Council for Research in Music Education

An Analysis of Dynamic Contrasts in Recorded Choral, Orchestral, and Piano Performances

Author(s): John M. Geringer
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 112 (Spring, 1992), pp. 51-
61
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318496
Accessed: 23-02-2016 10:45 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318496?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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.

University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Analysis of Dynamic Contrasts in
Recorded Choral, Orchestral,and Piano
Performances

JohnM. Geringer
TheUniversity
ofTexasatAustin
Texas
Austin,

Abstract
This studyanalyzed the performancesof selected dynamiccontrastsin 60 com-
merciallyrecorded choral, orchestral,and piano compositions. Comparisons were
made between the magnitude of intensitychange in the performanceof dynamic
increases (piof indicationsinthe scores) as opposed to decreases (fio p), and among
the three performancemediums. A laboratoryqualitygraphic level recorderdeter-
minedthe rangeofrelativeintensity levels performedintheidentifieddynamicchanges.

Therewas no significant inthe range ofdynamiccontrastsbetweenthe

difference
recorded choral, orchestral,and piano performances,nor was there a significant
interactionbetween performancemedium and directionof dynamic change. A sig-
was found,however,in the directionof change, thatis, betweenthe
nificantdifference
performancesof crescendos and decrescendos. Performancesacross all threemed-
iums exhibitedp to f changes witha largerdynamic range than the fio p changes.
These data appear consistentwiththe similardirectionaleffectsfound in a numberof
studies regardingpitchand tempo that investigatedperformancepractices of musi-
cians.

The incorporation of dynamicvariationin musicalperformance has

been widelyrecognizedas an essentialelementof artisticexpression.
Recentinvestigations haveobservednotabledifferences indynamics inter-
pretation(Gabrielsson,1987;Nakamura,1987; Ybarra,1990). Listeners
perceivedperformances witha lowratioofdynamicdeviationsas lacking
in expressivequalities(Gabrielsson,1987; Marchand,1975). Across en-
sembleand individualperformances, largerdynamicrangesand distin-
guishable contrastsbetween softand loud passageswere associatedwith
moremusically and
experiencedperformers higherratings(Gordon,1960;
Marchand,1975). Althoughidentification ofdynamicchangesgenerally is
notdifficultforchildrenand adultswithminimalmusicaltraining(Flow-
ers, 1984; Hair, 1981; Madsen & Geringer,1990), recentstudieshave
noted difficultyin teachingmodel performances of dynamicsto exper-
iencedpianists(Sharp,1988)and toyounger pianostudents( Yarbrough&
Parker,1990).
The perceptionofloudnesslevelsis primarily of intensity,
a function
althoughfrequency,duration,and waveformexertinfluence(Hedden,

