8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
1/39
PIANO-IMPROVISATION SKILLS OF
MUSICIANS VERSUS NON-MUSICIANS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC THERAPY
by
Laurien G. Hakvoort
A Thesis Submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
2/39
ii
PIANO-IMPROVISATION SKILLS OF
MUSICIANS VERSUS NON-MUSICIANS:
IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC THERAPY
by
Laurien G. Hakvoort
Department: Conservatory of Music
Major: Music Therapy
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California
May 18, 1994
APPROVED BY:
Thesis Advisor: Dr. David E. Wolfe
Committee Member: Professor Audree S. O'Connell
Committee Member: Dr. Michael A. Allard
Dean of the Graduate School: Professor Dr. David A. Fries
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
3/39
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My gratitude goes to Dr. David E. Wolfe for his patience and guidance during this thesis
project. His efforts to correct my English and to clarify all of my difficult explanations made me more
knowledgeable not only for this topic, but also concerning the English language. He has been, and will
continue to be, an inspiration to me. Also I would like to thank Professor Audree S. O'Connell for her
reading, comments and revising of this thesis, and especially her cheerful attitude when I had a difficult
moment. I would like to thank Dr. Michael A. Allard for his comments on statistical issues and his
patience when it took me time to understand some of the statistical analyses. I am also thankful to Clare
J. Macfarlane, who shared her scholarship-award with me, so we both could study for our Masters
Degree in music therapy at the University of the Pacific. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Ren
Torenvlied for his many hours of discussion and comments about topics, subjects, and methods, and
more importantly, to thank him for his help, encouragement and cheerfulness when I was uncertain,
discouraged or excited.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
4/39
iv
ABSTRACT
PIANO IMPROVISATION SKILLS
OF MUSICIANS VERSUS NON MUSICIANS:
IMPLICATIANS FOR MUSIC THERAPY
The purpose of this study was to examine the improvisation skills of musicians and non-
musicians. Fifteen musicians and thirteen non-musicians completed a pre- and post-performance
questionnaire and played a free improvisation on the piano. Three independent observers using the
Music Improvisation Rating scale rated the free improvisations, and the responses on the
questionnaires were tabulated.
Results showed no difference between musicians and non-musicians for duration, expectation,
self-reported interaction and satisfaction. There was, however, a statistically significant difference for
judged interactions between the two groups. This may suggest that a client should not be excluded
from music therapy because of lack of musical skills. The therapeutic and musical interactions,
however, have to be handled and interpreted differently by the therapist. Working with musically
skilled clients may require different interventions from working with musically naive clients.
Keywords: Musical Interaction, (Piano) Improvisation, Music Therapy, Interpretation differences,
Quantitative Research, Music Improvisation Rating Scale
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
5/39
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... ........................................................... ...4
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................11
Subjects ..................................................................................................................................11
Design ......................................................................................................................................12
Materials/equipment..................................................... ........................................................... .13
Procedures ..............................................................................................................................13
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................14
DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................................24
APPENDIX
A. Questionnaire A...................................................................................................................28
B. Questionnaire B ...................................................................................................................30
C. Musical Improvisation Rating Scale ..................................................... ...............................31
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................33
NOTES ...................................................................................................................................................36
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
6/39
3
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
1. Major Instruments and Level of Study of Musicians........................................................................11
2. Major and Level of Study of Non-musicians....................................................................................12
3. Relevant Characteristics of Both Groups..........................................................................................12
4. Questionnaire Responses of Musicians.............................................................................................15
5. Questionnaire Responses of Non-musicians.....................................................................................16
6. Interaction and Time Scores for Musicians ....................................................... ...............................17
7. Interaction and Time Scores for Non-musicians...............................................................................18
RESULTS SCORED WITH MANN-WHITNEY-U-TEST
8. Interaction (Rated) ...................................................... ........................................................... ...........19
9. Expectations of Possibilities ........................................................... ..................................................19
10. Expectations of Sound ......................................................... ........................................................... .20
11. Enjoyment........................................................................................................................................20
12. Self-reported Interaction ...................................................... ........................................................... .21
13. Satisfaction.......................................................................................................................................21
14. Sound Rating....................................................................................................................................22
15. Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound of Musicians......................................22
16. Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound of Non-..............................................23
musicians
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
7/39
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Music therapy is a relatively young and growing profession with a developing empirical
foundation. Because of its youth there exists a diversity of judgments and expectations regarding
music therapy. One of the basic differences in the expectations of therapists and laymen concerns the
indication or contra-indication of music therapy for clients with varying degrees of musical knowledge
and skills. Music therapy is indicated (an appointed remedy for an illness (Kaufmann, 1985; Smeijsters
1992)) and a client is referred to music therapy when he or she needs a musical process to enforce a
psychological process (Smeijsters, 1992), or a social, emotional, behavioral, or academic one.
However, frequently a person's musical capability is used as an indicator for referral to music therapy,
instead of considering whether a musical process could be the remedy of consideration. Clients are
often referred to music therapy because they love music or enjoy playing a musical instrument, but
these qualities say nothing about the indication of this specific treatment. These indications do not
stem from thorough research, but from intuition or lack of knowledge. Research is necessary to answer
the question: Is there a relationship between one's musical skills and one's suitability for music
therapy?
In order to determine whether musical skills play a role in the suitability for music therapy, it
may be valuable to examine the words musicand therapy in order to better understand how these two
terms relate to one another. Music therapy is the use of music in a therapeutic setting, which implies
that music is used to enhance psychological processes.
Therapyincludes concepts like interaction, exploration, growth, process, satisfaction and
communication. This study will examine only the following concepts: interaction, satisfaction and
expectation. Interactionis a "reciprocal (or mutual) influence. In social interaction the behavior of
one [individual] acts as a stimulus for the behavior of another and visa versa." (Reber, 1985, p. 367).
