excerpt without good accuracy and expression but at a per-
formance level that would not be heard as abysmal (i.e., no stopping within the excerpt,
even with multiple errors such as incorrect notes and rhythms, poor intonation [for the
trumpet soloist], and unexpressive dynamic playing). They were allowed to perform as
many attempts as needed until they were satisfied that they had generated both good
and bad examples. We used the examples that they chose as most representative of
good and bad performance levels for use as the aural stimuli in this study.
We recorded the trumpet soloist first so that he could choose his own perfor-
mance tempo. While recording each attempt, he wore headphones that were con-
nected to a metronome in order to reinforce his chosen tempo (138 beats per min).
He was also instructed to tune his instrument to the piano (concert B-flat pitch
above middle C) before recording each attempt. (This piano was the same instru-
ment used when recording the accompaniment stimuli.) These practices were used
to ensure that the solo and accompaniment recordings could be successfully paired.
To verify that the good and bad performances differed in quality, we asked two
applied trumpet faculty members to listen to both examples and to describe quali-
ties that distinguished the two recordings. These experts indicated that the good
solo recording was characterized by “good tone, dynamic contrasts, good phrasing,
and light articulation” and that the trumpeter “performed with a noticeable knowl-
edge base—in that he/she played with a sweeter tone, more in-tune with itself, and
more attention to stylistic detail.” The bad solo recording was characterized by
“wrong notes, bad intonation, swelling notes” and was described as “not in style
. . . lacking the ability to connect phrases together.”
After completing the trumpet recordings, we created a “click track” using Audacity
software, which we synchronized with each trumpet recording. The click track allowed
us to confirm that the pianist performed at the same tempo as the trumpeter while also
allowing her to hear the soloist’s performance through headphones while playing. We
shared both of these recordings with the pianist 1 week before recording the accompa-
niment so that she could practice at the soloist’s chosen tempo and prepare the music
while listening to the soloist. To help achieve the most authentic performance possible,
the pianist listened to the good solo performance (with click track) while performing
98 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

Table 1.  Presentation Orders for Stimuli.

Order Excerpts
1 BS/GA, GS/NA, BS/BA, GS/GA, BS/NA, GS/BA
2 GS/BA, BS/NA, GS/GA, BS/BA, GS/NA, BS/GA

Note. Excerpts are labeled by solo and accompaniment condition as follows:

BS = bad solo; GS = good solo; BA = bad accompaniment; GA = good
accompaniment; NA = no accompaniment. Order 2 is the reverse of Order 1.

each good attempt and the bad solo performance (with click track) while performing
each bad attempt during the recording session.
We also asked two applied piano faculty to describe qualities that distinguished the
two recordings. They described the good accompaniment performance as “note per-
fect, rhythmically even with a steady tempo, much more musical, and more dynamics
added,” and that “phrases were shaped beautifully, and the pulse was maintained
steadily throughout.” The bad accompaniment recording was characterized as “uneven
rhythmically, too many tempo fluctuations, unmusical, devoid of dynamic shadings,
and note mistakes,” and one of the experts also explained that “the notes were ‘running
together’ without clear articulation.”
We used Audacity software to combine the trumpet solo and piano accompaniment
recordings. A total of six stimuli were created to include all possible pairings of solo
performance quality levels (good or bad) and accompaniment conditions (good, bad,
or no accompaniment). All were exported as .wav files to be presented to participants
during the evaluation task, with each excerpt lasting approximately 90 s in duration.
Our decision to use a 90-s excerpt was based on other researchers’ usage of similar
durations in adjudication studies (e.g., Gillespie, 1997; Wapnick & Eckholm, 1997;
Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 2000). To help control for order effects, we created two
presentation orders (see Table 1). The first order was generated so that participants
would hear alternating good and bad solo performances without hearing the same
accompaniment type on adjacent performances. The second order was constructed as
the reverse of the first order. We made a separate compact disc for each presentation
order, which included prerecorded instructions to help control for experimenter pre-
sentation effects given the different data collection sites. Both CDs were approxi-
mately 12 min in duration, with 25 s between each track to allow participants to
evaluate each performance.