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 Dynamic Contrasts

1980; Parker& Schneider,1980). Subjectsdiscriminated

intensitymod-
levelsthanat softerlevels
ulationsmore readilyat louder presentation
(Haack, 1975;Hedden,1980;Jesteadt, Wier,& Green,1977).
Resultsofinvestigations
regarding theeffectofthedirectionofinten-
sitymodulationson listenersappear to depend upon context,type,and
sequence ofstimuli.LaTorre's(1974) resultswithtonalstimuliindicated
thatin three-tonesetswiththefirstand thirdtonesbeingequal, listeners
perceiveda greaterdifference in loudnessbetweenthetwotonesincreas-
ingin intensitythanbetweenthesame twotonesin thedecreasingdirec-
tion. A secondexperiment comparedtwo-tone sets. The 50/70dB setwas
greaterinloudnessdifference
judgedas significantly thanthe70/50dB set.
Bernstein(1968) observedsimilarfindings withrelatively largeintensity
differences(15 dB) betweenstimulus tones. Boththesestudiessuggested
thatthedirectionofstimuluschangewas important in termsoftheorient-
ingresponseof organisms, thatis, it is advantageousto detectsomething
approaching(increasingintensity)ratherthan leaving.Lockhead and
Hinson (1986) demonstrated thatdiscrimination of listenersdepended
upon stimulusrangeand sequenceoftones. Theysuggestedthatsubjects
were not able to formulatecontextualintensity relationshipswithonly
threetones.
Moore (1981) and Geringer(1991) utilizedtones and music that
modulatedcontinuously, and observedthatlistenersperceivedintensity
decreaseswithgreateracuitythanincreasesin intensity.Moore's (1981)
synthesizerand clarinettones modulated 3
by dB, and decreaseswere
more
perceivedsignificantly accurately than crescendos. Geringer(1991)
used musicalexamplesand tones thatmodulatedin 1 dB increments.
Listenerscorrectlyidentified
decreasessignificantly
soonerthanintensity
increases.
The dynamicrangeof a fullorchestrain Uveperformance, although
affectedbyroomand measurement
strongly apparatusplacement,is ap-
proximately50 dB (Winckel,1962). Rangesofindividualinstruments are
generallysmallerand varyas a functionof sound productionand type.
Most individualmusiciansapparentlyperform withina 15 to 20 dB range
(Backus,1969;Clark& Luce, 1965;Patterson,1974). Sloboda (1982) also
observedlimiteddynamicrangesamongprofessional musicians.
There existslittlesystematic
empiricalevidenceconcerningperfor-
mancestandardswithregardto specificdynamicvariations.Gabrielsson
(1987) notedsomesimilaritiesofdynamicpatternsinrecordedperforman-
ces of professionalpianists.Nakamura(1987) founda limiteddynamic
rangein decrescendopassages,a systematicuse oflargerdynamicranges
(10-14 dB) duringcrescendopassages whenthe melodicline ascended,
and smallerranges(about 7 dB) duringcrescendopassages when the
melodicline descended. The largestmodulationsof intensitywere be-
tween14 and 16 dB.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geringer 53

The presentstudyinvestigated patternsof dynamicincreasesand

decreasesincommercially recordedorchestral, and pia-
choral/orchestral,
no performances.Of particularinterestwas a comparisonoftheamount
ofintensitychangeintheperformances ofsoftto loud changesas opposed
to loud to softchanges.The specificproblemsof the studywere to ex-
amine the magnitudeof stimuluschange in recordedperformances of
dynamicindications inscoresofpto/versus/to/?,andwhetherdifferences
existedin themagnitudeof dynamicchangesbetweenchoral,orchestral,
and pianoperformances.

Method
Data weresampledfrom60 recordings.TWenty recordingseach were
selectedfrompiano,orchestral, and choral/orchestral
compositions in the
westernformaltradition literature.TWentygraduatestudentsenrolledin
degreeprogramsat a large stateuniversity identifiedthreeworkseach,
subjectto severalcriteria.Each composition was to havean availablefull
score, an availablecommercialrecording,and at least one exampleof
clearlymarkedlettereddynamicchangesofp to/and/top. Each change
was to occurwithin16 measures,to approximate thesamemusicalcontext.
The sequence of the selected dynamicchangeswas not considereda
criticalfactor.A furtherrestriction in selectionof exampleswas that
instrumentation, voicing, and octave registerwere to remainconstant
withineach dynamicchange. All choralworksincludedorchestral accom-
paniment.These criteriatendedto producea preponderanceof works
fromthe 19thCentury, althougha fewcompositionsfromthe 17th,18th,
and 20thCenturieswereselected. A completelistoftheworksanalyzedis
presentedinTable 1.

Table1
forAnalysis
Selected
Compositions
Measure
Movement/ Numbers
Composer Composition Section p <f f>P
Orchestral:
Bach Concerto
Brandenburg #2 1 31-33 48-50
Beethoven Symphony #5 1 57-65 1-13
Beethoven Symphony #3 2 37-40 40-43
Beethoven Symphony #7 3 3-17 1-3
Berlioz Fantastique
Symphony 3 57-64 64-72
Brahms #3
Symphony 1 15-19 90-94
Brahms #3
Symphony 3 149-158158-159