Interaction distinguishes therapy from self-help. As Rogers showed, building a therapeutic relationship
is important (Ivey, Ivey & Morgan, 1993). The interaction within this relationship determines
(according to psychodynamic theory) whether the client is able to grow. Satisfactionis the feeling that
is gained from achieving goals or accomplishing tasks that one did not expect to accomplish. Learning
to accomplish a goal for oneself in relationship with others can be very important in therapy; it can
give the client a feeling of success (and therefore satisfaction) that may provide motivation for the
client to continue trying and attempting new goals. Expectationis the anticipation of a particular
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
8/39
5
event. People will act or remain passive based on their expectations. There is the motivation to try
new things even if the expected outcome is low.
Music,the other important aspect of music therapy, can be handled in different ways and with
different techniques in a therapeutic setting. The techniques most frequently used are: 1. listening to
recorded music (e.g., as a prompt for discussion or for relaxation); 2. listening to live music (e.g., as a
focus for discussion, relaxation or reaching understanding (emotional matching (Bruscia, 1988)); 3.
singing along with recorded or live music (e.g., to create group cohesiveness, or to refresh memories);
4. dancing, painting, or acting to music (e.g., to give a single activity more impact (Moreno, 1991)); 5.
improvising (e.g., to give form to more unconscious processes (Bruscia, 1987; Schalkwijk, 1984)).
For a specific therapeutic use, improvisation clearly offers many opportunities for an active,
personal involvement in a musical process. "In [improvisation] lies the possibility to hear in a dynamic
way the individual as a whole self, as well as in a relationship with another person" (Aldridge, 1991, p.
64). It may also be a musical form where the most sophisticated musical skills are involved. If that is
the case, it may be expected that there could exist a distinct difference in the ability to improvise
between musicians and non-musicians.
What is improvisation and in what context is it relevant for music therapy? There are many
different definitions. Bruscia (1986) states that music improvisation is "the [unprepared] creation of
expressive sound forms or music" (p. 11). This definition puts emphasis on the following aspects of
improvisation: spontaneity/unpreparedness and expressiveness/creativity of the improviser.
Furthermore, it does not matter whether the sounds do match (strict) criteria for being music. This
definition is completely neutral with respect to being a musician or a non-musician. According to
Campbell (1991) improvisation "is the spontaneous generation of melody and rhythm without specific
preparation or premeditation. It is the musical response to unpredictable impulse or feeling" (p. 21). It
apparently should include melody and rhythm, which already requires some musical background or
understanding. The unpreparedness is combined with feelings and unpredictable impulse (such as
other musicians) that emphasize the interaction with others or within a person. Flohr (1985) indicates
in his definition that spontaneity is the important element of an improvisation: "Improvisation is a
spontaneous invention and shaping of music. It is a creative art involving thinking and performing
music simultaneously" (p. 79). The cognitive aspects here are combined with spontaneity and could be
strongly influenced by expectations and satisfaction.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
9/39
6
Pressing (1988) uses a very complicated formula to describe musical improvisation. The three
main factors of his theory are: 1. the manner in which people improvise; 2. how they learn to
improvise; and 3. the origin of novel, or new musical behavior. He does not describe any pros or cons
for musicians or non-musicians, nor does he describe what is expected of an improvisation in musical
terms. For him the unpreparedness, the (inter)action and the improvisational procedures are important.
The New Grove Dictionary (Sadie, 1980) leaves skill necessities undetermined when it defines
improvisation very generally as "the creation of a musical work, as it is being performed. It may
involve the work' s immediate composition by its performers, or the elaboration or adjustment of an
existing framework, or anything between" (p. 31). It could be inferred from these definitions that one
does not need to be a musician, possessing musical skills or knowledge, in order to be involved in
improvisation.
On the other hand, Zentz (1992) states, that "improvisation is the art of skillfully combining
the elements of music with refined technical proficiency" (p. 53). This is a completely different
approach. It demands highly skilled improvisers. One cannot be satisfied until these high standards
are met. In the same line, Rutkowski (1992) argues, that "improvising should never be considered as
choosing random tones in random rhythms in some random forms. The skilled improviser has a plan
and knows what his or her sounds will be" (p. 53). Here, cognitive aspect includes musical skills.
Kalmar and Balasko (1987) see musical improvisation as a "structuring activity [that] implies
rules one has to comply with" (p. 77). Rules may include all kinds of regulations, but rules imply also
' sanctions' , or at least interaction with others who state the rules. Farber (1991) states that: "One' s
improvisatory imagination usually stays within one' s technical competency" (p. 32). What a person
puts in an improvisation therefore depends not only on his technical skills. The improvisation as such
will give him all the exploration possibilities he needs. Skills are not necessary.
Reading these statements regarding musical improvisation, one can distill two main
approaches: a. spontaneous, unskilled improvisation and; b. skilled, controlled improvisation. Again, a
major difference is made between musicians and non-musicians. For the totally controlled
improvisation one needs to be a musician, with an established feeling for beat and rhythm (Gray,
1983), and possess many other musical skills (Bash, 1991; Dobbins, 1988; Meadows, 1991; Rose 1985;
Rutkowski 1992). These kinds of definitions may influence laypeople to perceive that involvement in
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
10/39
7
music therapy, especially in its improvisational form, requires the client to have highly developed
musical skills. However, some authors combine spontaneity with musical skills as a continuous
process of improvisation in music education (Farber 1991; Kratus 1991). Musicians certainly will be
more advanced in musical skills. But how does that influence their therapeutic process, if indeed it
does? It is important to know what the research or opinions are concerning musical skills regarding
indication or contra-indication for music therapy.
Concerning the applicability of music therapy for non-musically trained individuals, Senator
Cohen asked:
Is it necessary to have any prior musical background for a patient to be responsive to it? [Have
they] either studied music in the past, [or] had their parents forced them to play the piano as
they were growing up, as many of us were? Is there anything that goes back to prior
experience? Can you have someone who has no experience other than perhaps listening tomusic as a teenager? Is anything required in the way of prior experience? (Special Committeeon Aging, 1992, p. 20).
