Effect of Voice-part Training and Music Complexity on Focus of Attention to Melody

or Harmony
Author(s): Lindsey R. Williams
Source: Contributions to Music Education , 2009, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2009), pp. 45-57
Published by: Ohio Music Education Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24127176

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24127176?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Ohio Music Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Contributions to Music Education

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Contributions to Music Education Vol.36, No. 2, pp. 45-57.

LINDSEY R. WILLIAMS

University of Missouri-Kansas City

Effect of Voice-part Training and

Music Complexity on Focus of
Attention to Melody or Harmony

The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible effects of choral voice-part train

ing/experience and music complexity on focus of attention to melody or harmony. Par

ticipants (N = 150) were members of auditioned university choral ensembles divided by

voice-part (sopranos, n = 44; altos, n = 33; tenors, n = 35; basses, n = 38). The music
complexity variable consisted of four levels of melodic complexity and four levels of har
monic complexity each paired for a total of 16 possible combinations performed on solo

jazz piano. An ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (voice-part) and two within
subjects factors (melodic complexity and harmonic complexity) showed significant differ
ences between music training and focus of attention. Overall, data analysis showed that
voice-part training/experience may effect focus of attention indicating that sopranos tended

to listen to melodic elements more so than the other voice-parts.

It the
is generally
world aroundunderstood that might
us. While listeners both be
experiences andthetraining
presented with affect perception of
same stimuli
(i.e. notes, rhythms, tempi, timbres, etc.), each listener may experience the music in
a way unique to that individual. This is likely due to any number of variables includ
ing, but not limited to, individual preference, listening patterns, and previous experi
ences. A line of research has since emerged pertaining to patterns of listening.
Research literature is replete with examples of musical development
occurring in conjunction with cognitive development. Researchers generally
agree that experience and music training may influence the way listeners perceive
musical stimuli (Brooks 8c Brooks, 1993; Sloboda, 1985). Novice listeners are
able to discriminate between same/different melodies (Madsen 8c Madsen,

45

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Contributions to Music Education

2002), simultaneous melodies (Gudmundsdottir, 1999), and discriminate

between melody and harmony but have difficulty disassociating one from the
other (Costi-Giomi, 1991). Interestingly, while some discrimination skills,
such as melodic recognition (Feierabend, Saunders, Holahan, 8t Getnick,
1998), improve with age, the disparity between novice and expert listeners
appears to increase with training (Gromko, 1993; Williams, 2005).
Since music stimuli generally occur with many elements of music present
simultaneously, various lines of research are attempting to identify which
elements affect perception and to what degree. Investigations into musical
elements deemed more "salient" than others have shown that musicians
and nonmusicians listen differently (Geringer 8c Madsen, 1995/1996),
but Hufstader (1977) found that there appears to be a common sequence
of listening skills acquisition. Other investigations suggest musicians and
nonmusicians respond similarly for their perception of tension and aesthetic
response (Fredrickson, 1995; Fredrickson 8c Coggiola, 2003).
Structurally speaking, music consists of both linear (melodic) and vertical
(harmonic) elements. As suggested by Sloboda (1985), melody and harmony
can be perceived both independently and collectively. Some researchers
indicate that a listener infers harmonic structures from melodic material even
when no harmonic material is present (Lerdahl 8cJackendoff, 1983). In fact,
recent research has found that as music training and experience increase,
sophisticated listeners tend to value harmonic implications more than melodic
elements (Coggiola, 1997; Williams, 2005).
Music complexity, as defined by Radocy (1982), is "a matter of how elaborate,
fancy, or complicated the music is ... the reasons for musical complexity might
include elaborate rhythms, ornate melodies, lack of obvious formal structure,
and/or rich instrumentation" (p. 93). One could argue that all music exists on a
continuum of complexity. If this premise is accepted, then it would seem important
to investigate how music stimulus complexity affects, if at all, other variables
germane to the study of music. To that end, research into music complexity has
uncovered several interesting and varied relationships between music complexity
and a wide variety of variables. Graphic analysis of data from Heyduk (1975)
indicates an inverted-U relationship between music complexity and preference.
The author suggested that all listeners have an optimal level, or maximum level, of
complexity that they are able to understand. Once the stimulus moves beyond their
level of understanding, preference decreases. Additional inverted- U relationships
have been shown between complexity and familiarity, preference, and music
training (North 8cHargreaves, 1995; Radocy, 1982).