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 Dynamic Contrasts

Debussy Prelude d'unfaune -

a Vapres-midi 17-19 19-25
Haydn Symphony #101 1 1-3 3-4
MendelssohnSymphony #4 2 51-52 52-53
Mozart Symphony #41 2 28-38 7-9
MussorgskyPicturesatanExhibition(Ravel) 2 38-41 41-51
Ravel Rapsodie Espagnole 2 56-62 53-56
Schubert Unfinished Symphony 1 22-29 29-31
Schumann Symphony #4 4 655-659653-655
Shostakovich
Symphony #5 1 17-24 24-26
Stravinsky Petrouchka Scene1 21-24 24-25
Tfchaikovsky
Symphony #4 1 28-35 17-19
Vaughn Fantasiaon T.TalusTheme - 71-72 68-71
Williams
Wagner Tristan
undIsolde Prelude 21-25 20-21

Piano:
Barber Excursions (Op 20) 1 28-29 29-32
Beethoven Pathetique(Op 13) 1 12-18 18-19
Beethoven EroicaVariations(Op.35) 10 1-8 8-9
Brahms Scherzo(Op.4) 45-61 81-84
Brahms Klavierstilcke
(Op.76,#1) Capriccio 42-47 59-64
Chopin PreludeinD (Op.28,#5) - 5-12 14-17
Chopin Fantasie(Op.49) - 54-60 60-68
Debussy L'isleJoyeuse - 1-3 3-4
Gershwin Three PreludesforPiano 1 25-28 28-29
Haydn Sonatainc-minor 3 99-102 97-99
SongWithout
Mendelssohn Words (Op.19,#1) - 33-39 31-33
Mendelssohn
SongWithout Words (Op.38,#1) - ■ 9-14 17-20
Mozart Fantasieind-minor (K 397) - 23-26 16-17
Prokofiev Mazurka(Op.12) - 18-25 14-18
Ravel Sonatine 3 16-18 15-16
Ravel AlboradadelGracioso(Moirors) - 43-49 49-52
Schubert Fantasien (D. 760) 1 14-15 40-41
Schumann Carnaval(Op.9) 9 9-11 11-13
Schumann Symphonic Etudes(Op.13) Thema 1-6 6-14
Scriabin Prelude(Op.11,#6) - 16-17 17-19

Choral/Orchestral:
Beethoven MissaSolemnis Kyrie 36-40 40-46
Beethoven Symphony #9 4 69-77 49-55
Berlioz GrandeMessedesMorís Dieslrae 87-89 93-95
Bernstein Chichester
Psalms 3 32-36 36-37

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geringer 55

Brahms German Requiem 1 40-55 55-60

Brahms Rhapsodie eine
filr Altstimme, - 6-11 11-16
Münnerchor,unaOrchester
Britten A Ceremony ofCarols 3 16-28 28-37
Fàure Requiem Kyrie 20-25 8-11
Handel Messiah Hallelujah 34-37 32-34
Haydn Mass inBb Agnus 6-9 1-6
Haydn Harmoniemesse Sanctus 10-20 7-10
Haydn TheSeasons ChordesLandvolks12-16 16-23
MendelssohnElijah overIsrael 57-59
He watching 59-66
Mozart MassinC-major Kyrie 2-4 1-2
Orff Carmina Burana 22 2-5 5-6
Poulenc Gloria Gloria 43-45 23-33
Schubert MassinEb Gloria 20-31 12-20
Schubert Massing Kyrie 8-11 4-8
Schumann ScenenausGoethe's Faust III, #7(1) 37-40 40-41
Stravinsky Symphony ofPsalms 3 81-87 161-163

