The act of performing without a musical score is common and expected in many contexts. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of performing with and without a musical score on listeners’ evaluations of solo pianists. We also investigated whether the effects of score use differed according to the perceived expertise of the performer. Participants (N = 69) were collegiate music students who observed two video recordings of a pianist performing an excerpt from Schubert’s Impromptu Op. 90, No. 2. In one of the videos, the pianist used a musical score and in the other video the pianist did not use a score. One group of participants was informed at the outset that the pianist was an expert performer and the other group was told that the pianist was a student auditioning for a graduate program as a piano major. Participants rated each performance and indicated which recording they preferred. Results indicated no significant difference in ratings by performance condition overall, but significant interaction effects indicated that the effect of performance condition was dependent upon both the perceived expertise of the performer and presentation order. Chi-square results indicated no significant differences in participants’ preferences between conditions.
AielloR. (2000). Memorizing two piano pieces: The recommendations of concert pianists. In WoodsC.LuckG. B.BrochardR.SeddonF.SlobodaJ. A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international conference on music perception and cognition. https://www.escom.org/proceedings/ICMPC2000/Tue/Aiello.htm
2.
AielloR.WilliamonA. (2002). Memory. In ParncuttR.McPhersonG. E. (Eds.), The science and psychology of music performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 167–181). Oxford University Press.
3.
AydoganG.FlaigN.RaviS. N.LargeE. W.McClureS. M.MargulisE. H. (2018). Overcoming bias: Cognitive control reduces susceptibility to framing effects in evaluating musical performance. Scientific Reports, 8(6229), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24528-3
BehneK.-E.WöllnerC. (2011). Seeing or hearing the pianists? A synopsis of an early audiovisual perception experiment and a replication. Musicae Scientiae, 15(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864911410955
6.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.
7.
BoyleJ. D.RadocyR. E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. Schirmer.
8.
Bruine de BruinW. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.08.005
9.
ChaffinR. (2007). Learning Clair de Lune: Retrieval practice and expert memorization. Music Perception, 24(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2007.24.4.377
ChaffinR.ImrehG. (2012). Memory and performance. In ChaffinR.ImrehG.CrawfordM. (Eds.), Practicing perfection: Memory and piano performance (pp. 197–238). Psychology Press.
12.
ChaffinR.ImrehG.LemieuxA. F.ChenC. (2003). “Seeing the big picture”: Piano practice as expert problem solving. Music Perception, 20(4), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2003.20.4.465
13.
ChaffinR.LisboaT.LoganT.BegoshK. T. (2010). Preparing for memorized cello performance: The role of performance cues. Psychology of Music, 38(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608100377
ClauhsM. S. (2013). The effects of race and gender bias on style identification and music evaluation (Publication No. 3564734) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
DavidsonJ. W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo musicians. Psychology of Music, 21(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/030573569302100201
18.
DavidsonJ. W.EdgarR. (2003). Gender and race bias in the judgement of Western art music performance. Music Education Research, 5(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085540
19.
DuerksenG. L. (1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20(2), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344093
20.
ElliottC. A. (1995). Race and gender as factors in judgments of musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 50–56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40318766
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
24.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
25.
GeringerJ. M.AllenM. L.MacLeodR. B.ScottL. (2009). Using a prescreening rubric for all-state violin selection: Influences of performance and teaching experience. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123309344109
26.
GinsborgJ. (2002). Classical singers learning and memorizing a new song: An observational study. Psychology of Music, 30(1), 58–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735602301007
27.
GinsborgJ. (2004). Strategies for memorizing music. In WilliamonA. (Ed.), Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 123–142). Oxford University Press.
28.
GinsborgJ. (2017). Memory in music listening and performance. In HansenP.BläsingB. (Eds.), Performing the remembered present: The cognition of memory in dance, theatre, and music (pp. 69–96). Bloomsbury.
29.
GriffithsN. K. (2008). The effects of concert dress and physical appearance on perceptions of female solo performers. Musicae Scientiae, 12(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490801200205
30.
GriffithsN. K. (2010). “Posh music should equal posh dress”: An investigation into the concert dress and physical appearance of female soloists. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608100372
31.
GriffithsN. K.ReayJ. L. (2018). The relative importance of aural and visual information in the evaluation of Western canon music performance by musicians and non-musicians. Music Perception, 35(3), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2018.35.3.364
32.
HeddenD. G.JohnsonC. (2008). The effect of teaching experience on time and accuracy of assessing young singers’ pitch accuracy. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 178, 63–72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319339
33.
HowardS. L. (2011). The effect of memorization and eye contact on evaluation of solo vocal performances. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 28–41.
34.
HughesE. (1915). Musical memory in piano playing and piano study. The Musical Quarterly, 1(4), 592–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/mq/I.4.592
35.
ImrehG.ChaffinR. (1997). Understanding and developing musical memory: The views of a concert pianist and a cognitive psychologist. American Music Teacher, 46(3), 20–24.
36.
JuchniewiczJ. (2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical performance. Psychology of Music, 36(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735607086046
37.
KopiezR.WolfA.PlatzF. (2017). Small influence of performing from memory on audience evaluation. Empirical Musicology Review, 12(1–2), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.18061/emr.v12i1-2.5553
38.
KrishnaA. (2012). An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 332–351. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26578173
39.
KrogerC.MargulisE. H. (2017). “But they told me it was professional”: Extrinsic factors in the evaluation of musical performance. Psychology of Music, 45(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616642543
40.
LaFlairG. T.EgbertJ.PlonskyL. (2015). A practical guide to bootstrapping descriptive statistics, correlations, t tests, and ANOVAs. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 45–77). Routledge.
41.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310
42.
LeeL.FrederickS.ArielyD. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1054–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01829.x
43.
LehmannA. C.EricssonK. A. (1997). Research on expert performance and deliberate practice: Implications for the education of amateur musicians and music students. Psychomusicology, 16(1–2), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094068
44.
MishraJ. (2002). A qualitative analysis of strategies employed in efficient and inefficient memorization. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 152, 74–86. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319128
NápolesJ.GeringerJ. M.AdamsK.SpringerD. G. (2022). Listeners’ perceptions of choral performances with static and expressive movement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 69(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420983833
47.
PlatzF.KopiezR. (2012). When the eye listens: A meta-analysis of how audio-visual presentation enhances the appreciation of music performance. Music Perception, 30(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2012.30.1.71
48.
PozenattoR. (2020). Working memory in musicians: A review of literature. Research Perspectives in Music Education, 21(1), 48–63.
49.
RyanC.Costa-GiomiE. (2004). Attractiveness bias in the evaluation of young pianists’ performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345436
50.
SaldañaJ. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
51.
Siddell-StrebelJ. (2007). The effects of non-musical components on the ratings of performance quality (Publication No. NR32324) [Doctoral dissertation, McGill University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
52.
SilveiraJ. M. (2014). The effect of body movement on listeners’ perceptions of musicality in trombone quartet performance. International Journal of Music Education, 32(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413491210
53.
SilveiraJ. M.SilveyB. A. (2020). Effects of ensemble size and repertoire difficulty on ratings of concert band performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420908280
54.
SnyderB. (2016). Memory for music. In HallamS.CrossI.ThautM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 167–180). Oxford University Press.
55.
SpringerD. G.SchlegelA. L. (2016). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of wind band performances. Psychology of Music, 44(4), 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615591307
56.
SpringerD. G.SchlegelA. L.NápolesJ. (2018). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of choral performances. International Journal of Music Education, 36(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761418771985
57.
SpringerD. G.SilveyB. A.DoshierN.HallF. (2024). Effects of conducting with or without a musical score on observers’ perceptions of conductors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 72(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294231173318
58.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
59.
TsayC.-J. (2013). Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14580–14585. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221454110
60.
WapnickJ.CampbellL.Siddell-StrebelJ.DarrowA.-A. (2009). Effects of non-musical attributes and excerpt duration on ratings of high-level piano performances. Musicae Scientiae, 13(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864909013001002
61.
WapnickJ.FlowersP.AlegantM.JasinskasL. (1993). Consistency in piano performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(4), 282–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345504
WilliamonA. (2002). Memorising music. In RinkJ. (Ed.), Musical performance: A guide to understanding (pp. 113–126). Cambridge 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.