46

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. 'Williams

Conley (1981) further identified specific elements of music that predict

complexity perception. The author suggests that rhythmic activity may be a
strong predictor of complexity judgments regardless of listener background.
Additionally, more sophisticated listeners (music graduate students) valued
harmonic implications more than less sophisticated listeners.
Focus of attention in music pertains to what the person is specifically
attending to, or listening to, and possible listening patterns exhibited. North
and Hargreaves (1995) hypothesized that complexity perception and listening
patterns develop as a result of experience and/or training. A more recent branch
of focus of attention research addresses the effect of music complexity on the
listening patterns of participants with various levels of music training. Williams
(2005,2008) measured focus of attention as it pertains specifically to listening
to melodic or harmonic elements of music at varying levels of complexity.
Results of these studies suggest an inverse relationship between music training
and focus of attention to melody and a direct positive relationship between
increased music complexity and focus of attention to both melody and harmony.
However, when analyzed together, music training had a stronger influence
on focus of attention than did music complexity, especially for harmonic
complexity. It is interesting to note that nonmusician participants (Williams,
2008) and junior high school instrumentalists (Williams, 2005) exhibited
similar listening patterns despite seemingly disparate music experiences.
Various other elements of the process of listening have been investigated
including how listening patterns develop (Geringer &Madsen, 1995/1996), the
relationship between focus of attention and the aesthetic experience (Fredrickson
& Coggiola, 2003), and the elements of music (Capperella, 1989). Madsen
and Geringer's (2000/2001) model for meaningful listening suggests that the
listening process is more effective when it requires specific, directed attention.
Despite the large amount of extant choral ensembles and literature,
there appears to be a limited amount of research on how choral musicians
listen especially in the area of vocalists' listening patterns. Daugherty (1999)
completed a study on the effect of spacing, formation, and choral sound
and found that both choristers and listeners preferred spread spacing. The
choristers specifically indicated that this particular formation facilitated ease
of listening to self and to ensemble. Despite these interesting data, there has
yet to be any research on what, or who, choral ensemble members are focusing
their attention while listening.
Active music listening, by definition, requires a certain amount of cognitive
processing. Costa-Giomi (1991) suggests that both the content of the music

47

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Contributions to Music Education

and listener characteristics can determine the level and amount of processing
required while listening. Therefore, it is possible that the complexity of the
music stimulus may actually cause competition for listener attention, which
may, in turn, effect perception and responses to music stimuli.
The investigation of music complexity and focus of attention are important
for the music education paradigm primarily because listening skills are integral to
the teaching, learning and performing of music. If, through systematic research,
we can identify variables that may affect a developing musicians patterns of
listening, it may help to inform a pedagogical approach to the teaching of such
skills as ensemble accuracy, error detection, balance, tone quality, and blend.
If a music educator has an understanding how their students listen, it may be
helpful in how they address aspects of music instruction that are related to the
musicians capacity for listening. This study was an extension of two previous
music complexity studies that investigated focus of attention for instrumentalists
(Williams, 2005) and nonmusicians (Williams, 2008) in an attempt to further
explore listening pattern characteristics for various populations of musicians.
Specifically, this study investigated the possible effects of music complexity and
choral voice-part (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) experience/training on focus of
attention to melody or harmony. The research questions addressed were:

1. Is there a significant difference in focus of attention between melodic

complexity and harmonic complexity?

2. Is there a significant difference between focus of attention responses

among the different voice parts?

3. Is there a significant difference between focus of attention responses

and perceived focus of attention to melody or harmony?

Method

Participants

The participants (N = 150) consisted of undergraduate and graduate vocal

performers enrolled in the most advanced choral ensembles at their respective
schools. All participants were selected from four large universities in the Midwestern
United States. The singers were grouped according to voice part: sopranos (« = 44),
altos (n = 33), tenors (« = 35), and basses (n = 38). Each participant indicated the
voice-part most often performed within the context of a mixed choral ensemble,
which, in turn, determined grouping (i.e. soprano, alto, etc.).