The appropriateexcerptsoftheselectedcompositions wereanalyzed

directlyfromoriginalsourcematerialon recordsand compactdiscs. A
Bruel and Kjaer GraphicLevel Recorder(GLR) Model 2306 recorded
relativeintensity dynamicchanges. The GLR is a
levelsof theidentified
laboratory qualityrecording and
voltmeter, producesanalogrecordings of
thetrueRMS value ofwaveforms in thefrequency range of 1.6 Hz to 20
KHz, plus or minus0.5 dB. This instrument has a relativeintensityre-
sponserange of 50 dB. The paper speed was 10 mm/s and the pen speed
was 250 mm/s.The continuousmeasurement ofrelativeintensitychanges
enables directcomparisonsof dynamicsas notatedwithactual perfor-
mance. Further, Nakamura(1987) suggestedthatthismethodappearsto
correspondcloselyto listenerperceptionofdynamicchangeswithinmusi-
cal contexts.
For thepurposeofreliability,
theinvestigator
and a second observer
independentlyviewed30 graphsofthe120sampledexcerpts(25%) . Com-
parisonsofagreement weremadebetweenthedB rangesassignedto each
selectedchangeofdynamics.Interobserver computedusingthe
reliability
methodofagreements within1 dB dividedbythetotalnumberofobserva-
tionsindicateda concordancebetweenobserversof93 percent.

Results
For analysispurposes,each of the60 compositionswas treatedas a
subjectgiventwotreatments (crescendoand decrescendo). The amount

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 Dynamic Contrasts

ofintensitychangein dB foreach selecteddynamicincrease(ptof) and

decrease(fto/?),one exampleofeach per composition,servedas theraw
analysis.A two-way
data forstatistical analysisofvariancewithrepeated
measureson one factorassessed effects
ofperformance medium(choral,
piano, and orchestralexcerpts)and directionof change on performed
dynamics.Resultsofthisanalysisare showninTable2.

Table2
AnalysisofVarianceforPerformance
Medium
and DirectionofDynamicChange

Source SS df MS F p
PerformanceMedium 135.27 2 67.64 3.06 >.05
w/in
Excerpts groups 1257.82 57 22.07 - -
BetweenExcerpts 1393.09 59 - - -
Direction
ofChange 63.07 l 63.07 16.82 <.001
Medium*Direction 9.80 2 4.90 1.31 >.25
Direction
x Excerpts 213.63 57 3.75 - -
w/ingroups
WithinExcerpts 286.50 60 - - -

It can be seen thattherewas nota significantdifferencebetweenthe

threecategoriesof performance, F (2, 59) = 3.06,p > .05. There was,
however,a significantdifference
betweentheperformances ofcrescendos
and decrescendoswithinexcerpts, F (1, 57) = 16.82,p<. 001. Therewas
no significantinteraction
betweentheperformance mediumand thedirec-
tionofdynamicchange,p > .25.

Table3
Means and StandardDeviationsforPerformance
Mediumand Directionof
Change

P<f f>P
Medium
Performance Mean SD Mean SD
Orchestral 14.70 4.24 13.25 3.99
Piano 12.45 3.63 10.30 2.96
Choral/Orchestral 13.10 2.92 12.35 3.62
Total 12U2 3I70 TL97 3.70

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geringer 57

Table3 showsthatacrosstherecordedexcerptssampled,performers
averageda 13.42dB changewhenperforming dynamiccontrastsofp to/,
and modulatedonly11.97dB on contrastsmarked/top. The patternof
greaterchanges for crescendosthan for decrescendoswas consistent
acrossall threeperformance categories.Piano tofortemodulationswere
1.45dB greaterthanfortetopiariomodulations acrossorchestralexcerpts,
2.15 dB greaterin piano examples,and .75 dB greaterin the choral
examples.
Althoughdifferences in meansbetweenthethreeperformance me-
diumswerenotsignificant, itcan be seen also thattheorchestralexcerpts
greaterrangein dynamicperformance
exhibiteda slightly (13.98dB) than
did the choral/orchestral (12.73 dB) and the piano (11.38 dB) examples.
In addition,differencesinstandarddeviationswererelatively smallwithin
performance mediums ( < 0.70dB) compared to between the mediums (as
largeas 1.32dB).
In orderto clarifyfurther the extentof the intensity
differencebe-
tweencrescendoand decrescendo,a subsequentfrequencyanalysiswas
done. The frequency withwhichdynamicincreaseswereperformed with
a greateramountofstimuluschangethandecreasesapproximated a ratio
of 3 to 1. That is, across the 60 pieces sampled,36 examplesin the
crescendodirectionwere of greatermagnitudethanin the decrescendo
direction,whilein only11 examplesweredecreasesin intensity ofgreater
magnitude thantheincreases.In 13oftheexcerpts, theselecteddirection-
al dynamicchangeswereofequal magnitude.

Discussion
This studyanalyzedcommercially recordedperformances of piano,
orchestral,and pieces regarding magnitudeof dy-
choral/orchestral the
namiccontrasts whenperforming crescendos(p tof) versusdecrescendos
(ftop). Therewas nota significantdifferencebetweenthethreeperfor-
mance mediumswhen performing the selected dynamicincreasesand
effectofdirectionwas foundin performing
decreases. A significant these
dynamicchanges.All threemediumsperformed p to / changeswitha
largerdynamicrange(M = 13.42 dB) thanftop changes
significantly
(M = 11.97dB).
The meanmagnitudeofintensity difference between/? tof andftop
contrastswas 1.45 dB. Underverycontrolledconditions, chan-
intensity
ges in pure tonestimulias smallas .3 to .5 dB wereperceived(Hedden,
1980; Jesteadt,Wier,& Green, 1977). Relativeloudnessthresholdsof
tones presentedat verylow intensity levels appear to be about 1.5 dB
&
(Campbell Greated,1987). Justnoticeable differencesinloudnesscon-
trastswithinmusicalcontextshave notbeen identified clearly.Whether
the magnitudeof differences foundbetweenperformance of directional

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 Dynamic Contrasts

dynamicssuchas in thepresentstudywouldbe consistently

discriminated
bylisteners
shouldbe explored.
A numberof aspectsregardingthisstudyseem to warrantcaution.
Althoughtheselectionofcompositions usedwas essentiallyrandomwithin
therestrictions
set,there were 20
only examples withineach of theper-
formancemediums.Recordingsof additionalcompositions, otherstyles,
or even otherrecordingsof the same examplesmayproducechangesin
results.Further,
onlyone occurrenceofeach directional changewas used
per example,and onlyclearlyindicatedchangesoip tof orf top were
selectedforanalysis.If all instancesof thesespecificchangeswereused
withinan entiremovementor composition, resultsconceivablycould be
different.Moreover, in live as opposed to recorded performances,cre-
scendos and decrescendosusinga widerrangeof lettereddynamics(pp
and ff)yor analysisof symbolsonly (<CT , ^>) mayreveal different
performancepracticesregardingdynamics.Anotherpossible variable
concernstherecordingprocessitself,thatis, recordingengineersmight
augmentcrescendosrelativeto decrescendosduringthemixingprocess.
This however,seems unlikelygiventhewide varietyof recordingsused,
and thecorroborative resultsobtainedin analysisof dynamiccontrastsin
livepianoperformances (Ybarra,1991).
The presentdata appear to be consistentwitha numberof studies
concerningperformance practicesof musicians.Similardirectionalef-
fectsin theperformance oftempoand pitchhavebeen noted. Musicians
tendto increasetemposin performance (Drake, 1968;Kuhn,1977) and
international
deviationsare primarilyin the sharpdirection(Geringer&
Sogin,1988;Madsen,1974). These data appear also to be in accordance
withtheperceptionofmodulatedintensity reportedbyMoore (1981) and
Geringer (1991). While the performanceof crescendoswitha greater
magnitudeof contrastthan decrescendosdoes seem to parallel these
earlierresults,numerousothervariableswithinmusicalcontextsmayexert
considerableeffects(i.e., Duke, 1987; Kuhn,1987; Wapnick,1987; Yar-
brough,1987) and shouldbe investigated further.
Althoughaccepted as a fundamental aspect of expressionin music,
theuse ofdynamicvariationinperformance and corresponding effectson
listenershavereceivedrelatively
littleattentionin theresearchliterature.
Furtherexplorationoftherelationships amongcomposerintentions, per-
former intentions
versusactualperformance, and listenerperceptionsand
preferenceswithregardto dynamics warrants additionaland carefulstudy.

