Psychology of Music-2003-Juslin PDF

http://pom.sagepub.
com/
Psychology of Music
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/03057356030313003
2003 31: 273 Psychology of Music
Patrik N. Juslin
Five Facets of Musical Expression: A Psychologist's Perspective on Music Performance
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at: Psychology of Music Additional services and information for
http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Jul 1, 2003 Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF FLORIDA Smathers Libraries on January 20, 2013 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Five facets of musical expression:
a psychologists perspective on
music performance
273 ARTI CL E
Psychology of Music
Psychology of Music
Copyright zoo
Society for Education,
Music and Psychology
Research
vol 1(): z;oz
[ooj-;j6 (zooo;)
1:; z;oz; oS1]
PATRI K N. J US L I N
UPPS AL A UNI VE RS I TY
ABS TRACT The aim of this article is to outline a psychological approach to
expression in music performance that could help to provide a solid foundation for
the teaching of expressive skills in music education. Drawing on previous
research, the author suggests that performance expression is best conceptualized
as a multi-dimensional phenomenon consisting of five primary components: (a)
Generative rules that function to clarify the musical structure; (b) Emotional
expression that serves to convey intended emotions to listeners; (c) Random
variations that reflect human limitations with regard to internal time-keeper
variance and motor delays; (d) Motion principles that prescribe that some aspects
of the performance (e.g. timing) should be shaped in accordance with patterns of
biological motion; and (e) Stylistic unexpectedness that involves local deviations
from performance conventions. An analysis of performance expression in terms
of these five components collectively referred to as the GERMS model has
important implications for research and teaching of music performance.
KE YWORDS : computational modelling, emotion, expression, music education, music
performance
He put the bow to his instrument . . . and then, the first notes, bold and fiery,
sang through the hall. At once the spell began to work. Was this really the
music of a violin? What grandeur in these slurred notes, what absolute purity!
There came roulades of double-stop harmonic notes, and a long run across four
octaves, played staccato in a single stroke of the bow . . . Then came a noble,
moving theme, which sounded as though a human voice was singing . . . After
the seemingly endless applause had subsided, Paganini began to play the second
movement. It was an adagio, and showed the virtuoso from quite a different
angle. There were none of the devilish tricks that had stunned the audience
during the first movement. A sublime, angelic song of great noblesse and sim-
plicity touched the hearts of the listeners . . . The notes followed one another as
sempre :
though growing out of the instrument, and it seemed incredible . . . that this
wooden object was not an integral part of the man who played it, a part of his
very soul . . . The audience sat as though paralysed until the rhythm of a grace-
ful rondo changed their mood . . . an infinitely tender pizzicato accompanied the
melody, and it finally soared away into a happy dance tune. (Farga, 1969:
1712)
In this description of a music performance by Nicolo Paganini in Vienna
1828, many of the recurrent ideas about musical expression are included:
the captivating experience, the voice-like quality of certain musical instru-
ments, the idea that music may alter a listeners moods, the close connection
between music and expression of emotions, the notion that expression is
embodied in acoustic parameters of the performance, the belief that expres-
sion springs from the performers very soul, the importance of the musical
piece itself in shaping the expression, and the devilish tricks commonly
attributed to the expressive virtuoso.
1
Could researchers ever hope to explain
this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon? Judging from the comments by
some performers, we would be inclined to think not (Dubal, 1985). As noted
by Sloboda (2000), the folk psychology of the musical world can often seem
to be designed to keep the answers shrouded in mystery (p. 398). Yet I believe
that it is not only possible for psychologists to investigate musical expression
successfully, it is a matter of responsibility. I argue that the primary aim of a
psychological approach to music performance should be to explain perform-
ance expression in order to provide a solid foundation for teaching of expres-
sion in music education. To explain musical expression may be difficult, but it
is no more difficult than many other problems that psychologists struggle
with every day (e.g. explaining consciousness). For much too long, psycholo-
gists have deferred to philosophers in matters concerning expression. I
believe it is time for psychologists to reclaim the study of expression.
2
Many, if
not all, issues concerning expression are such that they can be resolved
empirically.
Why do I regard expression as the primary topic? Because expression is
largely what makes music performance worthwhile. It is expression that
makes people go through all sorts of trouble to hear human performances
rather than the dead-pan renditions of computers; it is expression that
makes possible new and insightful interpretations of familiar works; and it is
on the basis of expressive features that we prefer one performer rather than
another. Moreover, questionnaire research indicates that most musicians and
music teachers regard expression as the most important aspect of a per-
formers skills (Lindstrm et al., in press; Laukka, 2003). However, despite the
importance attributed to expression in music performance, there is evidence
that expressive skills are often ignored in teaching (e.g. Persson, 1993;
Rostwall and West, 2001; Tait, 1992). As I have noted elsewhere (e.g. Juslin
and Persson, 2002), one reason may be that teachers lack a theory of per-
formance expression that can guide teaching. The problem is compounded by
274 Psychology of Music 31(3)
the fact that musical expression involves tacit knowledge that is difficult to
convey from teachers to students. Research on expression could help to ren-
der the tacit knowledge explicit. Rather than surrender to individual differ-
ences in expressive ability in the name of musical talent, we could address
them through theoretically informed teaching. Thus, a proper and scientifi-
cally grounded understanding of the mechanisms that underlie musical
expression has scientific as well as social and educational implications
(Sloboda, 2000).
In this article, I consider the role of the performer in musical expression. I
want to convince the reader that performance expression is a problem
amenable to empirical investigation, and that psychological theory is critical
to an understanding of this problem. Looking back, psychologists have tend-
ed to approach performance expression mainly by measuring various
acoustic variables of music performances (e.g. Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, this
issue). Often, a purely descriptive approach has been taken, in accordance
with the tradition first established by Seashore (1938) and his co-workers. As
a consequence, the notion of expression has been poorly conceptualized.
3
Matters of expression have largely been reduced to tables or graphs of
acoustic data, whereas the question of what these data actually tell us about
the origins of musical expression has somehow been lost. But perhaps
psychology is uniquely suited to investigating expression? After all, psycholo-
gy was right from the beginning studying the kinds of psychophysical
relationships that seem to underlie musical expression (Leahey, 1987). Yet,
psychology has arguably not fulfilled its potential role in helping to provide a
theoretical organization of the field. In my view, a psychological approach to
performance expression should consider how this phenomenon reflects basic
human abilities and characteristics that are not necessarily unique to the
musical domain. Recent research reviewed in this article will provide some
support for this view.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: first, I provide
working definitions of interpretation, expression and communication, and
consider problems in performance research that have prevented cumulative
progress. Second, I outline a psychological approach to musical expression
that distinguishes five aspects of expression. Unfortunately there are few
attempts to integrate these different aspects; and so, I outline a meta theory of
music performance, which is an attempt to integrate different aspects of
expression. Not very surprisingly, empirical findings derived from this model
suggest that emotion is a major aspect of expression. Therefore I briefly
review findings about emotion in music performance. Finally, I consider
various implications of a psychological approach for performance research
and music education, and also acknowledge some limitations of this
approach.
Juslin: Five facets of musical expression 275
Working definitions
Interpretation, expression and communication are complex concepts, and no
matter what I say about them here, I am sure that this article will not be the
final word on these topics. However, for the practical purposes of this article,
we need to have at least preliminary working definitions of each term. The
term interpretation typically refers to the individualistic shaping of a piece
according to the musical ideas of the performer (Palmer, 1997: 119). This
might involve an intention to express something (e.g. an idea, an emotion)
beyond the musical structure (Gabrielsson, 1999), but such expression is usu-
ally accomplished through the ways in which the structure is articulated (in
how it is played). The process of interpretation is still little investigated (but
see Hallam, 1995; Persson, 1993), although it seems to be influenced by both
internal (e.g. emotions, wanting to express something personal) and exter-
nal factors (e.g. musical style, the structure of the piece, the composers
intentions) (Lindstrm et al., in press; Persson, 2001: 27881).
Expression, in my view, refers to a set of perceptual qualities that reflect
psychophysical relationships between objective properties of the music, and
subjective (or, rather, objective but partly person-dependent) impressions of
the listener. Expression does not reside solely in the acoustic properties of the
music (different listeners may perceive the expression differently), nor does it
reside solely in the mind of the listener (different listeners usually agree about
the general nature of the expression in a performance). Expression depends
on both of these factors, in ways that, although complex, can be modelled in a
systematic fashion (Juslin, 2000). Our perception of expressive music per-
formances reminds us, somehow, of the ways humans express their states of
mind in real life (why would we otherwise use the term expression in the first
place?). Indeed, we have an anthropomorphic tendency to perceive expres-
sive form even in inanimate objects (e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). Occasionally
the perception of an expressive performance will also evoke an emotion in the
listener (he or she is moved), or even an aesthetic response (a more complex
and profound response that involves emotional, cognitive and social factors;
Konecni, 1979), but such a response is not required for a listener to hear the
music as expressive (Davies, 1994). The emotion induced in the listener may
be the same as that expressed (through emotional contagion; Juslin, 2001),
or it may be a complementary response (Juslin and Zentner, 2002). As Clynes
(1977: 60) notes, when we hear a convincing expression, this is perceived as
sincerity; we therefore tend to feel sympathy for the performer of the music.
If the general notion of expression is accepted, the question is: what does
music express. A survey of the literature suggests a large number of different
ideas about what music may express. Music has been regarded as expressive
of emotion, physical aspects (motion, force), tension and release, personality
characteristics, beauty, events, objects, musical conventions, religious belief
and social conditions (Gabrielsson and Juslin, 2003). A generous view on
expressivity would hold that there is truth to all of these ideas as long as there