The essence of this layperson' s questions is: Should youhave (had) any musical experience before
going to music therapy? It would seem that many clients who come to music therapy are afraid that
they have limited capabilities or are incapable of being actively involved in music therapy because they
have had no formal musical experience.
In contrast, some music therapists prefer to work with non-musicians in music therapy. Two
different reasons are given. First, musicians have a more analytical way of handling music (Hanser,
1990), and their musical processes are more consciously regulated (Schalkwijk, 1984). Therefore,
musicians may not seem to be as open towards new musical experiences as non-musicians. Being
receptive to new experiences is a precondition for successful therapy and has strong links with
expectations. Secondly, musicians have stricter musical norms, which could present problems during a
free-improvisation. They also seem to be too product oriented because of their traditional education,
according to Aranosian (1982). The musical norms may very well restrict the analogy between the
client' s personality and his musical expression (Smeijsters, 1991). Other music therapists state that it
does not make much difference to them, whether they work with musicians or non-musicians. They
believe that improvisation may be inappropriate for some clients.
Music therapy can create different expectations. Summarizing the above, there would seem to
be three general assumptions that contradict each other: 1. Clients need to be highly musically skilled
before they can enter music therapy; 2. Clients should be musically naive to make them more sensitive
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
11/39
8
to new experiences in music therapy; and 3. the influences of having musical or non-musical
experience on the therapeutic process are non-significant.
Who is suited for music therapy: Musicians, non-musicians, or both? Davidson and Welsh
(1988) found that "in music one can be both an expert and a novice at the same time, depending on
whether the task is a (...) perception task or a production task" (p. 284). There does not seem to be any
difference in music processing of timbre and rhythm for either group (Prior & Troup, 1988).
For this study, musical improvisation is defined as:A structured use of rhythm, melody and
other musical elements to shape, in interaction with oneself or others, an unprepared spontaneous
expression. This section discusses this definition of improvisation in more detail. The first aspect
important for improvisation is structure. Structuring is important in music therapy and in
improvisation. Without structure the composition is chaotic and becomes boring or even frightening
(Brom, 1984). Musical improvisation is possible within structural constraints, no matter what the
general intellectual status is of a person (Hermelin, O' Connor, Lee & Treffert, 1989). "Where [one]
introduces form and order in the creative act, a higher form of human articulation is promoted"
(Aldridge, 1990, p. 195). It takes many trials before one finds his or her own way(s) of structuring and
developing his or her own form. A formal structure means that a basic improvisationformis provided
(Grabau & Visser, 1987), to assure a guide for the improvisers. Dalcroze suggests that two people play
on the same piano. They communicate with musical phrases, one after the other. After a while the
improvisers can change this form and start playing at the same moment, listening to one another. The
only other task required is that they finish the improvisation together.
The second aspect of improvising includes the musical elements: melody, rhythm, harmony,
dynamics, clusters, timbre, duration, etc. Some of these aspects are always included in a musical
improvisation. Because the more skilled an improviser is, and the more musical elements he will use
and combine, there is a difference in improvisation between musicians and non-musicians. Farber
(1991) stated that people can express themselves with the techniques they have and therefore musical
elements seem to be a less important value in music therapy. It might be assumed that the elements
will make a big difference between musicians and non-musicians. Fortunately the musical elements
used are not as important in music therapy as form, the way people improvise, interact, and compose
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
12/39
9
(Schalkwijk, 1984). But it is interesting to see whether there is a difference in duration of an
improvisation between musicians and non-musicians.
The third aspect of improvisation is the interactionbetween improvisers. The way they
interact and react to one another determines the freedom of the improvisation (and probably the
duration too). Therefore the interaction might be an important indicator for improvisation.
The fourth aspect is the spontaneous and unprepared expressionof emotions. Expression
is difficult to define and hard to measure. Not only because the subjects enter with different moods and
personalities, but also because up to the present time there has been no clear description of how to
measure expression. Webster' s Dictionary (1986) describes expressionas that which "clearly shows or
communicates an idea, mood or emotion forcefully or vividly, [those expressive] features of musical
performance other than mechanical reproduction of the notes" (p. 803). Seashore (1938) defines
expression "as a fundamental proposition [in which] we may say that the artistic expression of feelings
in music consists in aesthetic deviation from the regular" (p. 9). According to Seashore, expression is
measurable, but is an intertwining and combination of many different factors.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in improvising between
musicians and non-musicians, and if so to draw some conclusions as to whether that difference is
relevant to clients' referral to music therapy. This research was limited to the levels of interaction
during the improvisation and its duration. Expectations, enjoyment, and satisfaction concerning one' s
own improvisation were compared to give a therapeutic foundation for the musical findings.
Null hypothesis 1:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
judged musical interaction level.
Alternative Hypothesis 1:
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
judged musical interaction level.
Null hypothesis 2:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
the duration of the improvisation.
Alternative hypothesis 2:
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
13/39
10
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in the
duration of the improvisation.
Null hypothesis 3:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their expectations concerning the improvisation.
Alternative hypothesis 3:
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their expectations concerning the improvisation.
Null hypothesis 4:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their enjoyment of the improvisation.
Alternative hypothesis 4:
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their enjoyment of the improvisation.
Null hypothesis 5:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their satisfaction about the improvisation.
Alternative hypothesis 5:
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
their satisfaction about the improvisation.
Null hypothesis 6:
There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
self-reported musical interaction level.
Alternative Hypothesis 6:
There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in
self-reported musical interaction level.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
14/39
11
METHODOLOGY
Subjects
Twenty-eight students from a private university in Northern California participated in the
study. Fifteen subjects were musicians. They included second semester freshmen through senior level
students enrolled in a conservatory of music and none having formal training in musical improvisation.
Subjects were selected on a voluntary basis from the university' s orchestra and choirs to assure
instrumental variation (see Table 1). Thirteen other subjects had no musical experience or education.
They had neither formal musical training nor experience playing the piano, keyboard, organ or
synthesizer. These subjects were selected on campus and asked to cooperate on a voluntary basis (see
Table 2). For a comparison of relevant characteristics of the musician and the non-musician groups,
see Table 3.
Table 1
Major Instruments and Levels of Study of Musicians
Instrument Study Level
1 Bassoon 2 French Horns 1 Freshman
1 Cello 4 Piano 3 Sophomores
1 Clarinet 1 Violin 6 Juniors
2 Flutes 3 Voice 5 Seniors
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
15/39
12
Table 2
Majors and Levels of study of Non-Musicians
Major Study Level
2 American literature 1 History/ Black
studies
1 Freshman
1 Biology 1 Engineering 1 Sophomore
1 Communication 1 Psychology 2 Juniors
2 Counseling 1 Spanish 5 Seniors
1 Education 2 Regional/International
4 Graduates
Table 3
Relevant Characteristics of Both Groups
Musicians N= 15 Non-musicians N= 13
Sex Male 5 33% 5 38%
Female 10 67% 8 62%
Age Mean 21.7 years 22.8 years
Range 19 - 31 years 19 - 26 years
Musical experienceMean 10.4 years -
Range 3 - 16 years -
Mean times ofimprovisation 0.87 times -
Design
The two groups, musicians and non-musicians (independent variable) were compared under
the same treatment. The dependent variables under study were: 1. expectations before the
improvisation; 2. interaction during the musical improvisation; 3. duration (in minutes/seconds) of the
improvisation; and 4. degree of satisfaction and enjoyment following the improvisation. A post-test
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
16/39
13
only design was used to assess the video taped piano-improvisations of the subjects. The design can be
illustrated as:
X1 O1
X1 O1
Each subject completed a questionnaire before and after the improvisation.
Materials/equipment
Two different questionnaires (see Appendix A and B) were designed for this study. One was
administered to the subjects before the improvisation and the other was given to them following the
improvisation. To play an introduction tape, especially developed for this experiment, a video-recorder
and monitor were available. A classroom of 7 by 15 meters was used. There was a Yamaha grand
piano in the room and a piano-stool. A video-camera was used to record the sound of the
improvisation and the hands of the instructor and the subject.
Procedures
Each subject was seen individually for approximately fifteen minutes. Each had to complete
Questionnaire A before any other instructions were given. Next they viewed a five-minute videotape,
which explained the musical form that would be practiced during the free piano improvisation. After
viewing this tape, questions concerning the procedure were answered by the instructor. Then the video
camera was started.
The piano-improvisation was a free improvisation. There were no rules, except that both (the
subject and the instructor) would play the piano and that they would observe certain musical structures.
The formal structures were developed by Dalcroze (Farber, 1991) and adapted for this study by the
researcher. The instructor started with one tone. As soon as its sound ended, the subject had to play
one tone. When this tone had faded away, the researcher played a different tone, etc. During this
process the subject could change the improvisation by, for example, playing more tones, other rhythms,
interrupting the note of the instructor. As soon as that happened, the improvisation was free, with the
restriction of the experimenter and subject finishing the improvisation together. When the composition
was finished, the video camera was stopped and Questionnaire B was completed. Then the experiment
was complete.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
17/39
14
RESULTS
The video tapings were analyzed by three independent judges/observers and scored on the
Music Improvisation Rating (MIR) for interaction levels (Pavlicevic & Trevarthen, 1989)(see
Appendix C). Interaction was measured by the way in which the instructor musically influenced the
subject and the manner in which the subject musically reacted. The results are presented in Tables 6
and 7. The judged interactions were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney-U-test resulting in a statistically
significant difference (p= .002) between musicians and non-musicians (see Table 8). Therefore Null
hypothesis 1 was rejected. Combining the figures of both groups, a Spearman Rank Correlation
Coefficient revealed a high correlation between years of musical training and the level of interaction (r
= .71; critical r = .448,p= .01). Within the musician' s group there was no correlation between years of
musical experience and the interaction level (r = .07, p > .05). Three independent observers judged the
interactions with an average reliability of 62% among the three of them (see Tables 6 and 7 for more
details).
The duration of each subject' s improvisation was timed (see column 6 of Tables 6 and 7), and
was analyzed using a t-test for independent measures. The t-test revealed no differences in duration of
the improvisations for musicians and non-musicians (t= .307, df = 26;p> .05), therefore this result
failed to reject Null hypothesis 2.
In addition, the responses to Questionnaires A and B (see Tables 4 and 5) were compared
using the Mann-Whitney-U statistics. The results revealed no statistically significant differences in
expectations, enjoyment, satisfaction and self-reported interactions. Therefore Null hypothesis 3, 4, 5
and 6 failed to be rejected (see Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13).
A comparison of the expected and obtained performance sound rating yielded a statistically
significant difference for both groups (see Tables 15 and 16). Musicians thought their improvisation
sounded better than expected (U = 45.5; critical U = 56,p= .02), just like the non-musicians (U = 24;
critical U = 26 forp= .002). There was, however, no difference for the final sound rating for
musicians versus non-musicians (see Table 14).
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
18/39
15
Table 4
Questionnaire Responses of Musicians
Subject Impr1 Pos
2 Sou
3 Enj
4 Inte
5 Sou
6 Sati
7
1. F 0 1 1 6 3 3 5
2. F 0 4 3 4 5 4 4
3. F 0 4 3 5 5 3 4
4. F 5 6 2 3 5 3 4
5. F 4 2 3 4 3 3 4
6. M 0 3 3 4 3 3 4
7. F 0 5 4 6 5 5 5
8. F 1 1 1 5 1 4 3
9. F 0 4 3 6 6 4 6
10. M 0 4 4 6 6 4 6
11. F 0 2 1 6 4 4 5
12. M 1 2 3 6 5 4 6
13. M 1 1 1 4 3 2 2
14. F 0 1 1 5 3 2 1
15. M 1 4 4 6 5 4 4
M = Male F = Female
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
19/39
16
Table 5
Questionnaire Responses of Non-musicians
Subject Impr8 Pos
9 Sou
10 Enj
11 Int
12 Sou
13 Sati
14
1. M 0 3 3 4 2 3 4
2. M 0 5 3 6 2 4 4
3. M 0 1 1 5 3 2 3
4. M 0 4 3 6 4 3 4
5. F 0 1 1 6 6 4 6
6. F 0 2 3 6 4 4 6
7. F 0 2 3 6 3 3 4
8. F 0 1 2 6 2 4 4
9. F 0 4 3 6 2 4 4
10. F 0 1 2 6 4 4 5
11. M 0 2 1 6 3 4 5
12. F 0 2 2 5 4 4 4
1315
.F 0 1 1 6 6 5 6
M = Male F = Female
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
20/39
17
Table 6
Interaction and Time Scores for Musicians
Subject Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Final Duration
1. 7 7 7 7 2' 44" 2. 6 7 6 6 2' 50"
3. 6 7 6 6 2' 42"
4. 6 6 6 6 3' 32"
5. 6 6 6 6 3' 09"
6. 6 2 5 5 3' 16"
7. 7 6 6 6 3' 32"
8. 5 5 5 5 6' 00"
9. 6 7 7 7 3' 23"
10. 6 6 6 6 3' 35"
11. 6 7 6 6 3' 14"
12. 7 7 7 7 2' 09"
13. 6 6 6 6 2' 15"
14. 4 2 2 2 2' 46"
15. 7 7 7 7 2' 12"
Mean time = 3' 10"
Mean score = 5.9
Reliability of 53% between rater 1 and 2.
Reliability of 73% between rater 1 and 3 and between rater 2 and 3.
Numbering of levels of judged interaction.
1 = No contact
2 = One-sided contact3 = Reverse contact
4 = Tenuous responsive contact
5 = Established responsive contact
6 = Tenuous mutual contact
7 = Established mutual contact
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
21/39
18
Table 7
Interaction and Time Scores for Non-Musicians
Subject Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Final Duration
1. 4 4 4 4 2' 44"
2. 3 3 3 3 1' 52"
3. 2 5 2 2 2' 30"
4. 6 4 4 4 3' 31"
5. 4 4 4 4 2"34"
6. 2 4 5 4 3' 03"
7. 4 1 4 4 2' 28"
8. 5 5 5 5 3' 30"
9. 6 2 4 4 2' 23"
10. 4 5 4 4 2' 28"
11. 4 4 4 4 2' 50"
12. 6 2 6 6 6' 18"
13. 4 5 5 5 3' 24"
Mean time = 3' 03"
Mean score = 3.6
Reliability of 38% between rater 1 and 2.
Reliability of 79% between rater 1 and 3.
Reliability of 54% between rater 2 and 3.
Numbering of levels of judged interaction.
1 = No contact
2 = One-sided contact
3 = Reverse contact
4 = Tenuous responsive contact
5 = Established responsive contact
6 = Tenuous mutual contact7 = Established mutual contact
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
22/39
19
RESULTS SCORED WITH MANN-WHITNEY-U-TEST
Table 8
Interaction (Rated)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X1 Total Score Rank X Total
2 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5
3 - - - 3 3 1 3
4 - - - 4 8.5 8 68
5 13.5 2 27 5 13.5 2 27
6 20 8 160 6 20 1 20
7 26.5 4 106 7 - - -
R1= 294.5 R2= 119.5
Mean = 5.9 Mean = 3.6
U = 195 + 120 - 294.5 = 20.5
U = 195 + 91 - 119.5 = 166.5
Critical U = 32 if p= .002
RejectNull Hypothesis 1.
Table 9
Expectations of Possibilities (1 = definitely impossible; 6 = definitely possible)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 5 4 20 1 5 5 25
2 13 3 39 2 13 4 52
3 17.5 1 17.5 3 17.5 1 17.5
4 22 5 110 4 22 2 44
5 26.5 1 26.5 5 26.5 1 26.5
6 28 1 28 6 - - -
R1= 241 R2= 164Mean = 2.9 Mean = 2.2
U = 315 - 241 = 74
U = 286 - 164 = 122
Critical U = 54
Fail to reject Null hypothesis 3.
1
X is the number of present rankings.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
23/39
20
Table 10
Expectations of Sound (1 = horrible; 6 = always very good)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 5 5 25 1 5 4 20
2 11.5 1 11.5 2 11.5 3 34.5
3 19.5 6 117 3 19.5 6 117
4 27 3 81 4 - - -
5 - - - 5 - - -
6 - - - 6 - - -
R1= 234.5 R2= 171.5
Mean = 2.4 Mean = 2.2
U = 315 - 234.5 = 80.5
U = 286 - 171.5 = 114.5
Critical U = 54
Fail to reject Null hypothesis 3.
Table 11
Enjoyment (1 = not at all; 6 = very much)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 - - - 1 - - -
2 - - - 2 - - -
3 1 1 1 3 - - -
4 4 4 16 4 4 1 4
5 9 3 27 5 9 2 18
6 20 7 140 6 20 10 200
R1= 214 R2= 222Mean = 5.3 Mean = 5.7
U = 315 - 214 = 101
U = 286 - 222 = 64
Critical U = 54
Fail to reject Null Hypothesis 4.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
24/39
21
Table 12
Self-reported Interaction (1 = never; 6 = always)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 1 1 1 1 - - -
2 - - - 2 3.5 4 14
3 9.5 5 47.5 3 9.5 3 28.5
4 16 1 16 4 16 4 64
5 21.5 6 129 5 - - -
6 26.5 2 53 6 26.5 2 53
R1= 246.5 R2= 159.5Mean = 4.1 Mean = 3.4
U = 315 - 246.5 = 68.5
U = 286 - 159.5 = 126.5
Critical U = 54
Fail to reject Null Hypothesis 6.
Table 13
Satisfaction (1 = not at all satisfied; 6 = very satisfied)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 1 1 1 1 - - -
2 2 1 2 2 - - -
3 3.5 1 3.5 3 3.5 1 3.54 11 6 66 4 11 7 77
5 20 3 60 5 20 2 40
6 25.5 3 76.5 6 25.5 3 76.5
R1= 209 R2= 197
Mean = 4.2 Mean = 4.5
U = 315 - 209 = 106
U = 286 - 197 = 89
Critical U = 54
Fail to reject Null hypothesis 5.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
25/39
22
Table 14
Sound Rating (1 = horrible; 6= always very good)
Musicians Non-Musicians
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 - - - 1 - - -
2 1.5 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5
3 7 6 42 3 7 3 21
4 19 7 133 4 19 8 152
5 27.5 1 27.5 5 27.5 1 27.5
6 - - - 6 - - -
R1= 204 R2= 202
Mean = 3.5 Mean = 3.1
U = 315 - 204 = 111
U = 286 - 202 = 84
Critical U = 54
No statistically significant difference for sound rating between musicians and non-musicians.
Table 15
Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound from Musicians
Musicians before Musicians after
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 3 5 15 1 - - -
2 6.5 1 6.5 2 6.5 1 6.5
3 12.5 6 75 3 12.5 4 50
4 23 3 69 4 23 8 184
5 - - - 5 29.5 2 596 - - - 6 - - -
R1= 155.5 R2= 299.5
U = 345 - 299.5 = 45.5
Critical U = 56 for p= .02
There is a statistically significant difference between the expected and obtained performance.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
26/39
23
Table 16
Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound from Non-Musicians
Non-Musicians before Non-Musicians after
Score Rank X Total Score Rank X Total
1 2.5 4 10 1 - - -
2 7 3 21 2 7 2 14
3 14 6 84 3 14 3 42
4 - - - 4 22.5 8 180
5 - - - 5 - - -
6 - - - 6 - - -
R1= 115 R2= 236
U = 260 - 236 = 24
Critical U = 26 for p= .002
There is a statistically significant difference between the expected and obtained performance.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
27/39
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
28/39
25
improvisation, in an effort to better understand the factors that may have influenced their rating. Was it
the musical sound, personal concepts of a perfect performance, or the determinations of the
experimenter' s piano skills? It may seem that the possibility for musical growth within a musical
relationship (improvisation) is not as great for musicians compared to non-musicians. If so, this may
appear to limit the strength of the therapeutic intervention of the relationship between therapist and
musician. On the other hand, if this musical relationship is easily established, the therapist/improviser
can start more quickly and with less effort with the processing of other aspects of therapy (e.g.
exploration of emotions, social behavior, rationales).
Denying a person' s involvement in improvisational music therapy should not be determined
solely by whether a person possesses musical skills. However, the therapist should be aware of the
existence of musical skills because of their influencing character in the therapeutic interaction. Contra-
indications for music therapy will still depend largely on personal and theoretical values, such as:
1. Clients indicated with certain psychological, emotional, social, physical or behavioral
problems (compare e.g. Reinhardt, Rohrborn & Schwabe, 1986)
2. Clients indicated with problems linked to certain musical qualities, such as people with
communication, arranging, shaping, expression, time, or tempo problems (Fockema Andrea &
van der Sterren, 1978), or people who need activity therapies, where final products or tangible
objects are absent (in comparison with, for example, art therapy where there is a final
product), or a therapy with regressive, surrounding sounds (Schwartz, 1990).
3. Contra-indications for certain psychological states (such as clients with acute psychoses
(Schalkwijk, 1984)).
Before medical insurance companies will reimburse music therapists for their professional services,
there must be specific therapeutic reasons for referral -- specific objectives, goals and treatment plans.
Music therapists concentrate on providing change-oriented, musical experiences. Musical skills seems
to be important for only certain parts of improvisational therapy and even then a music therapist can
rearrange the activity to assure a success-oriented start for both musicians and non-musicians. Most of
the subjects in this study played more musically than expected. This kind of musical success can be
highly motivating to people engaged in music therapy. It was noted throughout the study, that many of
the subjects expressed a desire to participate in additional improvisations with the researcher.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
29/39
26
The researcher did not attempt to analyze the outcomes according to gender. It was difficult
to find males who were both performance majors and lacking in improvisational experiences. In future
studies it may prove interesting to examine the differences in improvisational skills between men and
women. Since all the subjects who participated in this study were volunteers, it may also be interesting
to examine those less willing to participate (e.g. college students enrolled in a course in which
participation in such a project is required) and how they would perform under similar experimental
conditions. Their possible reluctance, like unwillingness of some clients to involve themselves in
therapy, may interfere with their performance.
As a result of the low reliability figures obtained for the interaction ratings, more discrete
observation categories and more time devoted to observing and recording these categories may be
helpful in planning future studies. One of the major biases reported by the raters occurred upon
viewing the improvisation video tapings. They were able to recognize whether they were judging a
musician or a non-musician by the hand position of the subjects. Once the rater observed this, the
musicians tended to receive a higher rating (the percentage of correct answers for musician versus non-
musician was 79% for rater 1 and 86% for rater 2). The reverse process, assigning lower ratings to the
non-musicians could also have taken place. The use of an audiotape rather than videotape might
control for this factor. However, using only an audiotape would make it difficult to discriminate the
improvisation and intervention efforts of each improviser (researcher versus subject). Reliability may
also be increased among the judges by providing more practice and discussion of the important aspects
of the rating procedure. For example, sometimes a 6 (tenuous mutual contact) and a 2 (one-sided
contact) were assigned by the raters for the same improvisation, because it was not clear whether a
subject was not able to respond or whether he or she played out of personal initiative. Also, higher
reliability may have been achieved if a specified amount of time was observed using interval recording
(e.g. two minutes of observation, divided into 10 seconds to observe and 10 seconds to record the
scores). One of the problems that arose during the scoring was the great variance in interaction level
during the improvisation, which made it sometimes difficult to decide whether a subject should get a 1
(no contact) for his interaction in the beginning or a 6 (tenuous mutual contact) like his intervening role
in the improvisation at the end.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
30/39
27
Another uncontrolled variable may have resulted from the experimenter' s improvisations. For
example, some subjects stopped after a short period of time, yet the instructor continued to play in an
effort to encourage the subjects toward further improvisation. These initiatives by the experimenter
may have influenced the actual duration of the improvisation performed by the subject. The two
exceptions of six minutes and six minutes and 18 seconds were complete initiatives of the subjects.
The instructor also seemed inconsistent with her inventions across performances. For some subjects,
the musical interventions performed by the experimenter were more challenging than with other
subjects.
For future research it might be interesting to examine the musical content and expressiveness
of improvisation efforts of musicians and non-musicians. Another intriguing area of research might
deal with the role interaction plays in therapy, in general, and in music therapy specifically. Other
fascinating ideas for research could involve the examination of improvisation with: 1. different
populations (mentally challenged, psychologically challenged (Pavlicevic & Trevarthen, 1989);
physically challenged); 2. children of different ages (Flohr 1981, 1985; Hassler & Feil, 1986; Kalmar
& Balasko, 1987; Thaut, 1988) to clients of older ages; and 3. different musical skills (improvisation
skills versus no improvisation skills; piano major versus other performance majors). The use of other
instruments, other musical improvisation forms, or more continuous sessions for each subject may
provide additional insight into the way in which improvisational music therapy influences people.
There is a strong need for additional research in indication and contra-indication for (improvisational)
music therapy in order to establish a coherent research base.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
31/39
28
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire A
"Musical Improvisation is the unprepared creation of expressive sound forms or music"
(Bruscia, 1986).
# (M) ______ F/M Age _____
Please read carefully and fill in or mark the appropriate answers.
1. What is your major? ___________________________________________
2. What year are you in? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior or Graduate.
3. What kind(s) of music do you like to listen to and/or play?
(Check as many as you like).
Baroque ________ Blues __________ New Age ________
Renaissance ____ Jazz ___________ Pop ____________
Classic ________ Rock & Roll ____ Alternative ____
Romantic _______ Rock ___________ Ethnic__________
Impressionistic Hard Rock ______ Gospel _________
Expressionistic Heavy Metal ____ Country & Western
Modern Classical_ Hip Hop ________ Rap ____________
Folk music _____ House __________ Musical ________
Others (please explain):________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
4. Have you had any (formal) musical training? No _____ Yes _____
If so, how many years of musical training have you had? ______
What is your major instrument? ___________
What other instruments do you play or have you played? ____________________
5. Have you ever participated in a musical improvisation? No ____ Yes____
If so, approximately about how many times? _________
What kind of improvisation(s)? Jazz ___ Cadenza ___ Free ___ Blues ___
Others (please explain) ____________________________
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
32/39
29
6. Do you think you are capable of playing an unrehearsed piano-improvisation with
someone else? Please circle only one number.
1. Definitely impossible 4. Possible
2. Almost impossible 5. Very possible
3. Somewhat impossible 6. Definitely possible
7. How do you think this improvisation will sound? Please circle only one number.
1. Horrible 4. Mostly good
2. Mostly horrible 5. Mostly very good
3. Not always horrible 6. Always very good
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
33/39
30
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire B
# (M) ______
Please circle only the appropriate number.
1. How did you enjoy the improvisation?
1. Not at all 4. Moderately
2. Hardly 5. Pretty much
3. Somewhat 6. Very much
2. Did you have the feeling that you could play together with the other pianist?
1. Never 4. Often
2. Seldom 5. Most of the time
3. Sometimes 6. Always
3. How do you think the improvisation sounded?
1. Horrible 4. Rather good
2. Most of the time horrible 5. Most of the time very good
3. Rather horrible 6. Always very good
4. How satisfied are you with the overall performance of this improvisation?
1. Not at all satisfied 4. Moderately satisfied
2. Hardly satisfied 5. Pretty satisfied
3. Somewhat satisfied 6. Very satisfied
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
34/39
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
35/39
32
Subject and researcher share mutual musical partnership, the musical initiatives and modeling.
Improvisation shows a flexible use of musical components. Researcher and subject are musically
independent within a highly dynamic, interactive musical context.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
36/39
33
REFERENCES
Aldridge, D., Brandt, G., & Wohler, D. (1990). Perspective towards a common
language among the creative art therapists. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 17, 189-195.
Aldridge, D. (1991). Physiological change, communication and the playing of
improvised music: Some proposal for research. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 18, 59-64.
Aranosian, C.M. (1981-82). Musical creativity: The stream of consciousness in
composition, improvisation, and education. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 1(1), 67-
88.
Bash, L. (1991). Improvising improvisation; watch for the flags. Music Educator
Journal 78(2), 44-48.
Brom, M.M. (1984). Over de kreatieve proces theorie en haar toepassings
mogelijkheden [On the creative process theory and its applicability]. Amersfoort: Middeloo.
Bruscia, K.E. (1986). The practical side of Improvisational Music Therapy.
Music Therapy Perspective, 6, 11-15.
Bruscia, K.E. (1987). Improvisational models of music therapy. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Bruscia, K.E. (1988). A survey of treatment procedures in Improvisational Music
Therapy. Psychology of Music, 16, 10-24.
Campbell, P.S. (1991). Unveiling the mysteries of musical spontaneity. Music
Educators Journal, 78(4), 21-24.
Davidson, L., & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: The
developmental path of tonal thinking. In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music;
The psychology of performance, improvisation and composition (pp. 260-285). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Dobbins, B. (1988). Jazz and academia: Street music in the ivory tower. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 30-41.
Farber, A. (1991). Speaking the musical language. Music Educators Journal,
78(4), 30-34.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
37/39
34
Flohr, J.W. (1981). Short-term music instruction and young children' s
developmental music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(3), 219-223.
Flohr, J.W. (1985). Young children' s improvisation: Emerging creative thoughts.
The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 10(2), 79-86.
Fockema Andrea, L., & van der Sterren, H. (1978). Creatieve therapie [creative
therapy]. Raalte: St. Fransicushof.
Grabau, E., & Visser, H. (1987). Creatieve therapie; spelen met mogelijkheden
[Creative therapy; playing with possibilities]. Deventer: Stafleu Van Loghum Slaterus.
Gray, J. (1983). "Cooking" lessons for rhythmic skills: Jazz piano. Music
Educators Journal, 69(9), 50-51.
Hanser, S.B. (1990). A music therapy strategy for depressed older adults in the
community. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 9(3), 283-298.
Hassler, M., & Feil, A. (1986). A study of the relationship of composition/
improvisation to selected personal variables: Differences in the relationship to selected
variables: An experimental study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education,
87, 26-34.
Hermelin, B., O' Connor, N., Lee, S., & Treffert, D. (1989). Intelligence an
musical improvisation. Psychological Medicine, 19, 447-457.
Ivey, A.E., Ivey, H., & Simek-Morgan, L. (1993). Counseling and
psychotherapy; a multicultural perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Kalmar, M., & Balasko, G. (1987). "Musical mother tongue" and creativity in
preschool children' s melody improvisation.Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education, 91, 77-86.
Kaufmann, G.V. (1985). Rezeptive Einzelmusiktherapie in der ambulanten
Psychotherapie-Konzeption [Individual, receptive music therapy in the ambulant
psychotherapy-concept]. Psychiatrie Neurologie und Medizinische Psychologie, 37(6), 347-
352.
Kratus, J. (1991). Growing with improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 78(4),
35-40.
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
38/39
35
Meadows, E.S. (1991). Improvising Jazz; a beginners guide. Music Educators
Journal, 78(4), 41-44.
Moreno, J.J. (1991). Musical psychodrama in Naples. The Arts in
Psychotherapy, 18, 331-339.
Pavlicevic, M., & Trevarthen, C. (1989). A musical assessment of psychiatric
states in adults. Psychopathology, 22, 325-334.
Pressing, J. (1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.),
Generativeprocesses in music; The psychology of performance, improvisation and
composition (pp. 129-178). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Prior, M., & Troup, G.A. (1988). Processing of timbre and rhythm in musicians
and non-musicians. Cortex, 24, 451-456.
Reber, A.S. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. London; Penguin Books.
Reinhardt, A., Rohrborn, H., & Schwabe, C. (1986). Regulative Musiktherapie
(RMT) bei depressiven Erkrankungen - Ein Beitrag zur Psychotherapie-entwicklung in der
Psychiatrie [ Regulating music therapy (RMT) for depressed diseases - An edition for
psychotherapy-development in psychiatry]. Psychiatrie, Neurologie und Medizinische
Psychologie, 38(9), 547-553.
Rose, R. (1985). Eight elements of jazz improvisation. Music Educators Journal,
71(9), 46- 47.
Rutkowski, J. (1992). Idea bank: Spontaneous composition. Music Educators
Journal, 78(8), 53.
Sadie, S. (1980). The new Grove dictionary of music and musicians (vol. 9).
Washington, DC: Grove' s Dictionaries of Music Inc.
Schalkwijk, F.W. (1984). Grondslagen van muziektherapie [Basic principles of
music therapy]. Nijmegen, Dekker & van de Vegt.
Schwartz, P., & Witteveen, E. (1990). Indikatie voor kreatieve therapie
[Indication for creative therapy]. In H. Smitskamp (red.). Reader Kreatieve proces theorie -
KT2: Basisbegrippen, diagnose, indikatie, de therapeutische relatie [Reader creative process
8/12/2019 Hakvoort Laurien en 01
39/39
theory - CT2: basic terms, diagnosis, indication, the therapeutic relationship]. Amersfoort:
HMN v/h Middeloo.
Seashore, C.E. (1938). Psychology of music. New York, DC : McGraw-Hill.
Smeijsters, H. (1991). Muziektherapie als psychotherapie [Music therapy as
psychotherapy]. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Smeijsters, H. (1992). Indicatie en analogie: kan muziektherapie beschouwd
worden als een vorm van psychotherapie? [Indication and analogy: can music therapy be
considered as a form of psychotherapy?]. Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie, 18(2), 88-101.
Southworth, J.S. (1983). Improvisation for non-musicians: A workshop approach.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(3), 195-205.
Special Committee on Aging (1992). Forever young: Music and aging. (DHHS
publication No. S.Hrg. 102-545. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Thaut, M.H. (1988). Measuring musical responsiveness in autistic children: A
comparative analysis of improvised musical tone sequence of autistic, normal and mentally
retarded individuals. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18(4), 561-571.
Webster' s Dictionary (1986).Webster' s third new international dictionary of the
English language. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, inc.
Zentz, L. (1992). Idea bank: Introductory improv. Music Educators Journal,
78(8), 52-53.
1Number of times of past involvement in an improvisation.
2Expectations of possibilities to play a piano improvisation.3Expectation of how the improvisation would sound.
4Enjoyment of the improvisation.
5Rating of the interaction capacity (according to subject).6Sound rating of the performed interaction.
7
Satisfaction about the improvisation.8 Number of times of past involvement in an improvisation.9 Expectations of possibilities to play a piano-improvisation.
10Expectation of how the improvisation would sound.
11Enjoyment of the improvisation.12
Rating of the interaction capacity (according to subject).13
Sound rating of the performed improvisation.14Satisfaction about the improvisation.15
Physical handicapped.
Top Related