References
Backus,J. (1969). Theacousticalfoundations
ofmusic. New York: W.W.
Norton.
A. S. (1968). The orienting
Bernstein, responseand directionofstimulus
change. Psychonomic 12
Science, , 127-128.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geringer 59

Campbell,M, & Greated,C. (1987). Themusician'sguideto acoustics.

New York: SchirmerBooks.
Clark,M., & Luce, D. (1965). Intensities oforchestralinstrument scales
at
played prescribeddynamicmarkings. Journal of theAudio En-
gineering Society,13,151-157.
Drake,A. H. (1968). An experimental studyof selectedvariablesin the
performance of musicaldurationalnotation.Journalof Researchin
MusicEducation,16,329-338.
Duke, R. A. (1987). The effectof melodicrhythm on undergraduates'
perception of relativetempo. Contributionsto Music Education,14,
19-28.
Flowers,P.J. (1984). Attention to elementsofmusicand effectofinstruc-
tionin vocabularyon writtendescriptions of musicby childrenand
undergraduates. PsychologyofMusic,12,17-24.
Ciabnelsson,A. (1987). Unce again: Ine tñemerromMozarts piano
sonata in A major (K. 331). In A. Gabrielsson(Ed.), Actionand
perception in rhythm and music,PublicationsissuedbytheRoyalSwe-
dishAcademyofMusicNo. 55 (pp. 81-103). Stockholm, Sweden: The
Academy.
Geringer,J.M. (1991). Temporaldiscrimination of modulatedintensity
in musicexcerptsand tones.JournalofResearchinMusicEducation,
39 , 113-120.
Geringer, J.M., & Sogin,D. W. (1988). An analysisofmusicians'intona-
tional adjustments within the duration of selected tones.
Contributions toMusicEducation,15,1-6.
Gordon, (1960). An approachto the quantitative
E. studyof dynamics.
JournalofResearchinMusicEducation,8, 23-30.
Haack, P. A. (1975). The influenceof loudnesson thediscrimination of
musicalsound factors.Journalof Researchin Music Education,23,
67-77.
Hair, H. I. (1981). Verbalidentification of musicconcepts.Journalof
ResearchinMusicEducation,29, 11-21.
Hedden, S. K. (1980). Psychoacoustical parametersor music. In D. A.
Hodges (Ed.), Handbookofmusicpsychology (pp. 63-92). Lawrence,
KS: NationalAssociationforMusicTherapy.
Jesteadt, W., Wier,C. , & Green,C. (1977). Intensity discriminationas a
functionof frequencyand sensationlevel. Journalof theAcoustical
SocietyofAmerica,61, 169-177.
Kuhn,T. L. (1977). Effectsof dynamics,halves of exercise,and trial
sequenceson tempoaccuracy.JournalofResearchin MusicEduca-
tion,25, 222-227.
Kuhn,T. L. (1987). The effectoftempo,meter,and melodiccomplexity
on theperceptionoftempo. In C. K. Madsen& C. A. Prickett (Eds.),
Applicationsofresearchin musicbehavior(pp. 165-174). Tbscaloosa,
AL: University ofAlabamaPress.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 Dynamic Contrasts

