This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tan, S.-L. Articles by Spackman, M. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Listeners’ judgments of the musical unity of structurally altered and intact musical compositions

Kalamazoo College, MI, USA, tan{at}kzoo.edu

Matthew P. Spackman

Brigham Young University, UT, USA, matthew_spackman{at}byu.edu

The aims of this study were to examine how listeners judge musical unity and whether they can detect lack of unity in compositions that have been structurally altered. Participants listened to 15 piano solos. Five were not altered. Ten were altered by combining three sections of three different compositions, or by repeating the same section three times in succession. Although their unity ratings for the 15 compositions were similar, trained and untrained participants focused on different aspects of the music. When judging unity, musically trained participants focused on repetition, themes/motifs, transitions, endings, and contrast providing overall balance. Untrained participants focused on pitch contour and range, tempo, mood, and pauses when judging musical unity. Although participants were not aware that any compositions had been altered, both groups were sensitive to varying degrees of repetition and variety in altered and unaltered compositions as shown in their unity ratings and written descriptions.

Key Words: aesthetic judgments • altered compositions • composition • grounded theory • listeners • music listening • musically trained • musically untrained • repetition • structure

Psychology of Music, Vol. 33, No. 2, 133-153 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0305735605050648


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?