Music Preference 1 - Brent Hugh's personal and business web pages

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Music Preference 36 show statistical significance, and giving each treatment to these groups twice was one way of gathering the large amount of responses necessary. Surveys Subjects were given a survey with demographic questions and questions about music preference. Subjects were asked to respond to the appropriate music preference question during or immediately after hearing each repertoire selection. Subjects were asked to rate their overall enjoyment of the selection on a five-point Likert scale, from 1 (Very Unenjoyable) to 5 (Very Enjoyable; see Appendices B, C, and D). For the youngest group (LE), reading comprehension was a problem. A very basic survey form was designed, with only a few simple written words. Response was on a five-point Likert scale, with the degrees between hate it and love it indicated by smiley and frowny faces (a scale with similar faces was used with pre-school children by Peery & Peery, 1986). A brief explanation and demonstration of the rating scale was given to these young students at the beginning of each presentation (see Appendix B). Surveys with incomplete data for the analysis of interest were removed (although incomplete or unanswered questions were ignored if the omitted information was not relevant to the particular analysis being made; such incomplete responses were included in the tabulations). Subjects occasionally circled two numbers on the five point scale or otherwise indicated a response between two numbers on the scale. Although the instructions did not necessarily encourage this type of response, they did not specifically disallow it either, and so for purpose of analysis these responses were simply averaged (e.g., a circled 4 and 5 was entered as 4.5).
Questions Music Preference 37 Question 1: Does presentation of musical information by a recital performer, immediately prior to performance of a particular music selection, change music preference ratings of audience Method members for that selection? Data from all five groups (LE, UE, MS, HS, and RA) were combined in a latin square to compare the effects of treatments ID and N. As explained previously (see Experimental Design), for three of the groups (LE, UE, MS) three treatments were used (N, ID, and IP). Since Question 1 was designed to investigate the effects of treatments N and ID only, the data relating to treatment IP were simply omitted (see Table 7). Results The data were evaluated with the paired t-test. Mean rating on the five-point Likert scale for treatment ID (M = 4.08, SD = .92) was significantly higher than for treatment N (M = 3.99, SD = .93), t(680) = 1.96, p < .01. Discussion Spoken informational presentations by the performer (treatment ID) significantly increase musical preference ratings above simply performing the music with no introduction (treatment N). This difference in preference ratings seems quite small: the difference of 0.09 is 2.3% of the possible range in ratings, 1-5. How does the difference in ratings due to different treatments compare in size to differences in ratings stemming from performances of works by different composers? The mean rating from group RA for the Cappriccio is 3.95 (SD = 0.93), for the Fantasy is 4.23 (SD = 0.94), for Funérailles 4.28 (SD = 0.95), and for Carnaval 4.28 (SD = 1.07). This gives differences in
Page 1 and 2: Can Musicians Alter the Music Prefe
Page 3 and 4: The Musician Introduction Why Influ
Page 5 and 6: Music Preference 5 across musical g
Page 7 and 8: Music Preference 7 easier to manipu
Page 9 and 10: Music Preference 9 training and hig
Page 11 and 12: Music Preference 11 listening group
Page 13 and 14: Music Preference 13 4. Are there mu
Page 15 and 16: Music Preference 15 Stipp (1990) ag
Page 17 and 18: Music Preference 17 Berkeley, 1997)
Page 19 and 20: Music Preference 19 is the hardenin
Page 21 and 22: Music Preference 21 less. It simply
Page 23 and 24: Music Preference 23 greater depth.
Page 25 and 26: Music Preference 25 may develop a d
Page 27 and 28: Music Preference 27 results in the
Page 29 and 30: Music Preference 29 Presentations i
Page 31 and 32: Music Preference 31 21-80, 53% indi
Page 33 and 34: Music Preference 33 Considering the
Page 35: Music Preference 35 applied to each
Page 39 and 40: Music Preference 39 "Performer was
Page 41 and 42: Music Preference 41 Equally remarka
Page 43 and 44: School audiences. Music Preference
Page 45 and 46: Music Preference 45 the students ar
Page 47 and 48: Music Preference 47 Question 4: Do
Page 49 and 50: Music Preference 49 concert was hel
Page 51 and 52: Music Preference 51 4. For some sub
Page 53 and 54: Music Preference 53 correct, audien
Page 55 and 56: Table 1 Age Distribution of Recital
Page 57 and 58: Table 3 Latin-Square Experimental D
Page 63 and 64: Table 9 Music Preference 63 Repeate
Page 65 and 66: Table 11 Preference Ratings by Age
Page 67 and 68: Table 13 Preference Ratings by Age
Page 69 and 70: Table 15 Music Preference 69 Elemen
Page 71 and 72: Table 17 Music Preference 71 Intera
Page 73 and 74: Preference Rating 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.8 3
Page 75 and 76: WORKS CITED Music Preference 75 Alp
Page 77 and 78: Music Preference 77 Fung, C. K. V.
Page 79 and 80: Music Preference 79 LeBlanc, A., Co
Page 81 and 82: Music Preference 81 Rubin D. C., Ra
Page 83 and 84: Appendix A Outlines of Information
Page 85 and 86: Outline of informational introducti
Page 87 and 88:
Music Preference 87 The final movem
Page 89 and 90:
Music Preference 89
Page 91 and 92:
Music Preference 91
Page 93 and 94:
Music Preference 93
Page 95:
Appendix E Recital program used for
show all

Music Preference 1 - Brent Hugh's personal and business web pages

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?