are individual listeners who claim that they find music expressive of these
qualities. One problem with this generous approach is that it tends to
embrace any arbitrary association that one could have to a music performance.
This would be simply a form of conditioning that does not relate to the per-
formance as such; it says more about the listener than it says about the
music. It seems more fruitful to look for expressive aspects that relate to the
nature of the music, at least if we want to explain performance expression.
A more restrictive approach to expression that is common in research
holds that music is expressive of a certain quality only to the extent that there
is some minimum level of agreement among the listeners (presumably
because there is something in the actual performance that gives rise to simi-
lar listener percepts). Thus, for example, we might agree that the slow move-
ment of Beethovens Eroica symphony is expressive of, say, sadness (although
the expression could, of course, change rapidly during the piece). In such
cases of intersubjective agreement, we may be inclined to say that this piece
has a sad expression. But note that expression (as defined here) does not
require an expressive intention.
The concept of communication (of emotion, for instance), in contrast, goes
further: accurate communication, I believe, requires that there is both a per-
formers intention to express a specific concept and recognition of this concept
by a listener. Perhaps, it may seem strange to talk about communication
accuracy in the context of music. Still, most performers are probably or
should be worried about whether their musical interpretation is actually
perceived by listeners the way they intended it. (What is the purpose of a spe-
cific interpretation if every listener fails to perceive it?) The performer may, for
instance, wish to highlight an emotional character that is latent in the com-
position. The extent to which performer and listener agree about the
emotional expression of the performance could pragmatically be seen as a
measure of the accuracy of the communication. (Precisely which perceptual
qualities I think are involved in performance expression is discussed later in
the description of a psychological approach.)
Problems in research on performance expression
To do music performance justice as a meaningful event in a particular time
and place, with certain individuals taking part (Small, 1999), we would have
to take into account a very large set of complicated real-world relationships.
To get some sense of the difficulties involved in such an endeavour, consider
the list of factors that in principle may influence expression (Table 1). As
can be seen, this includes numerous factors related to the piece, the instru-
ment, the performer, the listener and the performance context (for further
discussion of factors that might be relevant, see Gabrielsson, 2003, this issue;
Rink, 2003, this issue). To model all the factors simultaneously may be
outright impossible. To simplify matters, researchers have been forced to
bracket most of the factors listed in Table 1, and to focus instead on core prin-
ciples of performance that transcend a particular time and place (in the
Western world, at least). In practice, this has meant focusing on measure-
ment of performances, with occasional attempts to relate the measures to
other aspects (e.g. the score, the performers intention, the listeners percep-
tion, etc.). Yet, even with this narrow focus researchers have been struggling
to account for the nature of a typical performance of music. Why is this so?
Clearly, there are many problems that performance researchers are
confronted with. First, it is usually difficult to obtain large samples of music
TABL E 1 Examples of factors that might influence expression in music performance
Type Examples of factors
Piece-related The musical composition itself
Notational variants of the piece
Consultations with composer or composers written comments
Musical style/genre
Instrument-related Acoustic parameters available
Instrument-specific aspects of timbre, pitch, etc.
Technical difficulties of the instrument
Performer-related The performers structural interpretation
The performers expressive intention with regard to the mood
of the piece
The performers emotion-expressive style
The performers technical skill
The performers motor precision
The performers mood while playing
The performers interaction with co-performers
The performers perception of/interaction with audience
Listener-related The listeners music preferences
The listeners music expertise
The listeners personality
The listeners current mood
The listeners state of attention
Context-related Acoustics
Sound technology
Listening context (e.g. recording, concert)
Other individuals present
Visual performance conditions
Larger cultural and historic setting
Whether the performance is formally evaluated
performances from expert musicians (however, see Repp, 1998). This prob-
lem can be partly overcome through large investments of time and money,
and also by trying to conduct research more on the performers own terms.
Second, even if we do manage to obtain sufficiently large samples of perform-
ances, it is a difficult and time-consuming task to analyse all relevant
acoustic variables (Palmer, 1997). There are currently some promising
attempts to develop computer algorithms for automatic extraction of such vari-
ables (e.g. Friberg et al., 2002), which might help researchers to analyse larg-
er samples of performances quickly. Thus this problem may eventually be
solved. The most serious problem for studies of performance is perhaps not to
obtain sufficient amounts of data, but rather to find ways of interpreting the
wealth of data in a meaningful way (Gabrielsson and Juslin, 1996).
It is here that psychological theory can make a crucial contribution to how
we conceive of expression. I think that the greatest impediment to progress in
explaining expression has been the common tendency to regard expression as
a single entity, a homogeneous natural category. Given the controversy that
has surrounded the concept of expression throughout history (Davies,
1994), it is perhaps understandable that many researchers have tended to
leave the concept undefined or simply defined it in terms of deviations from
the score. But it is troubling to note how many studies have treated expres-
sion as a mysterious quality of which there is simply more or less, without
specifying what is meant by the term expression (the expression is simply
appropriate, exaggerated, or lacking). There is no serious consideration of
what is expressed, or how it is expressive, which implies that there is only one
way of performing expressively (by appropriate expressive deviations). At
times, it seems that expression is simply equated with everything that might
be good about a performance, but what is good is, of course, not specified.
What is at stake is not the usefulness of the generic word expression as such,
it is rather whether this is the most fruitful level at which to investigate and
teach expression (Put some expression into it). I reject on empirical grounds
the idea that music can be expressive in general without being expressive in
some particular way, because any music performance has certain acoustic
features that renders it different in expression from a performance with differ-
ent acoustic features. (Two performances with the same rated level of
expressivity or emotionality may exhibit quite different acoustic character-
istics, and may be perceived quite differently with regard to how they are
expressive.)
Even more important, the expressive variations that are typically found in
a human music performance are not all of the same kind; they do not all
share the same origins, and they should therefore not all be taught in the
same manner. In my estimation, the single-factor approach to expression
has contributed to the fragmented state of affairs in studies of performance. It
has not encouraged integrative attempts even among researchers who have
recognized that expression is multidimensional. I argue that a satisfactory
model should incorporate the fact that expression is a multi-dimensional phe-
nomenon including distinct components of information. Precisely what these
components are is a theoretical and empirical matter. In the following discus-
sion, I take stock of what previous research on music performance can teach
us about this problem.
A psychological approach to performance expression
The ultimate goal of research on expression in music performance is to
understand what, exactly, the performer adds to a written piece of music. It
may be instructive to look closer at what this endeavour actually entails.
Performance researchers are faced with complex patterns of behaviour; they
must describe and explain the nature and origin of intricate patterns of vari-
ability in acoustic measures shown over the time-course of a performance of
music (see Figure 1). The problem is that using measurements of actual per-
formances alone, it is difficult to separate the effects of combined, though
psychologically distinct, expressive actions (Thompson et al., 1989: 64). This
explains why single-factor conceptions of expression have been so prevalent.
Note. The solid line shows the first performance, the dotted line the repetition.
(Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music)
F I GURE 1 Deviations in timing from mechanical performance in a performance of Mozarts
Piano Sonata in A Major (K 331) from a classic study by Gabrielsson (1987).
%
As long as the expressive features are simply lumped together as expressive
deviations from the score, it is hard to reach beyond a single factor. One
heuristic tool could be to rely on the advice of professional performers, as
shown by the work by Sundberg (1988) and co-workers. However, perform-
ers are commonly unable to explain the details of how they apply expressive
features (Sloboda, 1996). Psychologists early realized the limitations of intro-
spection in explaining psychological mechanisms (e.g. Leahey, 1987), and
many of the mechanisms that underlie music performance are clearly not
available to introspection. What is needed, I believe, is a psychological theory
of expression. What would such a theory look like?
First, a psychological approach would involve an attempt to go beyond the
performance and to consider the nature of the person behind the perform-
ance. What are the proximate and ultimate causes of the behaviour in
the performer, and how can we make sense of this behaviour from what we
know about humans? Second (and partly as a consequence of what we know
about humans), it would have to be a component approach. Some researchers
have suggested a general mechanism to account for performance expression
(e.g. Todd, 1992), though it seems that a single mechanism cannot success-
fully account for all the variability in a music performance. Such a model is
bound to be incomplete in certain respects, as indicated by some recent stud-
ies (Clarke and Windsor, 2000; Juslin, 2000; Repp, 1989; Van Oosten, 1993;
Thompson et al., 1989). A careful review of the literature suggests that
performance expression is better thought of as a multi-dimensional phenom-
enon, consisting of five components of expression that I collectively refer to
as the GERMS model. The five components are summarized in the following
sections (for more extensive reviews, see Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, this issue).
GENERATIVE RULES (G)
One function of performance expression may be to convey the musical struc-
ture to listeners as clearly as possible. This forms the basis of the so-called
generative approach (Clarke, 1988). In this line of research, expression is
regarded as rule-based transformations of nominal score values that origi-
nate in the performers cognitive representation of the hierarchical structure.
By means of variations in such acoustic variables as timing, dynamics and
articulation, a performer is able to clarify group boundaries (Gabrielsson,
1987), metrical accents (Sloboda, 1983) and harmonic structure (Palmer,
1996). One of the most robust findings is that tempo variations (rubato) have
a strong tendency to be determined by the phrase structure; phrase endings
are usually marked with decreases in tempo, and the amount of slowing
reflects the depth of embedding in the hierarchical structure (Todd, 1985; see
also Figure 1). This is the most well-studied aspect of expression, and to the
extent that a performer aims to clarify the structure, we may explain part of
the variance in the acoustic features. However, the absence of a generally
accepted system for structural analysis still makes prediction difficult.
Furthermore, rules for the transformation of a generative structure into pat-
terns of expression are highly dependent on conventions related to specific
musical styles. The generative approach dominated research on music per-
formance until the 1990s (for excellent reviews, see Clarke, 1988, 1995). But
there is clearly more to expression than merely the conveying of structure
(Shaffer, 1992; see also Rink, 2003, this issue).
EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION (E)
A second function of performance expression might be to render the perform-
ance with a particular emotional expression. As noted by Shaffer (1992), a
performer can be faithful to the structure and at the same time have the free-
dom to shape its moods (p. 265). A series of studies in the 1990s indicated
that professional performers are able to communicate discrete emotions to lis-
teners. To accomplish this goal, the performers use a large number of
acoustic variables in the performance. For example, if a performer would like
to express tenderness in a performance, he or she may use slow tempo, low
sound level, legato articulation, soft timbre, slow tone attacks, regular tim-
ing, reduced contrasts between long and short notes, and an intense vibra-
to (for a review, see Juslin, 2001). This component of expression is actually
the last to receive attention in performance research, but it could well be one
of the most crucial as far as music performers and listeners are concerned
(see Lindstrm et al., in press; Persson, 2001). One reason for the relative
neglect of this component may be that it not always operates on the explicit
level that is required in order to study it empirically. (The emotion component
is discussed in more detail in a later section of this article.)
RANDOM VARIABILITY (R)
A third aspect of performance expression that has mostly been studied in
domains other than music is random variability. It appears to be generally
agreed that human music performance is not controlled by a completely
deterministic motor-system (e.g. Repp, 1997a; Yamada, 1998). Performance
expression always contains some random fluctuations, although they may be
quite small. How is this feature relevant in understanding expression, espe-
cially since practice usually aims at minimizing error? From an aesthetical
point of view, random variations contribute to the living character of music
that slight unpredictability that makes each performance absolutely
unique. Research on human limitations in perceptual-motor skills, mainly
studies of isochronous interval finger tapping, have revealed that the random
variations have certain characteristics: (1) the magnitude of random fluctua-
tions increases with inter-onset-interval duration, so that longer intervals
tend to yield larger deviations (Wing and Kristofferson, 1973; see also Repp,
1997a); (2) there is a negative first-order dependency with regard to inter-
onset-interval durations; that is, a performed interval that is shorter than the
mean is usually followed by one that is longer than the mean, yielding zig-zag
patterns (Madison, 2000); (3) there is a positive higher-order dependency,
or tempo drift, over time (a linear trend that can be extracted from tapping
data; Madison, 2000); and (4) the random fluctuations may be successfully
simulated by a combination of 1/f noise and white noise, two kinds of
random variability (Gilden et al., 1995). Although these random variations
are subtle in expert performance, at least they do contribute to the sound
of a human music performance. Therefore, if we really intend to model
performance expression, this component should be included also (Juslin et al.,
2002).
MOTION PRINCIPLES (M)
A fourth aspect of performance expression is motion. There is a common
assumption that music and motion are closely related to one another.
However, this hypothesis needs to be made more specific to be useful. Shove
and Repp (1995) argue that without proper constraint the idea that change
in music induces an experience of motion has little explanatory power (p. 58).
One way to constrain the hypothesis is to limit it to a specific kind of motion
called biological motion (e.g. Johansson, 1973). This refers to the dynamic
patterns of movement that are characteristic of humans. It should be noted
that such patterns in music performance may be of two kinds. First, it can be
assumed that performers intentionally (though not necessarily consciously)
try to re-create such patterns. Shove and Repp propose that an aesthetically
pleasing performance is one whose expressive microstructure satisfies basic
constraints of biological motion (p. 78). One example is the shaping of final
ritardandi. Friberg and Sundberg (1999) showed that final ritardandi of
music performances follow a mathematical function similar to that of run-
ners decelerations. (This was also the ritardando function preferred by listen-
ers in a listening test.) A second kind of biological motion is non-intentional
patterns of variability that reflect anatomical constraints of the body in con-
nection with motor requirements of specific musical instruments (e.g. Penel
and Drake, 1999).
STYLISTIC UNEXPECTEDNESS (S)
An additional way in which a performance may be expressive involves the
fact that musical emotions often occur when musical expectations are violat-
ed in some way. Thus, Meyer (1956) suggested that expressive variations in a
music performance may serve an aesthetic function by delaying an expected
resolution, or otherwise creating psychological tension (p. 206). This could
happen when a performer deviates from stylistic expectations with regard to
performance conventions for a certain part of the structure. For example, the
performer might be expected to clarify the structure in a certain manner (as
described by generative rules), but instead he or she does something com-
pletely different. This momentarily creates psychological tension that is
resolved when the performer resumes expected playing. Something of the
effect is captured in the following description of the Italian style of perform-
ance at the beginning of the 18th century:
Hell have passages of such an extent as will perfectly confound his auditors at
first, and upon such irregular notes as shall instill a terror as well as surprise
into the audience, who will immediately conclude that the whole concert is
degenerating into a dreadful dissonance; and betraying [them] by that means
into a concern for the music, which seems to be on the brink of ruin, he imme-
diately reconciles [them] by such regular cadences that everyone is surprised to
see harmony rising again, in a manner, out of discord itself and owing its great-
est beauties to those irregularities which seemed to threaten it with destruction.
(Franois Raguenet, cited in Meyer, 1956: 208)
This component is probably the least researched so far, but it may be criti-
cal to developing a truly original interpretation. For examples of music per-
formances by experts that feature various bold and unexpected patterns of
expression, see, for example, Repp (1997b). No attempt has yet been made to
model this component in terms of expressive rules, perhaps because of the
paradox inherent in developing rules for how to break other rules, and the
difficulty in deciding precisely on what basis such rule breaking is done (not
all rule breaking is musically satisfying).
TOWARDS A THEORY OF PERFORMANCE EXPRESSION: THE GERMS MODEL
Research on the five components of expression outlined previously has tend-
ed to be descriptive, and to the extent that theoretical models have been pro-
posed, they have not been integrated with other models. (For an overview of
various models of music performance, see Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, this
issue.) Therefore, I propose a model of expression the GERMS model that
integrates different facets of expression (see also Juslin et al., 2002). The
assumption is that, in principle, it is possible to decompose patterns of expres-
sion into five different components (Generative rules, Emotional expression,
Random variability, Motion principles, Stylistic unexpectedness). Further, it
can be assumed that the different components of expression:
(1) have different origins
(2) involve patterns with different characteristics
(3) are processed by somewhat different brain regions
(4) have different effects on listeners perception of music
The last of these criteria also means that each GERMS component will tend to
make a unique contribution to the emotional and aesthetic impact of a given
performance. Although the aesthetic impact of a music performance is a
complex topic indeed, it may be hypothesized that it involves commonly sug-
gested features, such as beauty, recognition, symmetry, tension/resolution,
arousal, order, originality and personal expression (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989;
North and Hargreaves, 1997).
We are, in my view, only just beginning to explore differences between
different components, which is why my suggestions on how they might differ
should be treated as hypotheses rather than as established facts. Table 2
shows some of the hypothesized characteristics of the components. The
G-component originates in generative transformations of the notated musical
structure, and reflects basic characteristics of human cognition, such as cate-
gorical perception and gestalt laws (Bregman, 1990). It recruits the human
capacity for syntactical processing, which is also involved in language. A
positron-emission tomography study of sight reading in piano performance
showed activated cortical brain areas distinct from, but adjacent to, those
underlying language operations (Sergent et al., 1992), consistent with the
task of translating a generative structure in a musical notation into expres-
sive markings of structure. A magnetoencephalography study of musical
perception suggested that musical syntax is processed in Brocas area, which
is also involved in syntactic processing during auditory language comprehen-
sion (Maess et al., 2001). Generative rules are mainly bottom-up (i.e.
determined by the local structure), but also reflect the hierarchical structure
of the music. By conveying the structure and creating coherence and order,
generative rules add to the beauty of the music. They may further have an
arousing effect, but mainly by enhancing the emotional impact inherent in
the structure.
The E-component originates in emotion-specific patterns of cues in vocal
expression (Juslin and Laukka, in press) and reflects evolutionary ancient
human abilities for non-verbal communication of emotion. This involves a
large set of probabilistic (uncertain) albeit partly redundant cues that are
additive and compensatory in nature (one cue can to some extent compen-
sate for another, see Juslin, 2000). Perception of the E-component can be
instantaneous (Peretz et al., 1998) and involves parallel processing mainly in
the right hemisphere of the brain (Bryden et al., 1982), perhaps in the basal
ganglia, which are involved in perception of emotion in vocal expression
(Cohen et al., 1994). The E-component is mainly top-down (i.e. a holistic
interpretation of the mood of the piece influences local acoustic parameters),
and offers a parallel channel of affective information, which may support or
contradict the expression of the composed structure. The E-component con-
tributes to the recognition aspect of art, but could also enhance arousal
(Juslin, 2001) and personal expression (Lindstrm et al., in press).
4
The R-component originates in a hypothesized internal timekeeper and
associated motor delays (Gilden et al., 1995), and reflects human limitations
regarding perceptual-motor precision. This involves two kinds of random
patterns: 1/f noise (noise for which the power varies inversely with the fre-
quency) that reflects the timekeeper and changes according to the inter-
onset-interval duration, and uncorrelated white noise that reflects motor
delays that are constant across different inter-onset-interval durations. It
may be hypothesized that the internal time-keeper is localized in the lateral
and medial parts of the cerebellum (see Ivry et al., 1988). This component
2
8
6
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y

o
f
M
u
s
i
c
3
1
(
3
)
TABL E 2 Summary of hypotheses regarding the primary components of performance expression according to the GERMS model
Component
Characteristic G E R M S
Origin of pattern Generative Emotion-specific Internal timekeeper Biological motion; Deviations from
transformations of patterns of acoustic and motor delay distinct patterns of expected performance
the musical structure cues deriving from variance reflecting movement typical conventions
vocal expression human limitations of human beings
Nature of pattern Local expressive Mainly overall levels Semi-random patterns Dynamic, non- Local; not predictable
features related to of multiple uncertain, 1/f noise and white compensatory from the structure
the structural partly redundant cues noise; very small in patterns; smooth
interpretation that are compensatory magnitude, irregular and global
Salient brain regions Left hemisphere Right hemisphere Lateral and medial Left hemisphere Anterior cingulate
(adjacent to Brocas (the basal ganglia) parts of the (adjacent to the cortex
area) cerebellum, plus the superior temporal
motor cortex sulcus)
Perceptual effects Clarifies structure; Expresses emotions Generates a living Yields expressive Heightens tension
affects the inherent and moods (mainly in and natural quality form that is similar and unpredictability
expression of a piece broad categories of to human gestures
emotion)
Knowledge dependence Medium Low None Low High
Aesthetic contribution Beauty, order, Recognition, arousal, Unevenness, novelty Balance, unity, Novelty, arousal
coherence personal expression recognition
Under voluntary control Yes, mostly Yes No Yes, partly Yes

a
t

U
N
I
V

O
F

F
L
O
R
I
D
A

S
m
a
t
h
e
r
s

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s

o
n

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
,

2
0
1
3
p
o
m
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

involves involuntary patterns of variability that contribute a certain uneven-
ness to a performance, and also may enhance the novelty aspect of art.
The M-component originates in patterns of human movement (biological
motion), like arm gestures, which reflect the unique construction of the
human body (e.g. the unique composite of anatomical proportions, including
both geometrical dimensions and distribution of mass between parts of the
body). Perception of the M-component partly reflects the human ability to
distinguish animate objects from inanimate objects on the basis of patterns of
sounds, which could have great survival value. This involves complex,
dynamic and non-compensatory temporal patterns that are processed by
the left hemisphere (Natale, 1977; Peretz, 1990), possibly by brain regions
adjacent to those that analyse biological motion in vision, like the superior
temporal sulcus (Allison et al., 2000). The M-component contributes to the
recognition aspect of art by signalling human intentionality but also
lends balance and smooth gesturing to a performance.
The S-component originates in a general human tendency to create schemat-
ic expectations that can guide behaviour, and the consequent monitoring of
such expectations that may give rise to emotional arousal, signalling that
something important has happened. This notion is recurrent in psychological
theories of emotion since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Oatley, 1992).
As regards music performance, I have hypothesized that the S-component
reflects a performers deliberate attempt to deviate from stylistic expectations
concerning performance conventions in order to add tension and unpre-
dictability to the performance. The S-component involves locally focused
expressive features that contribute to the novelty, originality and arousal
aspects of art. Monitoring of expectations is believed to be processed by parts
of the anterior cingulate cortex (Ochsner and Feldman Barrett, 2001). What
is the relationship of the S-component to the others? My guess is that the first
four components are sufficient to achieve an acceptable performance, but that
the S-component is what makes a performance really special. Thus, much of
the artistic process aims at turning GERM performances into GEMS. That is,
reducing random fluctuations to a minimum and increasing the originality of
the musical interpretation.
A PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION
Can this kind of psychological theory be turned into something useful in
empirical terms? In a recent study, we made the first attempt to implement a
component approach in a computational model, the GERM model, that simu-
lates different aspects of expression (Juslin et al., 2002).
5
The model com-
prised only four main sources of variability (Generative rules, Emotional
expression, Random variability, Motion principles), since we had not figured
out how to implement the fifth component, S, at the time. The model takes as
its input (a) a musical notation, and (b) a performer interpretation. We
assume that there is both a structural interpretation (e.g. phrase structure)
and a mood interpretation (e.g. joy). Then, for each component, there is a
module featuring a set of algorithms that convert the notation into patterns
of expression. Space does not permit description of the rules, but some of
them are derived from the KTH rule system (see Friberg, 1995), others were
presented in Juslin et al. (2002). In a preliminary experiment, a subset of the
rules featured in the GERM model was used to synthesize expressive perform-
ances of a brief piece of music. The aim of this experiment was to examine
(1) whether the four components would yield predicted effects on listeners
judgements of the performances, and (2) whether the components would
yield at least partly independent effects on these judgements (for further
information about this experiment, see Juslin et al., 2002). The basic idea was
to manipulate the four components of the GERM model in a factorial design;
this was done by generating all possible combinations (16) of the presence
and absence of each GERM component. For instance, a condition with only
the G-component present and all other components absent would include
only those rules that serve to convey the structure to listeners. We asked
musically trained listeners to rate all 16 performances on scales believed to
reflect various aspects of expression (clear, sad, human, gestural, musical,
expressive).
The results of this experiment suggested, first of all, that the different com-
ponents yielded predicted effects on listeners ratings of the performance. For
instance, the G-component yielded high ratings on the clear scale; the E-
component yielded high ratings on the sad scale; and the M-component
yielded high ratings on the gestural scale. Multiple regression analyses
revealed that listeners judgements of overall expressivity could be successful-
ly predicted on the basis of a linear combination of the GERM components,
which all contributed significantly but in different degrees to the judged
expressivity; R = .77, F(4,184) = 66.143, p < .0001, with beta weights in
order of predictive strength: Emotional Expression, = .64, p < .0001;
Motion Principles, = .32, p < .0001; Generative Rules, = .23, p < .0001;
Random Variations, = .14, p < .01). There were, of course, some interac-
tions between the four components in how they affected listeners judge-
ments. However, only 20 percent of the total number of possible interactions
were actually significant, and the interaction effects were smaller than the
main effects. Finally, the components produced different and at least partly
independent effects on listeners judgements. This tendency is seen in exam-
ples of dissociations between the four components. For instance, the perform-
ance with only G present yielded a high mean rating on the clear scale, but
low mean ratings on the sad, human and gestural scales (Juslin et al.,
2002).
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
What can we conclude from these preliminary data? First, the GERM model
suggests that different aspects of performance expression can be integrated
into a common model. The reader may disagree with me about the specifics of
this model, but the important point is that there are different facets of expres-
sion. I suspect that researchers have found performance data confusing part-
ly because they have treated them as if they reflected a single factor. If we are
unaware of the different aspects of performance expression, or ignore some
of them, we are likely to be confused by data that reflect some unknown mix-
ture of the different modes of behaviour. Indeed, even some of the more
sophisticated systems for synthesis of music performances, such as Director
Musices (Friberg et al., 2000), may not have sufficiently differentiated between
different kinds of expressive features. The rules in Director Musices were
simply designed to make a synthesized music performance sound as good as
possible, without categorizing expressive features theoretically. This makes
perfect sense from an engineering point of view, although, unfortunately, it
muddles important distinctions between psychologically different compo-
nents of expression. Rules that reflect acoustic characteristics of certain
musical instruments are mixed with rules that convey structure (Friberg,
1995), and rules that function to convey structure are turned backwards to
express emotions (Bresin and Friberg, 2000). A genuine understanding of
performance expression may require that we take greater care in distinguish-
ing different categories of expressive features. Distinguishing different com-
ponents of expression could help us to better explain individual differences
among performers. Different performers may be characterized in terms of
the relative weights they give to different aspects of expression. (Some may
emphasize precision, others may emphasize emotional expression at any cost,
yet others may emphasize structural communication.) Furthermore, differ-
ent musical styles may put different emphasis on different facets of expres-
sion; the G-component may be crucial to the classical pianist, but is less
important to the blues guitarist. Finally, a componential approach might help
to resolve some inconsistent findings in the previous literature. For example,
the fact that experienced listeners have shown refined ability to detect expres-
sive aspects in some studies but not others (Rohwer, 2001) could be explained
by the fact that these studies have investigated different components of
expression (e.g. generative structure vs emotional expression).
How can we be sure that the particular components I have postulated are
the appropriate ones? This is, ultimately, an empirical question, which is far
from settled. I remain open to the possibility that a different set of components
can provide a more cohesive account. However, I have argued that psycholog-
ical theory in combination with findings from listening experiments, per-
formance measurements, and brain imaging could help us to resolve this
problem. As should be apparent, I hypothesize that all components in the
GERMS model have their origins in human phenomena outside the music
domain. (From this perspective, it may be premature to view some compo-
nents as more musical than others.) Thus, one implication of the GERMS
model is that it agrees with Palmers (1997) view of music performance as a
seemingly unique human ability that is not unique in its underlying cognitive
mechanisms (p. 134). But far from depreciating the performance of music,
this idea suggests that music performance is an activity that recruits many
different aspects of human behaviour in a wonderful way. It also implies that
psychological theory about various aspects of human behaviour such as lan-
guage, emotion, motor-coordination, movement and expectancy may be
highly relevant to an understanding of performance expression.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC EDUCATION
The GERMS model offers an example of how research could benefit teaching
by helping to demystify expression. Indeed, based on my research on expres-
sion over the last decade, I have come to believe that there are certain myths
about expression, which have had a negative impact on music education. (For
a discussion of common myths about expression, see Juslin et al., in press.)
One of these myths is that expression cannot be studied objectively.
This myth is associated with the notion that expression is a completely
subjective quality, which cannot be explained in scientific terms. However, as
demonstrated by the GERM study, acoustic correlates of perceived expression
can readily be obtained and manipulated in performances, and listeners
ratings of expression can be systematically and reliably related to these
correlates. This paves the way for a more theoretically informed approach to
teaching of expression.
One implication is that, at certain stages of learning, different aspects of
expression might need to be taught separately, since they have different char-
acteristics. According to the GERMS model, a music performance should (a)
convey the structure of the music, (b) express emotions, (c) exhibit motor pre-
cision, (d) be suggestive of human motion and gesture, and (e) deviate from
stylistic expectations in creative and aesthetically pleasing ways. The convey-
ing of structure (G) is perhaps the aspect that has received most attention in
music education, presumably because it is the most tangible aspect; struc-
ture can be seen, heard, demonstrated (Epstein, 1995: 126). Certainly there
is no substitute for a thorough understanding of the musical structure in
shaping an interpretation. This aspect of expression may be guided by struc-
tural analysis, by consulting the composers writings, and also by studying
visual graphs of performance variables alongside the score. The motion com-
ponent (M) can be trained by using some of the methods outlined by
Davidson and Correia (2002: 2467), like having a student conduct the
expression in the playing of the teacher, and developing a non-verbal narra-
tive of physical gesture for individual phrases. The stylistic unexpectedness
component (S) requires extensive knowledge of musical styles and perform-
ance conventions, and an ability to conceive of the performance structure in
terms of a narrative of musical expectations that may be experimented with
in creative ways. The aspect of expression in most need of a formalized teach-
ing strategy is emotion (E). This is regrettable, considering that the strongest
predictor of listeners judgements of expression in the GERM experiment was
the emotion component. This suggests that music teaching should pay more
attention to the emotion component of expression. And, so, in the final part
of my article, I turn specifically to emotion.
Emotion and communication
Although music and emotion is a topic that has attracted much interest since
ancient Greece (Juslin and Sloboda, 2001; Sloboda and Juslin, in press), a sys-
tematic research program on emotions in music performance did not take off
until the 1990s. There are several reasons for this: first, the structuralist
approach in musicology rendered expressive aspects of music off-limits for
research until the rise of the new musicology (see Cook and Dibben, 2001).
Second, researchers may have sensed a general aversion among musicians to
scientific study of music, especially when related to topics such as emotion,
expression and aesthetics (Woody, 2002: 214). Finally, although it may
appear obvious to the reader that emotion is strongly related to musical
expression, this very idea has been questioned by some authors. On what
basis can we claim that expression is about emotion, or even communication
of emotion?
A questionnaire study featuring 135 expert musicians from three coun-
tries (England, Italy, Sweden) revealed that the great majority of the musi-
cians defined expression mainly in terms of communicating emotions and
playing with feeling, as indicated by their own free responses (Lindstrm et
al., in press). When directly asked whether music expresses emotions, 99 per-
cent of the musicians thought that this was the case. Numerous biographies
and interviews with performers confirm that they conceive of expression in
terms of emotions and communication (e.g. Boyd and George-Warren, 1992;
Carreras, 1992; Menuhin, 1996; King, 1996; Persson, 1993; Schumacher,
1995; see also Mills, 2003, this issue). Some composers may have argued
that music is absolute and expresses nothing but itself , but this is simply
not how most people think of music.
When Small (1999) argues, plausibly, that the origins of musicking (a
term that serves to highlight that music above all is an activity, and that per-
formance is its essence) are to be found in the ancient gestures, in which we
affirm and explore our human relationships, it is perplexing that he denies
that this involves communication of emotion, which is at the very heart of
human relationships:
. . . to my mind the idea of music . . . as the communication of emotions doesnt
jibe at all with my own experience. I cannot remember ever being happy by a
happy piece of music, or sad by a sad piece of music, and I am not sure I could
tell you which was which. (p. 18)
Be that as it may (although I am certain that Small would be able to tell
happy and sad pieces apart), we cannot ignore that most performers and lis-
teners seem to think of music as a means of emotional communication. I do
not claim that communication is the sole or main purpose of music, but 83
percent of music students in a questionnaire study claim that they try to
express specific emotions in their performance always or often (Lindstrm
et al., in press), and we know that listeners are able to recognize at least
certain emotions expressed by performers (Juslin, 2001). This suggests that
the concept of communication is viable in music, even if not every instant
of music performance may be an example of the phenomenon. To what
extent do music performers actually succeed in communicating emotions to
listeners?
In the most extensive review of emotional expression in music perform-
ance to date (Juslin and Laukka, in press), including 41 studies, a meta-
analysis of communication accuracy showed that professional performers
are able to communicate basic emotions (happiness, anger, sadness, fear, ten-
derness) to listeners with an accuracy approximately as high as in facial and
vocal expression of emotions. The overall decoding accuracy was = 0.89,
which is equivalent to a raw accuracy score of p
c
= .70 in a forced-choice task
with five response alternatives (i.e. the average number of emotions included
in studies of music performance so far).
6
Amateur musicians communicate
emotions less accurately, and tend to apply acoustic features inconsistently
(see Juslin and Laukka, 2000; Rohwer, 2001). The available evidence
indicates that the communicative process operates on a fairly broad level of
emotion categories, whereas finer distinctions within the categories are diffi-
cult to convey (Juslin and Lindstrm, 2003), at least without some context
(London, 2002; see also Juslin, 1997c). It is not that music performances
intended to express, say, anger and jealousy sound exactly the same or that
listeners cannot hear a difference, it is just that they are not able to tell which
performance is which. It has been argued by some authors that the specific
ordering of successive emotional states could help to communicate subtler or
more complex states (Levinson, 1990). This is an interesting possibility, but it
remains to be demonstrated that this is possible. (In reviewing these findings,
I do not intend to imply that performances that do not reliably convey a spe-
cific emotion are without value, because, as I have tried to demonstrate in
this article, musical expression involves a lot more than just emotion; and
sometimes musicians may deliberately aim for emotional ambiguity.)
Many studies have tried to capture the acoustic cues that musicians use to
convey specific emotions (e.g. Jansens et al., 1997; Juslin, 1997a; Juslin and
Madison, 1999; Kotlyar and Morozov, 1976; Mergl et al., 1998). These cues
involve changes in tempo, sound level, articulation, timbre, timing, tone
attack and decay, intonation, vibrato extent and frequency, accents on partic-
ular notes, etc. Earlier studies have mostly been limited to a few emotions.
Figure 2 offers examples of patterns of acoustic cues used by professional per-
formers to express 12 emotions in a recent study (Juslin and Lindstrm,
Note. Sound level is expressed in decibels (dBs) down from an arbitrary reference level.
F I GURE 2 Overall levels of sound level and tempo (means and SDs) in professional pianists
renditions of 12 emotions in performances of a theme by Haydn (adapted from Juslin and
Lindstrm, 2003).
Intended Emotion
Intended Emotion
2003). Both basic (e.g. sadness, anger, fear) and complex (e.g. jealousy,
shame, pride) emotions were featured in an attempt to accommodate the sub-
tleties of musical expression. In reality the emotional expression will often
change quickly within a piece, or even within a single note. Thus we have
recently experimented with real-time analysis of emotional expression over
time (Friberg et al., 2002). That the relevant cues have been described may be
confirmed by programming synthesized performances of music on the basis
of empirical data. Computerized performances with appropriate acoustic fea-
tures can communicate emotions as reliably as human performers can
(Juslin, 1997b), although they sound less musically satisfying (presumably
because they lack other components of expression).
An important question concerns the origins of the acoustic cues used by
performers. Some authors have argued that emotions expressed in music
have nothing in common with other forms of expression: Musical feelings
have their own character . . . the emotions [music] formulates are not identical
with those accompanying extra-musical experience (Lippman, 1953: 569).
It is getting exceedingly hard to make such a case. A review of 145 studies
(101 speech and 41 music studies) strongly indicates that patterns of musical
cues used to convey discrete emotions mainly derives from the non-verbal
aspects of emotional speech (Juslin and Laukka, in press), as proposed by
Spencer (1857). Hence, musical emotions touch us deeply not because
they are so different from everyday emotions, but because they are so similar.
This may explain why music students find extramusical sources (e.g. life
situations) useful in developing expression (e.g. Woody, 2000). One reason
why singing musical phrases seems to be such good practice for instrumen-
talists (e.g. Dubal, 1985: 221; see also Mills, 2003, this issue) could be that
this helps the performer to connect with fundamental principles of vocal
expression of emotion.
7
Although it may be tempting to connect musical expression of emotion to
motion (Woody, 2002), a theoretically more plausible and parsimonious view
holds that the origin of the emotion component is to be found in involuntary
and emotion-specific physiological changes associated with emotions, which strong-
ly influence different aspects of voice production (Juslin and Laukka, 2001;
Scherer, 1986). Music performance shares with vocal expression of emotions
not just the code but also the coding: the cues used to express emotions are
uncertain but redundant to some extent, as conceptualized by the lens model
(Juslin, 2000). This can account for some interesting phenomena, for
instance that communication of emotion in music is generally successful
despite individual differences in utilization of acoustic cues among both per-
formers and listeners (Juslin, 2000) and different cues available on different
musical instruments (Juslin and Laukka, in press).
I envisage several important directions for future research. First, there has
been almost no attempt to study how the emotional expression of a perform-
ance interacts with the expression of the piece. In our recent work, we are
using an expanded version of the lens model, which features both composed
and performed cues (Juslin and Lindstrm, 2003). Second, it is important
that basic research is turned into useful applications for performers. We are
thus currently trying to develop computer software that may provide per-
formers with detailed feedback about their performances (Juslin et al., in
press). Finally, it is crucial to explore how the emotion component interacts
with other components of expression in yielding an expressive performance,
which could explored by means of theoretical models (e.g. along the lines of
the GERMS model).
Limitations of a psychological approach
Performers are sometimes sceptical about research on expression, perhaps
partly because research on performance lags far behind the actual perform-
ance of music (to the extent that these endeavours can actually be com-
pared), in terms of maturity and sophistication. Like the performer who first
learns to play a musical instrument, studies of music performance have pro-
gressed from a consideration of basic principles of expression (e.g. how does
the performer convey the phrase structure?) towards more subtle and individ-
ualistic aspects (e.g. what makes a performance truly special?). But music has
been played since the beginning of recorded time whereas psychological stud-
ies of music performance have been conducted for only a century; perhaps
researchers should be excused for not having reached the same level of
sophistication as the performers?
There are many limitations of the psychological approach to performance
expression. One limitation involves the fact that psychological research
requires that all relevant concepts are formally operationalized, so that they
can be measured with precision. This requirement severely limits the com-
plexity that can be handled in any single empirical investigation. Thus, psy-
chological studies are often criticized by musicians for their simplicity.
Clearly, psychologists must strive to study music at an appropriate level of
complexity. At the same time, musicians must also appreciate the conditions
under which empirical research is carried out. Seemingly crude models,
for instance, could reflect practical limitations rather than insensitivity
regarding musical matters. (The GERM model, for example, is admittedly sim-
ple as compared to the long list of factors that can influence performance
expression in Table 1. Still, you might be surprised how complicated that
model is!)
Practical limitations of a psychological approach are perhaps redeemed by
the power with which experiments allow us to draw valid conclusions about
causal relationships. Thus, folk theories of expression may ultimately be
replaced, or at least improved, by empirically validated knowledge. Such a
development may be welcomed by some performers (Dubal, 1985: 250), but
not all are so inclined. A common sentiment is that too much knowledge
destroys the magic, or interferes with the artistic process (Dubal, 1985:
245).
Ultimately, this could reflect the different needs of scientists and artists.
Elsewhere, I have argued for an attempt to bridge the gap between art and sci-
ence (Juslin and Zentner, 2002; see also Rink, 2003, this issue), because I
believe that musicians and researchers have much to learn from each other.
Art and science share many characteristics: they are both interesting ways of
exploring the world around us; they both involve creativity; and they both
provide certain perspectives or ways of looking at the world. However, I
believe that we must accept that there will always be some tension between
art and science, since art and science, ultimately, have different aims. Thus,
for instance, research on performance expression aims to develop general
models (i.e. simplified descriptions and explanations of a specific phenome-
non), whereas the performing artist often strives to create something unique
and personal. (The scientist usually opts out at the point where the artist
thinks things are getting interesting.) There is no way in which a psychologi-
cal focus on general models can fully capture the rich, personal and piece-
specific ways in which musicians tend to approach their work artistically.
And after all the most useful approach to performance as an artist may
not be the most useful approach to performance as a researcher, given the
quite different aims of these endeavours. But there is one important reason
why we should at least try to establish some common ground: the teaching of
performance expression clearly appears to benefit from explicit instruction
and knowledge about expression (Juslin et al., in press; Woody, 1999).
Hence, in this article, I have suggested that the primary goal of a psychologi-
cal approach to music performance should be to explain the nature of per-
formance expression in order provide a solid foundation for the teaching of
expressive skills in music education. It remains to be seen whether this chal-
lenge can be met in coming years. But even if it is not, I am sure that we can
learn something important along the way.
ACKNOWL E DGE ME NTS
This is an expanded version of an invited paper presented at the conference Investi-
gating Music Performance, 1213 April 2002, Royal College of Music, London. The
research was supported by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. I am grate-
ful to the members of the Feel-ME project for fruitful collaboration.
NOTE S
1. Some musicians, including Nicolo Paganini and blues singer Robert Johnson,
have been accused of selling their soul to the devil in order to gain their excep-
tional skills.
2. One notable reason for doing so is that philosophical inquiry does not lend itself
easily to applications in music education. To take but one example: which music
teacher could seriously claim to have gained a better sense of how to teach
expressive skills after having read Scrutons (1997) complex chapter on musical
expression?
3. Meyer (1956) notes that because Seashore advances no theory or attempts no
explanation of the relationship between deviation and affective aesthetic experi-
ence, his viewpoint lacks substance and plausibility (p. 203).
4. The reader may wonder why Clyness (1977) work has not been included here.
The reason is that independent attempts to replicate his essentic forms have yield-
ed mixed results (Gorman and Crain, 1974; Nettelbeck et al., 1989; Trussoni et
al., 1988).
5. A computational model means that the relevant relationships are expressed in
terms of mathematical procedures. The calculations are handled by implement-
ing the model in a program, which permits simulation of the phenomenon under
investigation.
6. Rosenthal and Rubins effect size index, pi (), allows researchers to transform
accuracy scores involving any number of response alternatives to a standard
scale of dichotomous choice, on which .50 is the null value and 1.00 corresponds
to 100 percent correct recognition.
7. Recall also the use of principles from vocal rhetoric among composers in the 18th
century.
RE F E RE NCE S
Allison, T., Puce, A. and McCarthy, G. (2000) Social Perception from Visual Cues:
Role of the STS Region, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 26778.
Boyd, J. and George-Warren, H. (1992) Musicians in Tune: Seventy-Five Contemporary
Musicians Discuss the Creative Process. New York: Fireside.
Bregman, A.S. (1990) Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bresin, R. and Friberg, A. (2000) Emotional Coloring of Computer-Controlled Music
Performance, Computer Music Journal 24: 4462.
Bryden, M. P., Ley, R. and Sugerman, J. (1982) A Left-Ear Advantage for Identifying
the Emotional Quality of Tonal Sequences, Neuropsychologia 20: 837.
Carreras, J. (1992) Sjunga med sjlen (Singing with soul). Uddevalla: Vocalis.
Clarke, E.F. (1988) Generative Principles in Music Performance, In J.A. Sloboda (ed.)
Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation, and
Composition, pp. 126. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Clarke, E.F. (1995) Expression in Performance: Generativity, Perception, and
Semiosis, In J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies in Musical
Interpretation, pp. 2154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, E.F. and Windsor, W.L. (2000) Real and Simulated Expression: A Listening
Study, Music Perception 17: 277313.
Clynes, M. (1977) Sentics: The Touch of Emotions. New York: Doubleday.
Cohen, R.A., Riccio, C.A. and Flannery, A.M. (1994) Expressive Aprosodia
Following Stroke to the Right Basal Ganglia: A Case Report, Neuropsychology 8:
2425.
Cook, N. and Dibben, N. (2001) Musicological Approaches to Emotion, in P.N. Juslin
and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, pp. 4570. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Davidson, J.W. and Correia, J.S. (2002) Body Movement, in R. Parncuttand G.E.
McPherson (eds) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: Creative
Strategies for Teaching and Learning, pp. 23750. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Davies, S. (1994) Musical Meaning and Expression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Dubal, D. (1985) The World of the Concert Pianist: Conversations with 35 Internationally
Celebrated Pianists. London: Victor Gollancz.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989) Human Ethology. New York: Aldine.
Epstein, D. (1995) A Curious Moment in Schumanns Fourth Symphony: Structure
as the Fusion of Affect and Intuition, in J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance,
pp. 12649. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farga, F. (1969) Violins and Violinists, 2nd edn. London: The Cresset Press.
Friberg, A. (1995) A Quantitative Rule System for Musical Performance, doctoral dis-
sertation, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Friberg, A. and Sundberg, J. (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: 146984.
Friberg, A., Colombo, V., Frydn, L. and Sundberg, J. (2000) Generating Musical
Performances with Director Musices, Computer Music Journal 24: 239.
Friberg, A., Schoonderwaldt, E., Juslin, P.N. and Bresin, R. (2002) Automatic Real-
Time Extraction of Musical Expression, in Proceedings of the International Computer
Music Conference, Gteborg, 1621 September 2002, pp. 3657. San Francisco:
International Computer Music Association.
Gabrielsson, A. (1987) Once Again: The Theme from Mozarts Piano Sonata in A
Major: A Comparison of Five Performances, in A. Gabrielsson (ed.) Action and
Perception in Rhythm and Music, publication no. 55, pp. 81103. Stockholm: Royal
Swedish Academy of Music.
Gabrielsson, A. (1999) The Performance of Music, in D. Deutsch (ed.) The Psychology
of Music, 2nd edn, pp. 501602. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gabrielsson, A. (2003) Music Performance Research at the Millennium, Psychology
of Music 31(3): 22172.
Gabrielsson, A. and Juslin, P.N. (1996) Emotional Expression in Music Performance:
Between the Performers Intention and the Listeners Experience, Psychology of
Music 24: 6891.
Gabrielsson, A. and Juslin, P.N. (2003) Emotional Expression in Music, in
R.J. Davidson, H.H. Goldsmith and K.R. Scherer (eds) Handbook of Affective Sciences,
pp. 50334. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilden, D.L., Thornton, T. and Mallon, M.W. (1995) 1/f Noise in Human Cognition,
Science 267: 18379.
Gorman, B.S. and Crain, W.C. (1974) Decoding of sentograms, Perceptual and
Motor Skills 39: 7846.
Hallam, S. (1995) Professional Musicians Approaches to the Learning and
Interpretation of Music, Psychology of Music 23: 11128.
Ivry, R.I., Keele, S.W. and Diener, H.C. (1988) Dissociation of the Lateral and Medial
Cerebellum in Movement Timing and Movement Execution, Experimental Brain
Research 73: 16780.
Jansens, S., Bloothooft, G. and De Krom, G. (1997) Perception and Acoustics of
Emotions in Singing, in Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Speech
Communication and Technology, Vol. IV, pp. 21558. Rhodes, Greece: ESCA.
Johansson, G. (1973) Visual Perception of Biological Motion and a Model for its
Analysis, Perception and Psychophysics 14: 20111.
Juslin, P.N. (1997a) Emotional Communication in Music Performance: A
Functionalist Perspective and Some Data, Music Perception 14: 383418.
Juslin, P.N. (1997b) Perceived Emotional Expression in Synthesized Performances of
a Short Melody: Capturing the Listeners Judgment Policy, Musicae Scientiae 1:
22556.
Juslin, P.N. (1997c) Can Results from Studies of Perceived Expression in Musical
Performances Be Generalized across Response Formats?, Psychomusicology 16:
77101.
Juslin, P.N. (2000) Cue Utilization in Communication of Emotion in Music
Performance: Relating Performance to Perception, Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 1797813.
Juslin, P.N. (2001) Communicating Emotion in Music Performance: A Review and a
Theoretical Framework, in P.N. Juslin and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion:
Theory and Research, pp. 30533. New York: Oxford University Press.
Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (2000) Improving Emotional Communication in Music
Performance through Cognitive Feedback, Musicae Scientiae 4: 15183.
Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (2001) Impact of Intended Emotion Intensity On Cue
Utilization and Decoding Accuracy in Vocal Expression of Emotion, Emotion 1:
381412.
Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (in press) Communication of Emotions in Vocal Expression
and Music Performance: Different Channels, Same Code?, Psychological Bulletin.
Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (in press) Emotional Expression in Speech and Music:
Evidence of Cross-modal Similarities, in P. Ekman (ed.) Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Juslin, P.N. and Lindstrm, E. (2003) Musical Expression of Emotions: Modeling
Composed and Performed Features, manuscript in preparation.
Juslin, P.N. and Madison, G. (1999) The Role of Timing Patterns in Recognition of
Emotional Expression from Musical Performance, Music Perception 17: 197221.
Juslin, P.N. and Persson, R.S. (2002) Emotional Communication, in R. Parncutt and
G.E. McPherson (eds) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: Creative
Strategies for Teaching and Learning, pp. 21936. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Juslin, P.N. and Sloboda, J.A. (eds) (2001) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Juslin, P.N. and Zentner, M.R. (2002) Current Trends in the Study of Music and
Emotion: Overture, Musicae Scientiae (special issue 2001/2): 321.
Juslin, P.N., Friberg, A. and Bresin, R. (2002) Toward a Computational Model of
Expression in Music Performance: The GERM Model, Musicae Scientiae (special
Issue 2001/2): 63122.
Juslin, P.N., Friberg, A., Schoonderwaldt, E. and Karlsson, J. (in press) Feedback-
Learning of Musical Expressivity, in A. Williamon (ed.) Enhancing Musical
Performance: A Resource for Performers, Teachers and Researchers. New York: Oxford
University Press.
King, B.B. (1996) Blues All Around Me. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Konecni, V.J. (1979) Determinants of Aesthetic Preference and Effects of Exposure to
Aesthetic Stimuli: Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors, in B.A. Maher (ed.)
Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 9, pp. 14997. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Kotlyar, G.M. and Morozov, V.P. (1976) Acoustic Correlates of the Emotional Content
of Vocalized Speech, Soviet Physics: Acoustics 22: 3706.
Laukka, P. (2003) Instrumental Music Teachers Views on Expressivity: A Report
from Music Conservatories, manuscript submitted for publication.
Leahey, T.H. (1987) A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levinson, J. (1990) Music, Art, and Metaphysics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lindstrm, E., Juslin, P.N., Bresin, R. and Williamon, A. (in press) Expressivity Comes
From Within Your Soul: A Questionnaire Study of Music Students Perspectives on
Expressivity, Research Studies in Music Education.
Lippman, E.A. (1953) Symbolism in Music, Musical Quarterly 39: 55475.
London, J. (2002) Some Theories of Emotion in Music and their Implications for
Research in Music Psychology, Musicae Scientiae (special issue 2001/2): 2336.
Madison, G. (2000) On the Nature of Variability in Isochronous Serial Interval
Production, in P. Desain and W.L. Windsor (eds) Rhythm Perception and Production,
pp. 95113. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Maess, B., Koelsch, S., Gunter, T.C. and Friederici, A.D. (2001) Musical Syntax is
Processed in Brocas Area: A MEG Study, Nature Neuroscience 4: 5405.
Menuhin, Y. (1996) Unfinished Journey. London: Methuen.
Mergl, R., Piesbergen, C. and Tunner, W. (1998) Musikalisch-improvisatorischer
Ausdruck und erkennen von gefhlsqualitten, Musikpsychologie: Jahrbuch der
Deutschen Gesellschaft fr Musikpsychologie 13: 6981.
Meyer, L.B. (1956) Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mills, J. (2003) Musical Performance: Crux or Curse of Music Education, Psychology
of Music 31(3): 32439.
Natale, M. (1977) Perception of Nonlinguistic Auditory Rhythms by the Speech
Hemisphere, Brain and Language 4: 3244.
Nettelbeck, T., Henderson, C. and Willson, R. (1989) Communicating Emotion
through Sound: An Evaluation of Clynes Theory of Sentics, Australian Journal of
Psychology 41: 1724.
North, A.C. and Hargreaves, D.J. (1997) Experimental Aesthetics and Everyday
Listening to Music, in D.J. Hargreaves and A.C. North (eds) The Social Psychology of
Music, pp. 84103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oatley, K. (1992) Best Laid Schemes: The Psychology of Emotions. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ochsner, K.N. and Feldman Barrett, L. (2001) A Multiprocess Perspective on the
Neuroscience of Emotion, in T.J. Mayne and G.A. Bonnano (eds) Emotions: Current
Issues and Future Directions, pp. 3881. New York: Guilford Press.
Palmer, C. (1996) Anatomy of a Performance: Sources of Musical Expression, Music
Perception 13: 43353.
Palmer, C. (1997) Music Performance, Annual Review of Psychology 48: 11538.
Penel, A. and Drake, C. (1999) Seeking One Explanation for Expressive Timing, in
S.W. Yi (ed.) Music, Mind, and Science, pp. 27197. Seoul: Seoul National University
Press.
Peretz, I. (1990) Processing of Local and Global Musical Information by Unilateral
Brain-Damaged Patients, Brain 113: 1185205.
Peretz, I., Gagnon, L. and Bouchard, B. (1998) Music and Emotion: Perceptual
Determinants, Immediacy, and Isolation after Brain Damage, Cognition 68:
11141.
Persson, R.S. (1993) The Subjectivity of Musical Performance: An Exploratory
Music-Psychological Real World Enquiry into the Determinants and Education of
Musical Reality, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Huddersfield University, UK.
Persson, R.S. (2001) The Subjective World of the Performer, in P.N. Juslin and J.A.
Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Repp, B.H. (1989) Expressive Microstructure in Music: A Preliminary Perceptual
Assessment of Four Composers pulses, Music Perception 6: 24374.
Repp, B.H. (1997a) Variability of Timing in Expressive Piano Performance Increases
with Interval Duration, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4: 5304.
Repp, B.H. (1997b) The Aesthetic Quality of a Quantitatively Average Music
Performance: Two Preliminary Experiments, Music Perception 14: 41944.
Repp, B.H. (1998) A Microcosm of Musical Expression: I. Quantitative Analyses of
Pianists Timing in the Initial Measures of Chopins Etude in E major, Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America 104: 1085100.
Rink, J. (2003) In Respect of Performance: The View from Musicology, Psychology of
Music 31(3): 30323.
Rohwer, D. (2001) Instrumental Music Students Cognitive and Performance
Understanding of Musical Expression, Journal of Band Research 37: 1728.
Rostwall, A.-L. and West, T. (2001) Interaktion och kunskapsutveckling (Interaction
and Learning: A Study of Music Instrument Teaching), doctoral dissertation (with
a summary in English), Stockholm University.
Scherer, K.R. (1986) Vocal Affect Expression: A Review and a Model for Future
Research, Psychological Bulletin 99: 14365.
Scruton, R. (1997) The Aesthetics of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schumacher, M. (1995) Crossroads: The Life and Music of Eric Clapton. New York:
Hyperion.
Seashore, C.E. (1938) Psychology of Music. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sergent, J., Zuck, E., Tenial, S. and MacDonall, B. (1992) Distributed Neural Network
Underlying Musical Sight-Reading and Keyboard Performance, Science 257: 1069.
Shaffer, L.H. (1992) How to Interpret Music, in M.R. Jones and S. Holleran (eds)
Cognitive Bases of Musical Communication, pp. 26378. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association (APA).
Shove, P. and Repp, B.H. (1995) Musical Motion and Performance: Theoretical and
Empirical Perspectives, in J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies in
Musical Interpretation, pp. 5583. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sloboda, J.A. (1983) The Communication of Musical Metre in Piano Performance,
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 37796.
Sloboda, J.A. (1996) The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise:
Deconstructing the Talent Account of Individual Differences in Musical
Expressivity, in K.A. Ericsson (ed.) The Road to Excellence, pp. 10726. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Sloboda, J.A. (2000) Individual Differences in Music Performance, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 4: 397403.
Sloboda, J.A. and Juslin, P.N. (in press) Affektive Prozesse: Emotion, Gefallen und
Prferenzen (Affective Processes in Music: Emotion, Liking, and Preference), in
T.H. Stoffer and R. Oerter (eds) Enzyklopdie der Psychologie, Musikpsychologie, Bd.1.
Allgemeine Musikpsychologie. Gttingen: Hogrefe.
Small, C. (1999) Musicking: The Meanings of Performance and Listening: A
Lecture, Music Education Research 1: 921.
Spencer, H. (1857) The Origin and Function of Music, Frasers Magazine 56:
396408.
Sundberg, J. (1988) Computer Synthesis of Music Performance, in J.A. Sloboda (ed.)
Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation, and
Composition, pp. 5269. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tait, M. (1992) Teaching Strategies and Styles, in R. Colwell (ed.) Handbook of
Research on Music Teaching and Learning, pp. 52534. New York: Schirmer Books.
Thompson, W.F., Sundberg, J., Friberg, A. and Frydn, L. (1989) The Use of Rules for
Expression in the Performance of Melodies, Psychology of Music 17: 6382.
Todd, N. (1985) A Model of Expressive Timing in Tonal Music, Music Perception 3:
3358.
Todd, N. (1992) The Dynamics of Dynamics: A Model of Musical Expression, Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America 91: 354050.
Trussoni, S.J., OMalley, A. and Barton, A. (1988) Human Emotion Communication
by Touch: A Modified Replication of an Experiment by Manfred Clynes, Perceptual
and Motor Skills 66: 41924.
Van Oosten, P. (1993) Critical Study of Sundbergs Rules for Expression in the
Performance of Melodies, Contemporary Music Review 9: 26774.
Wing, A. and Kristofferson, A.B. (1973) Response Delays and the Timing of Discrete
Motor Responses, Perception & Psychophysics 14: 512.
Woody, R.H. (1999) The Relationship between Explicit Planning and Expressive
Performance of Dynamic Variations in an Aural Modeling Task, Journal of
Research in Music Education 47: 33142.
Woody, R.H. (2000) Learning Expressivity in Music Performance: An Exploratory
Study, Research Studies in Music Education 14: 1423.
Woody, R.H. (2002) Emotion, Imagery and Metaphor in the Acquisition of Musical
Performance Skill, Music Education Research 4: 21324.
Yamada, M. (1998) Temporal Fluctuations in Musical Performances: Fluctuations
Caused by the Limitations of Performers Controllability and by Artistic
Expression, in S.W. Yi (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Music
Perception and Cognition, pp. 35363. Seoul: Seoul National University.
PATRI K N. J US L I N is Associate Professor of Psychology at the Department of
Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden, where he teaches courses on emotion,
perception, and music psychology. He is the director of the inter-disciplinary research
project Feedback-Learning of Musical Expressivity (Feel-ME) (http://www.psyk.uu.se/
hemsidor/musicpsy/). He is a member of the International Society for Research on
Emotions (ISRE), and received ESCOMs Young Researcher Award in 1996. He co-edit-
ed the book Music and Emotion (Oxford University Press, 2001) with John Sloboda. As
well as his work as a researcher, Juslin has worked professionally as a guitar player
and toured internationally with blues/jazz bands.
Address: Patrik N. Juslin, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE
751 42 Uppsala, Sweden. [email: patrik.juslin@psyk.uu.se]

Psychology of Music-2003-Juslin PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Psychology of Music-2003-Juslin PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://pom.sagepub.

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Jul 1, 2003 Version of Record >>

Você também pode gostar