LaTorre,R. (1974). The directionaleffectofintensity changeon estima-

tive differencein loudness.AustralianJournalof Psychology, 26,
93-98.
Lockhead, G. R., & Hinson,J. (1986). Range and sequence effectsin
judgment. Perception and Psychophysics,40,53-61.
Madsen, C. K. (1974). Sharpnessand flatnessin scalar vocal perfor-
mance. Sciencede TArt/ScientificAesthetics,9,91-97.
Madsen,C. K., & Geringer, J.M. (1990). Differential patternsofmusic
listening:Focus of attentionof musiciansversus nonmusicians. Bul-
letinoftheCouncilforResearchinMusicEducation,105,45-57.
Marchand,D. J. (1975). A studyoftwoapproachesto developingexpres-
siveperformance. JournalofResearchinMusicEducation,23, 14-22.
Moore, R. S. (1981, April). Modulated intensity discrimination among
musiciansand nonmusicians.Paper presentedat theNationalCon-
ventionof the Music EducatorsNationalConference,Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Nakamura, T. (1987). The communicationof dynamics between
musiciansand listenersthroughmusicalperformance.Special issue:
The understandingof melody and rhythm. Perception and
Psychophysics,41, 525-533.
Parker,S., & Schneider,B. A. (1980). Loudness and loudness dis-
crimination.Perception and Psychophysics,28,398-406.
Patterson,B. (1974). Musicaldynamics.Scientific American,231,18-95.
Sharp,M. D. (1988). Relationships amongmodelperformances and per-
formancesby piano majors: Articulation and dynamicsin selected
Bach fugaiexcerpts.Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State Univer-
sity.DissertationAbstractsInternational,
50, 1243A.
Sloboda, J. A. (1982). Music performance.In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The
psychology ofmusic, (pp. 479-496). New York: AcademicPress.
Wapnick,J. (1987). A comparisonof temposelectionsby professional
in Bach's Well-Tempered
editors,pianists,and harpsichordists Clavier,
Book I. In C. K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett(Eds.), Applicationsof
researchinmusicbehavior(pp. 190-203).Tbscaloosa,AL: University
ofAlabama Press.
Winckel,F. W. (1962). Optimumacousticcriteriaofconcerthallsforthe
performance of classicalmusic.Journalof theAcousticalSocietyof
America,34, 81-86.
Yarbrough, C. (1987). The effectofmusicalexcerptson tempodiscrim-
inationsand preferencesof musiciansand nonmusicians.In C. K.
Madsen & C. A. Prickett(Eds.), Applicationsof researchin music
behavior (pp. 175-189). Tüscaloosa, AL:Universityof Alabama
Press.
Yarbrough,C, & Parker,S. (1990, March). Relationshipsamongchil-
dren's and model's performances of dynamicsand articulationin
keyboardexcerpts.Paper presentedat the NationalConventionof
theMusic EducatorsNationalConference, Washington, D. C.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Geringer §1

Ybarra,M. A. (1990, March). The effectsof musicalstyleperiod and

tempoon performed dynamicrangeinpianomusic. Paperpresented
at the NationalConventionof the Music EducatorsNationalCon-
ference,Washington, D. C.
Ybarra, M. A. (1991). Performancepracticesof dynamicsamong ad-
vancedpianists:Effectsofdynamicmarkings inselectedcompositions.
The University
Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation, ofTexas,Austin.

Indiana Symposiumon Researchin Social Psychology

ofMusic
Indiana University
Bloomington,Indiana
May2-4, 1993

Call forPapers
IndianaUniversity SchoolofMusicannouncesa call Four copiesof thecom-
forpapersfora Symposium on Researchin Social pletepaperand abstract
Psychologyof Music,to be heldin Bloomington, shouldbe submitted by
Indiana,May2-4,1993. The papersshouldbe reports January1, 1993. Selec-
ofrecentunpublishedresearchrelevantto social tionofpaperswillbe
psychologyofmusic. Appropriatetopicsinclude,but determined bya panel of
are notrestricted
to,affective response,music qualifiedreadersand
preference,attitudes,
motivation, personality, authorswillbe notifiedby
teaching-learningstyleissues,performanceanxiety, February1, 1993.
and teacher-studentinteraction.

Papers maybe submittedforone of twopresentationformats:(a) individual

presentationand discussionor (b) postersession. The authorshould indicatefor
whichof the twoformatsthepaper is submitted.Papers shouldbe no morethan25
pages in length.The author'sname, institutional and mailingaddress
affiliation,
shouldappearonlyon a separatecoverpage.

Submissionsand inquiriesshouldbe sentto:

CharlesP. Schmidt,Symposium Coordinator
Schoolof Music
IndianaUniversity
Bloomington, IN 47405
telephone812-855-7253.

This content downloaded from 134.83.1.242 on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:45:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions