Tempo arches have often been reported in polished music performances, but their development during the learning of a new piece has not been studied. We examined the development of expressive timing at three levels of musical structure (piece, section, phrase) as an experienced concert soloist (the second author) prepared the Prelude from J. S. Bach’s Suite No. 6 for solo cello for public performance. We used mixed effect models to assess the development of expressive timing and the effects of the performance cues (PCs) that the cellist used as mental landmarks to guide her performance. Tempo arches appeared early in practice at all three levels of musical structure and changed over time in complex ways, first becoming more pronounced and more asymmetrical and then shrinking somewhat in later performances. Arches were also more pronounced in phrases that contained PCs, suggesting that PCs reminded the cellist where to “breathe” between phrases. The early development of tempo arches suggests that they were an automatic product of basic cognitive or motor processes. The complex trajectory of their later development appeared to be the result, at least in part, of a deliberate communicative strategy intended to draw listeners’ attention to some musical boundaries more than others.
BangertD.FabianD.SchubertE.YeadonD. (2014). Performing solo Bach: A case study of musical decision-making. Musicae Scientiae, 18(1), 35–52.
2.
BangertD.SchubertE.FabianD. (2015). Practice thoughts and performance action: Observing processes of musical decision-making. Music Performance Research, 7(1), 27–46.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
4.
BengtssonI.GabrielssonA. (1983). Analysis and synthesis of musical rhythm. Studies of Music Performance, 39, 27–60.
5.
BhataraA.TirovolasA. K.DuanL. M.LevyB.LevitinD. J. (2011). Perception of emotional expression in musical performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 921–934.
6.
BisesiE.WindsorW. L. (2016). Expression and communication of structure in music performance: Measurements and models. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed.; pp. 359–371). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
ChaffinR. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization. Music Perception, 24(4), 377–393.
8.
ChaffinR. (2011). Thinking about performance: Memory, attention, and practice. In WilliamonA.EdwardsD.BartelL (Eds.), Proceedings of the international symposium on performance science (pp. 689–699). Utrecht, The Netherlands: AEC.
9.
ChaffinR.ImrehG. (2002). Practicing perfection: Piano performance as expert memory. Psychological Science, 13(4), 342–349.
10.
ChaffinR.ImrehG.LemieuxA. F.ChenC. (2003). “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465–490.
11.
ChaffinR.LemieuxA. F.ChenC. (2007). “It is different each time I play”: Variability in highly prepared musical performance. Music Perception, 24(5), 455–472.
12.
ChaffinR.LisboaT.LoganT.BegoshK. T. (2010). Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38(1), 3–30.
13.
ChaffinR.LoganT. (2006). Practicing perfection: How concert soloists prepare for performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2(2–3), 113–130.
14.
ChristensenW.SuttonJ.McIlwainD. J. (2016). Cognition in skilled action: Meshed control and the varieties of skill experience. Mind & Language, 31(1), 37–66.
15.
ClarkeE. F. (1988). Generative principles in music performance. In SlobodaJ. A. (Ed.), Generative processes in music: The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 1–26). New York: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
16.
ClarkeE. F. (1989). The perception of expressive timing in music. Psychological Research, 51(1), 2–9.
17.
ClarkeE. F. (2005). Creativity in performance. Musicae Scientiae, 9(1), 157–182.
18.
CookN. (2013). Beyond the score: Music as performance: Oxford University Press.
19.
DemosA. P.ChaffinR.LoganT. (2017). Musicians body sway embodies musical structure and expression: A recurrence-based approach. Musicae Scientiae, 22(2), 244–263.
20.
DemosA. P.LisboaT.ChaffinR. (2016). Flexibility of expressive timing in repeated musical performances. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1490.
21.
DesainP.HoningH. (1993). Tempo curves considered harmful. Contemporary Music Review, 7(2), 123–138.
22.
DesainP.HoningH. (1994). Does expressive timing in music performance scale proportionally with tempo?Psychological Research, 56(4), 285–292.
23.
DodsonA. (2011). Expressive timing in expanded phrases: An empirical study of recordings of three Chopin preludes. Music Performance Research, 4, 2–29.
24.
EvansJ. S. B.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.
25.
FabianD. (2015). A musicology of performance: Theory and method based on Bach’s solos for violin. Cambridge, UK: Open Book.
26.
FribergA.BresinR.SundbergJ. (2006). Overview of the KTH rule system for musical performance. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2(2–3), 145–161.
27.
FribergA.SundbergJ. (1999). Does music performance allude to locomotion? A model of final ritardandi derived from measurements of stopping runners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(3), 1469–1484.
28.
GabrielssonA. (1974). Performance of rhythm patterns. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 63–72.
29.
GabrielssonA. (1999). The performance of music. Psychology of Music, 2, 501–602.
30.
GabrielssonA. (2003). Music performance research at the millennium. Psychology of Music, 31(3), 221–272.
31.
GinsborgJ.ChaffinR. (2011). Preparation and spontaneity in performance: A singer’s thoughts while singing Schoenberg. Psychomusicology, 21(1–2), 137.
32.
HoningH. (2001). From time to time: The representation of timing and tempo. Computer Music Journal, 25(3), 50–61.
33.
HoningH. (2005). Is there a perception-based alternative to kinematic models of tempo rubato?Music Perception, 23(1), 79–85.
34.
LisboaT.ChaffinR.LoganT. (2011). A self-study of learning the Prelude from Bach’s Suite No. 6 for cello solo: Comparing words and actions. In CervinoA.LettbergM.LawsC.LisboaT. (Eds.), Practice of practising (pp. 9–31). Leuven, Belgium: Orpheus Research Centre in Music.
35.
MirmanD. (2014). Growth curve analysis and visualization using R. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
36.
NeuhausH. (1973). The art of piano playing. New York: Praeger.
37.
PalmerC. (1989). Mapping musical thought to musical performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(2), 331–346.
38.
PalmerC. (1996). Anatomy of a performance: Sources of musical expression. Music Perception, 13(3), 433–453.
39.
PalmerC. (1997). Music performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 115–138.
40.
PalmerC. (2005). Time course of retrieval and movement preparation in music performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060(1), 360–367.
ReppB. H. (1990). Patterns of expressive timing in performances of a Beethoven minuet by nineteen famous pianists. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(2), 622–641.
43.
ReppB. H. (1992). Diversity and commonality in music performance: An analysis of timing microstructure in Schumann’s “Träumerei”. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92(5), 2546–2568.
44.
ReppB. H. (1995). Expressive timing in Schumann’s “Träumerei”: An analysis of performances by graduate student pianists. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America98(5), 2413–2427.
45.
ReppB. H. (1997a). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14(4), 419–444.
46.
ReppB. H. (1997b). Expressive timing in a Debussy Prelude: A comparison of student and expert pianists. Musicae Scientiae, 1(2), 257–268.
47.
RinkJ. (2002). Musical performance: A guide to understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SatoA. (2009). Both motor prediction and conceptual congruency between preview and action-effect contribute to explicit judgment of agency. Cognition, 110, 74–83.
49.
SeashoreC. E. (1967/1938). Psychology of music. New York, NY: Dover.
50.
ShafferL. H. (1981). Performances of Chopin, Bach, and Bartok: Studies in motor programming. Cognitive Psychology, 13(3), 326–376.
51.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
52.
SpiroN.GoldN.RinkJ. (2010). The form of performance: Analyzing pattern distribution in select recordings of Chopin’s Mazurka Op. 24 No. 2. Musicae Scientiae, 14(2), 23–55.
53.
SungA.FabianD. (2011). Variety in performance: A comparative analysis of recorded performances of Bach’s Sixth Suite for solo cello from 1961 to 1998. Empirical Musicology Review, 6(1), 20–42.
54.
TimmersR. (2007). Communication of (e)motion through performance: Two case studies. Orbis Musicae, 14, 116–140.
55.
ToddN. (1985). A model of expressive timing in tonal music. Music Perception, 3(1), 33–57.
56.
Van VugtF. T.JabuschH.-C.AltenmüllerE. (2012). Fingers phrase music differently: Trial-to-trial variability in piano scale playing and auditory perception reveal motor chunking. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
57.
WidmerG.GoeblW. (2004). Computational models of expressive music performance: The state of the art. Journal of New Music Research, 33, 203–216.
58.
WilliamonA.ValentineE. (2002). The role of retrieval structures in memorizing music. Cognitive Psychology, 44(1), 1–32.
59.
WinoldA. (2007). Bach’s cello suites: Analyses and explorations. Vol. I: Text. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