Evaluation Task
Participants evaluated the accuracy and expressivity of each trumpet performance by
using 10-point Likert-type scales anchored by 1 (poor) and 10 (excellent). Then, con-
sistent with previous accompaniment studies (Brittin, 2002; Brittin, Sheldon, & Lee,
2002), participants also identified the “best aspect of the performance” and “aspect
needing the most improvement” from the following list: notes, rhythm, tone, tuning,
Springer and Silvey 99

tonguing, and expression. After evaluating all excerpts, participants responded to sev-
eral demographic questions.
Before collecting data at each site, institutional review board–approved consent
letters were distributed, which participants read and signed before they were given
evaluation forms. Participants then heard the following instructions, which were also
printed on the first page of the evaluation form:

You are about to hear six recordings that were submitted to a solo competition. All of
these recordings include excerpts from the third movement of Haydn’s Concerto for
Trumpet in E-flat Major. Your task is to evaluate the performance of each soloist in the
areas of accuracy and expressivity. Then, choose the best aspect of the performance and
the aspect of the performance that needed most improvement from the lists provided. You
will be given 25 seconds between excerpts to complete these tasks. Please be honest in
your evaluations, as there are no right or wrong answers. Do not rate the performances
until each excerpt is complete.

Definitions of accuracy (“the degree to which the soloist performs with accuracy and
precision”) and expressivity (“the degree to which the soloist performs with expres-
sion and musicianship”) were printed on each response page to encourage a consis-
tent interpretation of these terms. These operational definitions were informed by
previous music performance evaluation studies (e.g., Davidson, 1993; Springer &
Schlegel, 2016). In addition to explicitly instructing our participants to evaluate the
soloist, we deliberately included false information about a solo competition in order
to emphasize further the need to focus on the soloists’ performances.1 Evaluation
forms were collected at the conclusion of the approximately 12-min evaluation
process.

Results
Preliminary Analysis
We first screened the data to determine whether the assumptions of multivariate analy-
ses were met. Histograms and quantile-quantile plots for each variable were examined
to identify potential deviations from univariate normality in addition to univariate
standardized skewness and kurtosis statistics. We also used an SPSS macro (DeCarlo,
1997, pp. 304–307) to test for multivariate skewness (p = .11), multivariate kurtosis (p
= .58), and an omnibus test of multivariate normality (p = .22) using Small’s test
(Small, 1980). These nonsignificant values indicated that the data met the assumption
of multivariate normality. Results of Box’s M test indicated that the assumption of
homogeneity of covariance matrices was also met (p = .11). Finally, Pearson correla-
tions among participants’ accuracy and expressivity ratings in all solo and accompani-
ment conditions were less than a benchmark value of .70 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007),
which indicated the absence of multicollinearity among the dependent variables (all
correlations were ≤.648). Based on these preliminary results, we determined that the
data were appropriate for a multivariate analysis.
100 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

Figure 1.  Two-way interaction (p < .001) between solo and accompaniment conditions.
Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

Performance Ratings
To investigate effects of accompaniment on participants’ accuracy and expressivity
ratings of good and bad solo trumpet performances (Research Question 1), we con-
ducted a MANOVA with repeated measures using two within-subject factors, namely,
accompaniment condition (good, bad, or no accompaniment) and solo condition (good
or bad solo performance). We also included a between-subjects factor to test for pos-
sible effects due to the two stimulus orders. Participants’ accuracy and expressivity
ratings were the dependent variables. Results indicated significant main effects of
accompaniment condition, Wilks’ λ = .76, F(4, 262) = 9.83, p < .001, partial η2 = .13,
and solo condition, λ = .05, F(2, 65) = 597.17, p < .001, partial η2 = .95.2 Significant
interaction effects were also found for Solo × Accompaniment, λ = .84, F(4, 262) =
5.78, p < .001, partial η2 = .08; Solo × Order, λ = .85, F(2, 65) = 5.59, p = .006, partial
η2 = .15; and Accompaniment × Order, λ = .91, F(4, 262) = 3.33, p = .011, partial η2 =
.05. No other significant main effects or interaction effects were found (including a
nonsignificant three-way interaction among solo, accompaniment, and order).
To answer Research Question 2, we conducted univariate analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests (using a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons) for each
dependent variable to determine the locus of the significant interaction effects. Central
to our research questions was the Solo × Accompaniment interaction, which is illus-
trated in Figure 1. This interaction was statistically significant for the variables of both
accuracy, F(2, 134) = 8.15, p < .001, partial η2 = .11, and expressivity, F(2, 132) = 7.05,
p = .001, partial η2 = .10, although these results were not independent of presentation
order (explained in the next paragraph). Results of Bonferroni post hoc comparisons
Springer and Silvey 101

Table 2.  Accuracy and Expressivity Ratings by Solo and Accompaniment Condition.

Accuracy Expressivity

Solo Accompaniment M SD M SD
Bad Bad 3.71 1.60 4.44 1.65
None 4.13 1.34 4.87 1.61
Good 3.65 1.45 4.36 1.73
Good Bad 7.84 1.44 6.53 1.86
None 8.83 0.89 7.16 1.49
Good 8.63 0.96 7.55 1.67

Note. Participants rated all performances on a Likert-type scale anchored by 1 (poor) and 10 (excellent).

indicated that in response to the good solo performance, participants rated performer
accuracy lower in the bad accompaniment condition (M = 7.84, SD = 1.44) than in the
good (M = 8.63, SD = .96, p < .001) and no (M = 8.83, SD = .89, p < .001) accompani-
ment conditions. Similarly, participants provided significantly lower expressivity rat-
ings for the good solo performance in the bad accompaniment condition (M = 6.53,
SD = 1.86) than in the good (M = 7.55, SD = 1.67, p < .001) and no (M = 7.16, SD =
1.49, p = .034) accompaniment conditions. In response to the bad solo performance,
however, participants provided significantly higher accuracy ratings in the no accompa-
niment condition (M = 4.13, SD = 1.34) than in the good accompaniment condition (M
= 3.65, SD = 1.45, p = .003)—an effect that was not found in their expressivity ratings.
Means and standard deviations of participants’ accuracy and expressivity ratings in all
solo and accompaniment conditions are summarized in Table 2.
Solo and accompaniment conditions did interact with presentation order, however.
These significant interaction effects are displayed in Figure S1 in the supplemental
material included with the online version of this article. Results of Bonferroni-adjusted
univariate ANOVAs indicated that the Solo × Order interaction was significant for both
the participants’ accuracy ratings, F(1, 67) = 5.76, p = .019, partial η2 = .08, and expres-
sivity ratings, F(1, 66) = 9.39, p = .003, partial η2 = .12. Significant differences between
the two orders were found in the good solo condition only; participants rated both accu-
racy (p = .024) and expressivity (p = .046) higher in the first order (Maccuracy = 8.71,
SDaccuracy = 0.82; Mexpressivity = 7.45, SDexpressivity = 1.18) than in the second order (Maccuracy =
8.21, SDaccuracy = 0.85; Mexpressivity = 6.80, SDexpressivity =1.23). There were no differences
between orders in the bad solo condition. The Accompaniment × Order interaction was
also significant for participants’ accuracy ratings, F(2, 134) = 8.15, p < .001, partial η2
= .11, and expressivity ratings, F(2, 132) = 7.05, p = .001, partial η2 = .10. In the first
order, participants rated the accuracy of the no accompaniment condition
(M = 6.56, SD = 1.09) significantly higher than the bad accompaniment (M = 6.20,
SD = 1.40, p = .043) and the good accompaniment (M = 6.13, SD = 0.99, p = .002)
conditions, yet in the second order, they rated the accuracy of the good accompaniment
(M = 6.19, SD = 0.98, p < .001) and no accompaniment (M = 6.45, SD = 0.91, p = .001)
conditions higher than the bad accompaniment condition (M = 5.55, SD = 1.31). In
102 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

terms of expressivity ratings, however, significant differences were found only in the
second order; participants rated the expressivity of the good accompaniment (M = 6.04,
SD = 1.35, p < .001) and no accompaniment (M = 6.15, SD = 0.93, p < .001) conditions
higher than the bad accompaniment (M = 5.94, SD = 1.50) condition.

Perceived “Best Aspects of the Performance” and “Aspects Needing

Most Improvement”
In response to Research Question 3, we examined the data descriptively to observe
trends in participants’ chosen “best aspects of the performance” and “aspects needing
most improvement.” (Recall that these responses were chosen from a forced-choice
list with options including notes, rhythm, tone, tonguing, tuning, and expression.) For
the “best aspects of the performance,” certain notable trends were found (see supple-
mental Table S1 in the online version of this article). For example, in response to the
bad solo performance, many more participants chose tone as a best aspect in the no
accompaniment condition (n = 16) than in the bad (n = 3) and good (n = 6) accompani-
ment conditions. Conversely, fewer participants chose tuning as a best aspect of the
bad solo performance in the no accompaniment condition (n = 1) than in the bad (n =
5) and good (n = 6) accompaniment conditions. In response to the good solo perfor-
mance, more participants chose tone as a best aspect in the no accompaniment condi-
tion (n = 20) than in the bad (n = 8) and good (n = 7) accompaniment conditions.
Additionally, more participants selected expression as a best aspect in the good accom-
paniment condition (n = 19) than in the bad (n = 6) and no (n = 9) accompaniment
conditions.
Descriptive statistics for “aspects needing most improvement” highlighted other
related trends, which are displayed in Table S2 in the online version of this article.
More participants chose notes as the aspect needing most improvement for the bad
solo performance in the no accompaniment condition (n = 42) than in the bad (n = 24)
and good (n = 27) accompaniment conditions. However, when responding to the good
solo performance, more participants chose tuning as an aspect needing improvement
in the good accompaniment condition (n = 12) than in the bad (n = 5) and no (n = 5)
accompaniment conditions.

Discussion
Participants’ ratings of solo trumpet performances indicated their ability to dis-
criminate appropriately between the good and bad solo performances, with partici-
pants’ assigning overall lower accuracy and expressivity ratings (and by margins
of 3–5 rating points on a 10-point Likert-type scale) to bad performances than to
good performances. As displayed in Figure 1, their performance ratings were
influenced further by the quality and presence of an accompaniment (good, bad, or
none), although neither of these variables (solo or accompaniment) was indepen-
dent of presentation order. Overall, with the exception of participants’ expressivity
ratings of a good performance paired with a good accompaniment, the highest
Springer and Silvey 103

expressivity and accuracy performance ratings were assigned to performances in

which no accompaniment was present, irrespective of the bad or good perfor-
mance quality of the soloist. These results are consistent with previous studies
suggesting that accompaniment—in the case of the present study, particularly dur-
ing poor performances—may provide a competing source of attention that could
sway listeners’ impressions of solo performances (Geringer & Madsen, 1998;
Madsen et al., 1993).
Our data suggest that solo performances are evaluated differently in the presence
of an accompaniment, but given the significant interaction between accompani-
ment and order, the nature of this effect appears to be complex. Interestingly, the
instrumental music education majors who participated in this study rated the accu-
racy of performances without accompaniment significantly higher than those with
a bad or good accompaniment in the first order, yet they provided higher accuracy
ratings for good and no accompaniment conditions as compared to the bad accom-
paniment condition in the second order. Their expressivity ratings were only sig-
nificantly different in the second order; performances with bad accompaniment
were rated lower in expressivity than those with good or no accompaniment in the
second order (see the lower graphic in supplemental Figure S1 in the online version
of this article).
Our findings appear consistent with previous research in which elementary and
secondary school music students preferred solo performances on the basis of accom-
paniment type (Brittin, 2002; Brittin et al., 2002). Unlike the authors of those studies,
however, we examined two indicators of performance quality as variables (accuracy
and expressivity), further extending this line of research. Because participants’ accu-
racy and expressivity ratings were influenced by both accompaniment and presenta-
tion order, these results indicate that perceptions and preferences for accompaniment
are complex and multifaceted. In future studies, researchers may consider broadening
this line of research to examine the effects of good and bad ensemble accompaniments
(e.g., concert band or symphony orchestra) on instrumental solo performance evalua-
tions since it is common for instrumental soloists to perform with ensemble accompa-
niment as well.
When considering these findings, we acknowledge the presence of two order inter-
action effects (Solo × Order and Accompaniment × Order). Participants heard a bad
accompaniment excerpt first in the second order, whereas in the first order, partici-
pants heard a good accompaniment first (see Table 1). It is likely that this initial
impression could have primed participants to have different expectations for subse-
quent performances, which may have caused them to evaluate the excerpts that fol-
lowed differently. Given previous research indicating that performance order and time
of day at solo and ensemble festivals influenced listeners’ performance evaluations
(Bergee, 2006; Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Elliott et al., 2000), we do not believe
these interactions should be considered unexpected or surprising. Considering that the
effect sizes of the order interactions are similar in magnitude to those in our primary
analyses, it is important to interpret these results with the understanding that they may
be explained almost entirely by the interaction.
104 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

Although these results indicated that participants rated performance accuracy and
expressivity differently based on the quality of the solo performance, the quality/pres-
ence of the accompaniment, and the order in which the performances were heard,
results of the descriptive analyses suggest that participants may have discerned differ-
ent performance aspects on the basis of the solo and accompaniment condition. When
asked to identify the best aspect of the solo performance, for example, a much larger
number of participants (n = 36) selected tone in the no accompaniment condition com-
pared to the good (n = 13) or bad (n = 11) accompaniment conditions. Thus, in the
absence of accompaniment, it seems that our participants were more likely to identify
the tone quality of the soloist as a best aspect, yet when additional—perhaps compet-
ing—auditory information was present, they tended to choose other aspects of the
soloist’s performance, such as rhythm (in the bad solo condition) and notes (in the
good solo condition).
In contrast, tuning was chosen as a best aspect of the performance with less regular-
ity in the no accompaniment condition for the bad solo performance, which is not
surprising because the presence of a piano accompaniment would have provided a
constant pitch reference that may have served as a cue for listeners. Also worthy of
note is the frequency with which participants chose expression as a best aspect when
the good solo performance was paired with good accompaniment (n = 19). Compared
to the good solo performances with no accompaniment (n = 9) and bad accompani-
ment (n = 6), many more participants identified expression as a best aspect. Thus, our
participants were less likely to select expressive aspects of a good solo performance
when the accompaniment was absent or of a bad quality. This finding illustrates the
importance of matching solo performers with high-quality accompaniments because
listeners noted expression as a best aspect less frequently in the presence of a bad
accompaniment and when the soloist performed without accompaniment. When
employing collaborative artists to assist their students at solo and ensemble contests,
we suggest that secondary school music teachers select these individuals carefully. It
may be that collaborative artists’ performances alone may influence adjudicators’ rat-
ings about the solo performance itself positively.
Participants were asked to identify the aspect of each solo performance that needed
the most improvement. When a bad performance was paired with no accompaniment,
42 participants selected notes, compared to 24 in the bad solo/bad accompaniment
condition, and 27 in the bad solo/good accompaniment condition. Not surprisingly,
our participants were more prone to perceive notes as an improvement area when lis-
tening to bad performances that featured no accompaniment versus those with an
accompaniment. We were surprised to notice that participants selected the same num-
ber of “aspects needing improvement” in the good solo/bad accompaniment and good
solo/no accompaniment conditions (as noted in supplemental Table S2 online), how-
ever. We are curious about why these identical results were found. In a broad sense, we
noticed that expression elicited many more comments in response to good solo
performances (nbad accompaniment = 39, nno accompaniment = 39, ngood accompaniment = 21) than bad
solo performances (nbad accompaniment = 2, nno accompaniment = 1, ngood accompaniment = 1). Bad
solo performances featured more comments about notes (nbad accompaniment = 24,
Springer and Silvey 105

nno accompaniment = 42, ngood accompaniment = 27), whereas good solo performances featured
almost none (nbad accompaniment = 0, nno accompaniment = 0, ngood accompaniment = 1).
When a good performance was paired with any type of accompaniment, participants
selected expression almost three times more frequently (n = 99) than any other musical
aspect that needed improvement, with tone being the second most selected element (n =
37). Given the absence of any fundamental musical errors such as notes, rhythm, tongu-
ing, or tuning in the good solo performance excerpts, our participants likely chose
expression because they believed there were no other appropriate choices. Interestingly,
expression received only four selections when the bad trumpet solo recording was syn-
chronized with bad, good, or no accompaniment. Expressivity appeared to be marked for
improvement by our participants only when all other aspects of the performance were
heard as being “in place.” Considering that Geringer and Sasanfar (2013) reported that
listeners rated excellent collaborative performances higher when the piano accompanist
performed expressively rather than unexpressively, our findings may add credence to the
belief that expressivity is of primary concern during the adjudication of excellent perfor-
mances (Geringer & Sasanfar, 2013). To confirm this speculation, researchers may con-
sider collecting data examining listeners’ perceptions of expressivity in both good and
bad performances through postperformance interviews or “think-aloud” protocols while
participants listen to musical performances; such practices may provide more insight
into what performance qualities are described by listeners as being expressive. It would
also be useful to study how listeners’ perceptions of expressivity might be influenced by
the quality of the collaboration between the soloist and accompanist.
As evidenced by participants’ mean ratings and forced-choice selections, impres-
sions of solo performances seemed to vary with the addition of an accompaniment,
although in a manner that differed depending on the order in which they were encoun-
tered. Having undergraduate music education majors work with secondary school solo
and ensemble participants during their field experiences and methods courses would
allow them to listen and respond to a wide variety of performances in this important
teaching context. Another suggestion that might prove liberating to many teachers is
that the decision to use an accompanist (when that choice has not already been dictated
by contest or festival regulations) should not be a foregone conclusion. The specific
musical qualities of the performer (e.g., good technique but poor tone) and the accom-
panist (e.g., ability to follow the performer, rhythmic precision) should be considered
when determining the type of repertoire to be performed (and whether those pieces
should be accompanied or unaccompanied).
We designed this experiment with certain characteristics in mind to enhance the inter-
nal validity of the study, which may limit the generalizability of these findings. First, our
findings are limited to the performance of one musical selection by Haydn. It is possible
that different results would be found when using different stimulus selections and differ-
ent musical styles, such as a more contemporary selection that is less tonally predictable.
Second, participants evaluated audio recordings of these performances even though live
performances almost always provide both visual and aural stimuli to the audience.
Because prior research has indicated that listeners are swayed by visual characteristics
and overt behaviors of soloists (Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Howard, 2012; Juchniewicz,
106 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

2008; Wapnick et al., 2009), we used an audio-only condition to control for these con-
founding factors. Finally, the fact that the solo and accompaniment were recorded inde-
pendently reduced the amount of collaboration between the soloist and the accompanist.
This practice was necessary to prepare identical solo and accompaniment tracks that
could be paired for comparison in this study. To make the recordings as authentic and
collaborative as possible, we allowed the accompanist to perform while listening to the
soloist in headphones, and she was allowed to practice with the good and bad solo
recordings before the recording session to gain an understanding of the expressive
choices and nuances of the soloist. We also conducted all recording sessions in the same
studio with the same piano to maintain a consistent acoustical setting. Thus, although the
recording procedure may have resulted in some “artificial collaboration,” we believe
these practices improved the authenticity of the recordings. In future studies, researchers
should examine these trends in live solo and ensemble performance environments to
determine whether these findings are generalizable in these contexts.
Studying preservice music teachers’ evaluations of music performances (along with
supporting data describing their choice of “best aspects” and “aspects that need most
improvement”) provides insight into the performance aspects that developing teachers
notice while listening. Given the task of evaluating an instrumental soloist in this study,
our participants noted different best aspects and aspects needing improvement based on
the accompaniment provided, even in response to identical good and bad solo perfor-
mances. We believe that understanding the “noticing habits” of these preprofessionals
is important because these habits may influence the way they rehearse their large
ensembles and coach their students in solo and small ensemble contexts in the future.
For example, those who identified tuning as the aspect needing most improvement may
choose to rehearse that musical element with their students in that situation. If teachers
are swayed by external factors such as the type of accompaniment provided, however,
they may be likely to rehearse different musical aspects with their students (e.g., notes
or rhythms). Although occasional instances of such practices are likely innocuous,
repeated instances over time could lead to less refined performances.
In future research, investigators could examine preservice music educators’ error
detection abilities in accompanied and unaccompanied conditions. Additionally,
because participants in our study noted different best aspects and aspects needing
improvement in varied accompaniment conditions, studies of preservice teachers’
feedback provided to performers in accompanied and unaccompanied conditions
would extend the findings of the present study. Finally, it would be beneficial to repli-
cate this study using a sample of music educators who are experienced adjudicators.
Because it is essential for novices to develop their skills in identifying, diagnosing,
and correcting errors in a variety of music teaching contexts, including solo, small
ensemble, and large ensemble rehearsals, these studies would provide data that will be
useful in preparing them to function successfully in the music classroom.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Springer and Silvey 107

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Supplemental Material
The supplemental tables and figures are available in the online version of the article at
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418761044.

Notes
1. We recognize that performances of a soloist with accompaniment are truly collaborative
by nature in that both performers contribute to the total “gestalt” of a musical performance.
In the present study, the participants’ task was to evaluate the performance of a soloist
because soloists are often the only member of such collaborations to receive ratings at
many types of performances, such as school solo/ensemble festivals, university juries, and
solo recitals.
2. We found a small amount of missing data (ranging from one missing good solo/bad accom-
paniment accuracy rating [1.41% of responses for that variable] to three missing good
solo/no accompaniment expressivity ratings [4.23% of responses for that variable]) when
conducting our preliminary analyses, which we addressed with listwise deletion. Thus, the
degrees of freedom may reflect a different sample size. Because the missing data did not
exceed 5% of the number of observations for any variable, we considered the amount of
missing data innocuous, as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).

References
Barr, J. (2011). Musings of a collaborative piano teacher. Clavier Companion, 3(1), 16–18.
Batey, A. L. (2002). Take the terror out of adjudication. Teaching Music, 10(3), 40–46.
Bergee, M. J. (2006). Validation of a model of extramusical influences on solo and small-
ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 244–256. doi:
10.1177/002242940605400307
Bergee, M. J., & McWhirter, J. L. (2005). Selected influences on solo and small-ensemble
festival ratings: Replication and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53,
177–190. doi: 10.1177/002242940505300207
Bergee, M. J., & Platt, M. C. (2003). Influence of selected variables on solo and small-
ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 342–353.
doi:10.2307/3345660
Boucher, H., & Ryan, C. (2011). Performance stress and the very young musician. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 58, 329–345. doi: 10.1177/00224294050530040
Brittin, R., Sheldon, D., & Lee, T. T. (2002). Instrumentalists in Singapore: Assessment of solo
performances with compact disc, piano, or no accompaniment. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 153, 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319132
Brittin, R. V. (2002). Instrumentalists’ assessment of solo performances with compact disc,
piano, or no accompaniment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 63–74. doi:
10.2307/3345693
Broughton, M., & Stevens, C. (2009). Music, movement and marimba: An investigation of
the role of movement and gesture in communicating musical expression to an audience.
Psychology of Music, 37, 137–153. doi:10.177/0305735608094511
108 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037//0033-

2909.112.1.155
Davidson, J. W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo
musicians. Psychology of Music, 21, 103–113. doi:10.1177/030573569302100201
Davidson, J. W. (2012). Bodily movement and facial actions in expressive musical performance
by solo and duo instrumentalists: Two distinctive case studies. Psychology of Music, 40,
595–633. doi:10.1177/0305735612449896
Davidson, J. W., & Good, J. M. M. (2002). Social and musical co-ordination between
members of a string quartet: An exploratory study. Psychology of Music, 30, 186–201.
doi:10.1177/0305735602302005
DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292–307.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.292
Devaney, J., Wild, J., & Fujinaga, I. (2011). Intonation in solo vocal performance: A study
of semitone and whole tone tuning in undergraduate and professional sopranos. In
A. Williamon, D. Edwards, & L. Bartel (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Performance Science (pp. 219–224). Utrech, the Netherlands: Association Européenne
des Conservatoires.
Elliott, C. A. (1995). Race and gender as factors in judgments of musical performance. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 50–56. Retrieved from http://www
.jstor.org/stable/40318766
Elliott, C. A., Schneider, M. C., & Zembower, C. M. (2000). Influence of the audition hour on
selection to an all-state band. Journal of Band Research, 35(2), 20–31.
Estrin, E. (2010). It takes two. Strad, 121, 56–62.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statisti-
cal power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146
Fehm, L., & Schmidt, K. (2006). Performance anxiety in gifted adolescent musicians. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 98–109. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.011
Fiske, H. E. (1975). Judge-group differences in the rating of secondary school trumpet perfor-
mances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23, 186–196. doi:10.2307/3344643
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1998). Musicians’ ratings of good versus bad vocal and string
performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 522–534. doi:10.2307/3345348
Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., & Dunnigan, P. (2001). Trumpet tone quality versus intonation
revisited: Two extensions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 148,
65–76. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319079
Geringer, J. M., & Sasanfar, J. K. (2013). Listener perception of expressivity in collaborative
performances containing expressive and unexpressive playing by the pianist. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 61, 160–174. doi: 10.1177/0022429413485246
Gillespie, R. (1997). Ratings of violin and viola vibrato performance in audio-only and
audiovisual presentations. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 212–220. doi:
10.2307/3345581
Hash, P. (2013). Large group contest ratings and music teacher evaluation: Issues and recommen-
dations. Arts Education Policy Review, 114, 163–169. doi:10.1080/10632913.2013.826035
Hewitt, M. P. (2007). Influence of primary performance instrument and education level on
music performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 18–30. doi:
10.1177/002242940705500103
Howard, S. A. (2011). The effect of memorization and eye contact on evaluation of solo vocal
performances. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 28–41.
Springer and Silvey 109

Howard, S. A. (2012). The effect of selected nonmusical factors on adjudicators’ ratings of high
school vocal performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 166–185. doi:
10.1177/0022429412444610
Juchniewicz, J. (2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical per-
formance. Psychology of Music, 36, 417–427. doi:10.1177/0305735607086046
Kinney, D. W. (2009). Internal consistency of performance evaluations as a function of music
expertise and excerpt familiarity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 322–337.
doi:10.1177/0022429408328934
Klee, D. A. (1999). The effect of computer-generated accompaniment on the preparation of solo
flute literature. Southeastern Journal of Music Education, 11, 59–70.
Kokotsaki, D. (2007). Understanding the ensemble pianist: A theoretical framework. Psychology
of Music, 35, 641–668. doi:10.1177/0305735607077835
Lien, J. L., & Humphreys, J. T. (2001). Relationships among selected variables in the South
Dakota All-State Band auditions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 146–155.
doi:10.2307/3345866
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1999). Comparison of good versus bad tone quality/intona-
tion of vocal and string performances: Issues concerning measurement and reliability of
the Continuous Response Digital Interface. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 141, 86–92. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318990
Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M., & Heller, J. (1991). Comparison of good versus bad intona-
tion of accompanied and unaccompanied vocal and string performances using a continuous
response digital interface (CRDI). Canadian Music Educator: Special Research Edition,
33, 123–130.
Madsen, C. K., Geringer, J. M., & Heller, J. J. (1993). Comparison of good versus bad tone
quality of accompanied and unaccompanied vocal and string performances. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 119, 93–100. Retrieved from http://www.jstor
.org/stable/40318617
Meyers, B. D. (2012). Attitudes of Arizona high school band students towards solo and ensem-
ble activities. Journal of Band Research, 48(1), 30–44.
Osborne, M. S., & Kenny, D. T. (2008). The role of sensitizing experiences in music perfor-
mance anxiety in adolescent musicians. Psychology of Music, 36, 447–462. doi:10.1177/
0305735607086051
Ouren, R. W. (1997). The influence of the Vivace accompaniment technology on selected middle
school instrumental students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses (9738468)
Rohrer, T. P. (2002). The debate on competition in music in the twentieth century.
Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21(1), 38–47. doi:10.1177/
8755123302021001050110
Silveira, J. M. (2014). The effect of body movement on listeners’ perceptions of musicality in
trombone quartet performance. International Journal of Music Education, 32, 311–323.
doi:10.1177/0255761413491210
Small, N. J. H. (1980). Marginal skewness and kurtosis in testing multivariate normality. Journal
of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics), 29(1), 85–87. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346414
Snapp, D. R. (1997). The uses and effectiveness of the Vivace Intelligent Accompanist system
in K–12 instrumental music programs (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses. (9827971)
110 Journal of Research in Music Education 66(1)

Springer, D. G., & Schlegel, A. L. (2016). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on
listeners’ evaluations of wind band performances. Psychology of Music, 44, 742–756. doi:
10.1177/0305735615591307
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Tseng, S. A. (1996). Solo accompaniments in instrumental music education: The impact of
computer-controlled Vivace on flute student practice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (9625203)
Wapnick, J., Campbell, L., Siddell-Strebel, J., & Darrow, A. A. (2009). Effects of non-musi-
cal attributes and excerpt duration on ratings of high-level piano performances. Musicae
Scientiae, 13, 35–54. doi:10.1177/1029864909013001002
Wapnick, J., & Eckholm, E. (1997). Expert consensus in solo voice performance evaluation.
Journal of Voice, 11, 429–436. doi:10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80039-2
Wapnick, J., Flowers, P., Alegant, M., & Jasinskas, L. (1993). Consistency in piano performance
evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 282–292. doi: 10.2307/3345504
Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A. (2000). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage
behavior, and dress on evaluation of children’s piano performances. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 48, 323–335. doi:10.2307/3345367
Wenger, J. (2008). Passion for collaboration. American Music Teacher, 57(4), 30–34. Retrieved
from http://openmusiclibrary.org/article/16089/
Zdzinski, S. F. (1991). Measurement of solo instrumental music performance: A review of
literature. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 109, 47–58. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318448

Author Biographies
D. Gregory Springer is an assistant professor of music education at the University of South
Carolina. His research interests include music perception, music performance evaluation, and
music teacher preparation.
Brian A. Silvey is an associate professor of music education and director of bands at the
University of Missouri. His research interests include conductor effectiveness and expressivity,
instrumental music teacher preparation, and conductor pedagogy.

Submitted July 18, 2016; accepted March 17, 2017.