48

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. Williams

Stimuli

The stimuli were original compositions, designed to isolate melodic

complexity and harmonic complexity while maintaining some semblance of
musical context. The melodic and harmonic elements were composed to be
idiomatic to jazz style and form (i.e. articulation, chord voicings, etc.) and
performed by a professional jazz pianist. The composition was based on a
12-bar blues harmonic structure in C major and consisted of four melodic
examples (Ml - M4) and four harmonic examples (Hl - H4). The examples
were written and performed with four levels of complexity: low (Ml; Hi);
moderately low (M2; H2); moderately high (M3; H3); and high complexity
(M4, H4). The melodic examples were created such that each could be
performed simultaneously with any of the harmonic examples as if the
performer was playing the melodic example (right hand) and voicing the
chord changes ("comping") the harmonic example (left hand). Therefore,
each data point reflected the participants' focus of attention for each pair as a
whole. All possible melody/harmony complexity pairings (totaling 16) were
arranged such that no identical melodic or harmonic elements followed one
another (see Table 1). The stimuli, performed on solo piano in an attempt to
control for timbre effects, were digitally recorded to 2 tracks. Manipulation
of the examples was completed using a digital sequencing program with the
resulting 16 pairings burned to an audio compact disc. A five-member panel
of experts representing over 80 years of cumulative experience with the jazz
idiom validated the stimulus complexity levels.

Design
The overall design included one between subjects factor (voice-part) and
two within subjects factors (melodic complexity and harmonic complexity).
The stimulus order presentation was determined by a previous study due to
its lack of order effect (Williams, 2005). Each participant completed a static
measurement (10-point semantic differential scale with "melodic elements"
and "harmonic elements" as the anchors) (see Figure 1).

Procedure

All participants heard two practice examples as an introduction to the

process. After a 10-second silence, each trial was introduced with a verbal cue
(i.e. "Example 1"). There was a two-second pause between each example and
verbal cues. Each participant was asked to circle the number on a semantic
differential scale (1 = focus of attention entirely on melodic elements; 10 = focus

49

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Contributions to Music Education

Figure 1. Static Measure: 10-point Semantic Differential Scale

Table 1

Stimulus Pairing Order

Example Melodic Complexity
bxampie Meioaic Lompiexity Harmonic
Level Harmonic
Level ComplexityLevel
Lompiexny Level

Example 1 Ml H4

Example 2 M3 H3

Example 3 M4 H2

Example 4 Ml HI

Example 5 M3 H2

Example 6 M2 H4

Example 7 M4 H3

Example 8 M2 HI

Example 9 M3 H4

Example 10 M2 H2

Example 11 Ml H3

Example 12 M3 HI

Example
Example 13
13 Ml H2

Example
Example1414 M4 H4

Example IS M2 H3

Example 16 M4 HI

Note. All stimulus pairs were heard simultaneously. Levels of complexity: low (Ml; HI); moderately
(M2; H2); moderately high (M3; H3); and high complexity (M4, H4).

50

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. Williams

of attention entirely on harmonic elements) corresponding to his or her focus of

attention at the conclusion of each excerpt. The following instructions occurred
at the top of the demographic data cover page of the data collection tool.
You are going to hear 16 short musical excerpts. At the conclusion of each
excerpt, please circle the number corresponding to your focus of attention to
melody or harmony. As you can see, the left portion of the diagram represents
melody with "less melodic elements" toward the center and "more melodic
elements" toward the far left. The right portion of the diagram represents
harmony with "less harmonic elements" toward the center and "more harmonic
elements" toward the far right. Please complete the following and we will
begin shortly.
The following instructions appeared at the top of the data collection page
and were read aloud by the researcher prior to data collection.
Please circle the number that best describes your focus of attention for
the excerpt that you hear. On the diagram below, the numbers on the left
correspond with less melody (1) to more melody (5). The numbers on the right
correspond with less harmony (1) and more harmony (5). For example, if you
are listening exclusively to harmony, circle the "5" on the far right. If you are
listening exclusively to melody, circle the "5" on the far left. If you are listening
to both but a little more melody than harmony, circle the "1" on the left.
At the conclusion of the sixteenth, and final, excerpt, the participants
were asked to turn the page and respond to a question pertaining to how
participants' tend to focus their attention when listening to music in general.
They responded using a 10-point semantic differential scale (l=focus on
"melody only;" 10=focus on "harmony only"). Therefore, a score of "5" indicates
that they tend to listen to melodic elements only slightly more than they listen
to harmonic elements of music.
Individuals were isolated from one another in an attempt to control
for possible peer influence. Since multiple venues were utilized, though the
presentation environment varied, all efforts were made to make them as
similar as possible. The researcher observed all data collection. The stimuli
were presented with average peak levels set between 70 and 80 dBA.

Results

The 10-point semantic differential scale utilized in this study created a forced
choice for focus of attention levels within either melodic elements or harmonic
elements with "1" representing complete focus of attention to melodic elements

51

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Contributions to Music Education

and "10" representing complete focus of attention to harmonic elements. There

was no "neutral" or "both" area to select. Each data point represented a response
to each complexity pairing as a whole. Therefore, mean and standard deviation
scores represent the mean for all pairings that included each complexity example.
For instance, the mean score for Ml included pairings that included all Ml data
points (e.g., Ml/Hl; M1/H2; M1/H3; M1/H4).
This investigation was designed to explore the possible effects of music
complexity and voice-part (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) experience and training
on focus of attention to melody or harmony. Data from the first research
question indicated two significant differences for the main effects of melodic
and harmonic complexity. An ANOVA post-hoc analysis indicated that two
pairings, M3 (moderately high complexity) / H2 (moderately low complexity)
(F(3,149) = 2.946, M = 5.08, SD = 1.08, p = .035) and M3 (moderately high
complexity) / H3 (moderately high complexity) CF(3,i49) = 4.152, M = 4.26, SD
= 1.86, p = .007), garnered significantly different focus of attention responses
than did the other pairings.
The second research question pertained to possible differences between
focus of attention to melody or harmony among voice-part training and
experience. The data acquired show a significant difference between voice
parts (Ah, 149) = 5.521, p = .001). ATukey post hoc test indicated that soprano
participants (M = 5.65, SD = 2.25) demonstrated significantly different focus
of attention than did the alto (M = 5.65, SD = 2.25), tenor (M = 5.51, SD =
1.96), and bass (M = 5.81, SD = 2.11) participants (p = .05). No significant
differences were found between alto, tenor or bass participants. As discussed
earlier, in this 10-point scale, the higher the number, the more focus of
attention to harmonic elements, while a lower number indicates more focus of
attention to melodic elements.

The final research question, participant self-perception of focus of attention

to melody or harmony data, indicated a significant difference between the
groups (A(3,i49) = 7.811,p < .001). A Newman-Keuls post hoc test showed that
the soprano group (M = 4.68, SD = 1.74) perceived their focus of attention
significantly different than did the alto (M= 5.86, SD - 1.37), tenor (M= 6.06,
SD = 1.68), and bass (M= 6.16, SD = 1.41) groups. No significant differences
were found between alto, tenor or bass participants.

Graphic Analysis

In an attempt to graphically compare the four voice-part groups, mean

scores for each of the levels of melodic and harmonic complexity were

52

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. Williams

plotted. Since the 10-point Likert-type scale used required the participants
to choose between either melodic or harmonic focus of attention, the graphic
representation of these group means display a similar trend for melodic
complexity and harmonic complexity (see Figure 2). It appears that as melodic
complexity increases, all groups tend to focus on melodic complexity until the
melodic material deemed "most complex" (M4) at which point all groups focus
slightly more toward harmonic focus of attention. The alto group appears to
have the biggest change from moderately high melodic complexity (M3) to
highest melodic complexity (M4). For harmonic complexity, all groups begin at
a relatively "neutral" point, a score of 5.5 functioning as "neutral" on a 10-point
scale. The groups appear to behave in manners unique from the other groups.
The soprano group maintains a similar trend as with melodic complexity with
a slight change toward harmonic focus of attention at when it is most complex
(H4). However, the other groups have a similar pattern to that of melodic
complexity but with less variance as complexity increases. Once again, the
alto group showed the largest move toward harmonic focus of attention from
moderately high harmonic complexity (H3) to highest harmonic complexity
(H4). Additionally, the data clearly show a wide difference in perceived focus
of attention between the soprano group and all other groups.

J-.."-* m&T* —♦—•SOP

•" - ALTO
— "ALTO
—*—TEHOR
35

M1
M1 M2
M2 M3
M3MA
m H1
N1 H2
H2 H3 H4 PERC

Complexity
ComplexityLevels
Level«

Figure 2. Focus of Attention: Comple

=150) based on a 10-point semantic differe
melody; 10=focus of attention to harmony

Discussion

This investigation was an attempt to increase understanding of variable

that may affect the listening patterns of trained choral singers. The first resear

53

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Contributions to Music Education

question focused on possible differences between focus of attention to melodic or

harmonic complexity. The fact that the two pairings that showed any significant
differences consisted of similar levels of melodic and harmonic complexity
may indicate that as the complexity increased, the differences between the
groups' focus of attention began to show. This outcome might draw a stronger
conclusion if the pairings of highest complexity (i.e. M4H4, M3H4, M4H3)
showed similar differences, but they did not. The apparent differences in the
pairings with higher levels of complexity may be an indication of a relatively
large number of participants reaching their level of optimum complexity such
that they might have been indecisive as to their focus of attention. It must be
noted that the specificity of the data do not allow for any conclusive judgment,
but do, however, indicate an area for further investigation.
The results of the second research question are particularly interesting.
First, the data indicate that the soprano group tended to listen to melodic
material as complexity increased (see Figure 2). This seems logical since
soprano voice-parts tend to contain primary theme or melodic material.
As axiomatic as this appears, these soprano group data are similar to data
acquired with the same music stimuli presented to both junior high school
instrumentalists (Williams, 2005) and nonmusicians (Williams, 2008). This
might suggest that while college musicians have a great deal more music
training than nonmusicians, their listening patterns appear to develop in a
similar fashion, which is to say that the collegiate sopranos included in this
investigation appear to have a somewhat limited focus of attention to melodic
elements. Secondly, the focus of attention similarities between the alto, tenor,
and bass groups, especially at the highest level of harmonic complexity and
perception of focus of attention, seem to suggest that training and experience
in a voice-part that is primarily harmonic in nature may lead to similarities in
listening patterns when compared to those whose training and experience are
primarily melodic in nature.
The final research question pertained to the participants' self-perceived
focus of attention to melody or harmony. More specifically, participants were
asked to indicate their self-perceived focus of attention to melody or harmony,
on a 10-point Likert-type scale (1 = all melody; 10=all harmony) for when
the participant listens to self-selected music. The results indicated that the
participants in this investigation were relatively self-aware of their listening
patterns. The soprano group indicated they tend to listen to melodic elements
and the data acquired in this investigation suggest that they do, indeed, tend
to focus on melodic elements. Conversely, the alto, tenor, and bass groups self

54

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. Williams

perception of focus of attention tended to be similar to the focus of attention

data acquired in this study.
The results of this investigation, while interesting, are only a small
addition to the developing branch of research in music complexity and focus
of attention. These data may function to illuminate possible variables that
may affect the development of listening patterns and specifically, possible
effects of music education on students' focus of attention. Prior to making any
generalizations to a larger population, however, consideration must be given
to the relatively small sample size.
This investigation suggests further research into listening patterns of choral
performers and individual characteristics that might provide more insight
into how these patterns develop. These may function to inform choral music
educators as to how performers listen and how their listening patterns develop.
The results from this study indicate that sopranos tend to listen to melody
more than other voice-parts. This is not a particular surprise in that one would
assume that sopranos likely perform the melody at any give time more often
than do other parts. If one accepts this premise, then perhaps choral music
educators may want to deliberately expose soprano singers to more harmonic
material in an attempt to broaden their performance experiences.
This investigation attempted to create a listening experience that functioned
as close to a natural setting as possible. The stimuli contained only one timbre,
piano, so any inferences from these data to multi-timbral settings must be
made with caution. While the harmonic progression is ubiquitous to many
and varied styles, the use of a potentially unfamiliar style, jazz piano, may have
affected participant responses. It is clear that listeners are able to discriminate
between melodic and harmonic elements at a relatively young age (Costa
Giomi, 1991), which leads to the question of whether this discrimination
ability transfers to the act of listening while performing.
These data may, however, function to increase the knowledge base of
the effect of music stimulus complexity on focus of attention. An area for
further study might include either novel or extant music of varying levels of
complexity in an attempt to measure their effect on both focus of attention and
aesthetic response. Does a listeners' optimum complexity level have any affect
on aesthetic response or are those variables mutually exclusive? Additionally,
the participants were all primarily performers of monophonie instruments (i.e.
the human voice). Further research into the listening patterns of polyphonic
instrumentalists (i.e. piano, guitar, organ) might illuminate additional variables
affecting the development of listening patterns.

55

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Contributions to Music Education

Accepted August 10,2009

References

Brooks, J. G. 8c Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The casefor

constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Capperella, D. A. (1989). Reliability of the continuous response digital interface
for data collection in the study of auditory perception. Southeastern Journal
of Music Education, 1,19-32.
Conley, J. K. (1981). The psychophysical investigation of judgments of
complexity in music. Psychomusicology, 1, 59-71.
Costa-Giomi, E. (1991). Recognition of chord changes by 4- and 5-year-old
American and Argentine children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University.
Daugherty, J. F. (1999). Spacing, formation, and choral sound: Preferences
and perceptions of auditors and choristers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 47(3), 224-38.
Feierabend, J. M., Saunders, T. C., Holahan, J. M., 8c Getnick, P. E. (1998).
Song recognition among preschool-age children: An investigation of
words and music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 351-359.
Fredrickson, W. E. (1995). A comparison of perceived musical tension and
aesthetic response. Psychology of Music, 23, 81-87.
Fredrickson, W. E., 8c Coggiola, J. C. (2003). A comparison of music majors'
and nonmajors' perceptions of tension for two selections of jazz music.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 259-270.
Geringer, J. M., 8cMadsen, C. K. (1995/1996). Focus of attention to elements:
Listening patterns of musicians and nonmusicians. Bulletin of Council for
Research in Music Education, 127, 82-87.
Gromko, J. E. (1993). Perceptual differences between expert and novice music
listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychology of Music, 21,34-47.
Gudmundsdottir, H. R. (1999). Children's auditory discrimination of simultaneous
melodies. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47,101-110.
Heyduk, R. G. (1975). Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates
to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 17(1),
84-91.

Hufstader, J. A. (1977). An investigation of a learning sequence of music

listening skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25,185-196.

56

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Lindsey R. Williams

Lerdahl, F., StJackendoff, R. (1983). An overview of hierarchical structure in

music. Music Perception, 1, 229-252.
Madsen, C. K., 8c Geringer, J. M. (2000/2001). A focus of attention model
for meaningful listening. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 147,103-108.
Madsen, C. K., 8c Madsen, K. (2002). Perception and cognition of music:
Musically trained and untrained adults. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 50,11-130.
North, A. C., 8c Hargreaves, D. J. (1995). Subjective complexity, familiarity,
and liking for popular music. Psychology of Music, 14, 77-93.
Radocy, R. E. (1982). Preference for classical music: A test for the hedgehog.
Psychology of Music, Special Issue: Proceedings of the Ninth International
Seminar on Research in Music Education, 91-95.
Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, L. R. (2008). The effect of music complexity on nonmusicians*
focus of attention to melody or harmony. Update: Applications of Research
in Music Education, 26,27-32.
Williams, L. R. (2005). The effect of musical training and musical complexity
on focus of attention to melody or harmony. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 53,210-221.

57

This content downloaded from

178.191.134.120 on Thu, 13 Oct 2022 13:58:16 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms