MENC: The National Association for Music Education

Analysis of Listening Preferences of High School and College Musicians

Author(s): Dianne Gregory
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Winter, 1994), pp. 331-342
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for
Music Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345740
Accessed: 06-09-2017 23:03 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3345740?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc., MENC: The National Association for Music Education are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Research in
Music Education

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 1994, VOLUME 42, NUMBER 4, PAGES 331-342 331

Undergraduate college music majors, high school musicians in performance groups,

and sixth-grade students in eight sites across the United States listened to brief
excerpts of music from early contemporary compositions, popular classics, selections
in the Silver Burdett/Ginn elementary music education series, and current crossover
jazz recordings. Each of the classical categories had a representative keyboard, band,
choral, and orchestral excerpt. Self-reports of knowledge and preference were recorded
by the Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI) while subjects listened to
excerpts.
Instrumental biases were found among high school and college musicians' prefer-
ences for relatively unfamiliar classical music. College music majors' preferences, in
general, were less "own-instrument-based" than were those of high school musicians.
In addition, the results suggest training broadens receptivity within and across
music genres. There seems, however, to be no predictable connection between the
degree to which one "knows" an excerpt and preference for the excerpt.

Dianne Gregory, Florida State University, Tallahassee

Analysis of Listening

Preferences of High Scho

and College Musicians
It is a well-documented fact that college music majors
Western art music to a greater degree than does the general
tion (Geringer, 1982; Geringer & McManus, 1979; Price &
Yarbrough, 1987). Music educators often assume that preference
for classical music is learned through prolonged association with
revered music. Several questions pertinent to music education are,
however, sometimes raised: How does the preference for classical
music evolve? Do high school and college musicians have similar
music preferences? Are musicians' performing-media choices (i.e.,
their instrument selections) and their listening preferences related?
Is the average music major's greater preference for classical music
related to studying "classics" (the "great works" of the Western musi-
cal tradition)? In essence, does training broaden or narrow listen-
ing preferences?

These results are part of a research study sponsored by the National Music
Education Research Project and supported with a grant from the Yamaha
Corporation. Dianne Gregory is an associate professor at the School of Music, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2098. Copyright @ 1994 by Music Educators
National Conference.

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
332 GREGORY

Research with young children reveals inconclusive resul

ing the relationship between music training and preferen
1982; Brown, 1978; Greer, Dorow, & Randall, 1974; Greer, Dorow,
Wachhaus, & White, 1973; Peery & Peery, 1986; Shehan, 1984;
Steele, 1968; Wig & Boyle, 1982). Research with high school music
performance groups (Geringer & McManus, 1979; Haack, 1982)
and college students (Price, 1985; Price, 1988; Price & Swanson,
1990) shows no consistent correlation between preference for the
activity of performing or studying music and preference for the
actual music content, per se. This study isolates several aspects of
music training and investigates their relationships with listening
preferences.

METHOD

Eight music education professors in eight major universiti

various geographical regions across the United States collabor
in this effort. Three groups of subjects were located at each
sixth-grade students in regular public schools, high school ju
and seniors in music performance groups, and college juniors
seniors majoring in music at the participating university. Bas
their performance activity, high school and college subjects
additionally divided into four groups: (1) keyboards, (2) choru
band, and (4) orchestra.
Apparatus at each site included an audiotape player, an audio-
tape of music excerpts, four stereo headphones, partitions to sepa-
rate listening areas, questionnaires, an IBM-compatible computer
and a Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI), four prefer-
ence CRDI dials, two "knowledge" overlays for the CRDI dials, and
CRDI data collection software (Kawaguchi, 1990). A typical listening
environment included four listening stations for individual subjects.
The music audiotape consisted of 13 selections. The first nine
excerpts were identical for each site and consisted of a 30-second
practice excerpt from Ein Heldenleben by Richard Strauss and eight
experimental selections, four each by Paul Hindemith and Igor
Stravinsky (Table 1). The final four selections varied across sites and
presented selections from one of four other music categories-
Mozart, eclectic (Table 1), Silver Burdett/Ginn elementary music
education series, and crossover jazz (Table 2). The Hindemith,
Stravinsky, Mozart, and eclectic selections were representative of the
composers/categories, according to solicited opinions from key-
board, choral, band, and orchestral literature experts. The Silver
Burdett/Ginn selections were determined by preference data pro-
vided by the publishers as "the most preferred" in each of the media
classifications and were duplicated directly from the elementary
music education series recordings. All four jazz excerpts were instru-
mental, were not "performance-media-specific," were selected from
a previous preference study with undergraduates who were not
music majors (Brittin, 1991), and were rerecorded from that study's

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 333

Table 1

Hindemith and Stravinsky Excerpts

Excerpt number Composer/Source of Excerpt

Hindemith
6 Keyboard Ludus Tonalis, Interludium moderato (0:00-0:35)
2 Choral Le Cyne (0:00-0:38)
3 Band Symphony in B-flat (1:50-2:16)
7 Orchestral Concert Music for Strings and Brass, 2nd mov. (1:17-1:49)

Stravinsky
4 Keyboard Concerto for Two Pianos, 3rd mov.,
Quattro Variazioni (1:56-2:27)
8 Choral Symphony of Psalms, Part III: "Laudate" (52-9:25)
5 Band Symphonies of Wind Instruments (4:50-5:25)
1 Orchestral Petrushka, 4th mov. (1:48-2:13)

Mozart

10 Keyboard Piano Sonata in C Major, K.330,

Allegro moderato (0:00-0:30)
12 Choral Requiem, K./KV 626, "Lacrimosa" (0:12-0:45)
9 Band Serenade in B-flat, K/KV 361, Adagio (0:26-0:66)
1 Orchestral Symphony #41 in C Major, Molto allegro (0:00-0:30)

Eclectic

10 Keyboard Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto #1, 1st mov. (0:58-1:28)

12 Choral Handel, Messiah, "Hallelujah" Chorus (0:07-0:41)
9 Band Sousa, "Stars and Stripes Forever" (0:00-0:28)
11 Orchestral Beethoven, Symphony #5, 1st mov. (0:00-0:29)

experimental tape. A silence of 1 to 3 seconds occurred between

excerpts.
All sites used the first nine excerpts (i.e., the Hindemith and the
Stravinsky). To sample additional categories while maintaining an
appropriate duration for the listening task, I sent four excerpts from
one of the other four categories to two sites in different geographi-
cal regions. The University of Alabama and University of Texas
received the eclectic excerpts; the University of Kansas and
University of Oregon received Mozart excerpts. The Silver
Burdett/Ginn excerpts went to Ohio State University and the
University of the Pacific; Syracuse University and Louisiana State
University received the crossoverjazz excerpts.
Site directors placed the listening apparatus in rooms that were
relatively free of distractions. As subjects entered the room, they
were directed to a station and provided with written directions for
operating the CRDI while listening to the music.
Fifteen percent of the subjects in each age-group listened to the

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
334 GREGORY

Table 2

Silver Burdett/Ginn Elementary Music Education Recordings and CrossoverJazz Excerpts

Excerpt #

Silver Burdett/Ginn
10 Keyboard Beethoven: "Ffir Elise" (0:00-0:37)
12 Choral Woodie Guthrie: "This Land Is Your Land" (1:14-1:46)
9 Band Sousa: "Semper Fidelis" (0:00-0:37)
11 Orchestral Tchaikovsky: Nutcracker Suite, "March" (0:00-0:34)

Crossover Jazz
9 David Sanborn, "As We Speak" (0:00-0:36), from the
album As We Speak
10 Herbie Hancock, "Well, You Needn't" (0:00-0:42) from
the album Quartet
11 Larry Carlton, "Last Night" (0:00-0:43) from the album
Last Night
12 Spyro Gyra, "Shakedown" (0:00-0:45) from the album
Alternating Currents

tape a second time immediately following the first presentation t

obtain reliability data. Correlation coefficients of these subjects' test
retest CRDI output data files revealed mean reliability for the ele
mentary (n = 52), high school (n = 113), and music-major (n = 67)
subjects as .64, .82, and .84, respectively.
To obtain a concurrent sampling of knowledge of the excerpt, 30
percent of the subjects at each site and within each age-group lis
tened to the tape and used two dials. One dial was the regular "pref-
erence" indicator and was identical to the single-dial preference
CRDI. The second dial, however, had a "knowledge" overlay (Figur
1) attached, with eight possible responses ranging from "Totall
unknown" to "Have performed/analyzed or taught it" displayed
Subjects were directed to respond with the knowledge dial while lis-
tening to the music and moving the preference dial.

RESULTS

After the CRDI data disks were collected from all sites, the ag
terion for music majors was adjusted to include 33 college s
mores (8% of the total) to increase the number of keyboard
orchestral subjects. Data for 1,299 subjects were stored in file
were uploaded to an IBM mainframe and accessed with SPSS
ware (Release 4.1 for IBM VM/CMS) for statistical treatment.
For purposes of analysis, the eight sites were combined into fo
geographical regions. Region 1 consisted of Alabama and Loui
(n = 293), Region 2 consisted of New York and Ohio (n = 351),
Texas and Missouri were Region 3 (n = 365), and Region 4 includ-

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 335

< " '-t1 3 " ........ .... . . >

C,

13"

HEARD IT BEFORE? WAIT KNOW IT?

YES/FAMILIAR PERFORMED IT
but can't name it butcant name it

MAYBE, but VERY

probably 1 FAMILIAR
something can name it
similar

NOT SURE * ? In lesson NOT SUSTUDIED IT

class, course

NO, totally unknown * PERFOREDAUN ALYZED

Foigure 1. CRDI preference dial and knowledge overlay.

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
336 GREGORY

Table 3

Mean Preference Rating of Subject Groups for Music Categories *

Category Grade High Music F p

6 school majors

Hindemith 123.04 145.92 161.35 129.39 .000

Stravinsky 124.93 139.33 155.92 101.00 .000

Mozart 136.17 162.90 186.04 53.71 .000

Eclectic 144.77 183.44 183.52 35.74 .000

Silver Burdett/Ginn 158.29 165.95 160.85 1.19 .30

Jazz 169.39 159.03 168.90 2.51 .08

* Underlined means are not significantly different

ed California and Oregon (n = 290). A th

ance (ANOVA) of mean preference ratin
Stravinsky excerpts across subjects' reg
completed to determine their effects on
across the four geographical regions ran
the differences were nonsignificant [F
Mean ratings of males (n = 553) and fema
ly the same, 146.74 and 146.03 [F (1, 129
ratings of sixth graders (n = 249, M = 12
(n = 637, M = 142.6), and college musicia
were significantly different [F(2, 1296)
was, therefore, included as a factor in su
region and gender factors were removed fr
Mean preference ratings of all excerpts
Hindemith, Stravinsky, Mozart, eclectic,
jazz are provided in Table 3. An ANOVA
Newman-Keuls (.05) procedure, which wa
quent analyses, revealed significant diff
groups for the Hindemith, Stravinsky, a
graders' ratings were consistently the lowe
ings were consistently the highest in th
school and undergraduate subjects' rating
were virtually the same and significantly h
dents' ratings. No differences between
regarding ratings for Silver Burdett/Ginn
The mean ratings of all classical categor
and college groups were 159 and 169, respec

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 337

Table 4

Mean Preference Ratings of Performance-Medium Excerpts *

Excerpts
Group Keyboard Choral Band Orchestral F p
(N)

High school 158.0 135.2 150.7 168.5 25.41 .000

(1,013)

Music major 162.2 154.7 160.5 178.0 13.10 .000

(684)

* Underlined means not significantly different.

ly the same as their ratings ofjazz. The sixth-grade subjects' classical

mean was 137, indicating a predilection forjazz (M = 169).
Excerpt ratings were grouped by performance medium and com-
bined for each subject to provide four preference ratings, one for
each medium (i.e., a keyboard, choral, band, and orchestral prefer-
ence mean), as shown in Table 4. High school subjects' least-pre-
ferred medium was choral, and the most-preferred medium was
orchestral; their band and keyboard means were not significantly
different. Music majors' performance-media means revealed a signif-
icantly higher preference for orchestral media, similar to the high
school subjects, yet the music majors' preference ratings for key-
board, choral, and band media did not differ.
High school students and music majors were placed into "current
music performance activity" groups. Fifty-three percent of the high
school subjects and 50% of the music majors reported current
involvement in only one activity-band, chorus, orchestra, or key-
board performance. The remaining subjects reported activity in two
or more groups in various combinations. For purposes of analysis, a
performance-medium group's mean rating for each excerpt was
determined by including ratings from all subjects reporting current
activity in that particular area of performance.
A breakdown of high school and college performance-medium
group ratings of all excerpts performed by a particular medium is
provided in Table 5. Instrumental biases appear in both groups for
all media, except orchestra.
Further analysis of ratings of music categories revealed instru-
mental biases of high school musicians for the Hindemith,
Stravinsky, and eclectic categories. Music majors revealed own-
instrument biases for Hindemith and Stravinsky. Silver
Burdett/Ginn ratings for both groups were similar. The Mozart key-
board excerpt was the only rating in its category suggesting an
instrumental bias. Table 6 pairs each excerpt with the performance
group (s) that gave it significantly higher ratings. Generally speaking,

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
338 GREGORY

Table 5

Current Peformance Groups'Mean Preference Ratings of Excerpts

Excerpts
Group (N) Keyboard Choral Band Orchestral

High school

Keyboard (182) 165.0a 142.4b 146.9 171.3

Chorus (412) 151.7 141.1b 146.5 166.2
Band (263) 158.0 126.8 159.2c 168.6
Orchestra (156) 156.7 130.9 151.2 169.3

Music Major

Keyboard (167) 167.3d 155.9 155.2 178.8

Chorus (233) 164.8 161.7e 153.2 177.8
Band (155) 157.1 149.5 171.4f 178.3
Orchestra (129) 159.7 152.1 163.3g 177.9
Note: a = Different from chorus and orchestra; b = Different from band
Different from all other; d = Different from band; e = Different from band and
orchestra; f = Different from all other; g = Different from keyboard and choral.

performance-media-based listening preference biases, when they

did appear, occurred within two groupings: one group consisted of
keyboard and choral subjects, and the second group consisted of
band and orchestra subjects.
Thirty percent of each age-group used two dials while listening to
excerpts. Preference ratings were collected on one dial, and discrete
responses to knowledge questions were collected on a second dial.
Mean preference and mean knowledge ratings for the three age-
groups were calculated for each category of music. Knowledge
means ranged from 42 to 187, with higher means indicating greater
knowledge of an excerpt. Means and Pearson correlations of prefer-
ence and knowledge ratings (Table 7) revealed inconsistencies
across music categories and age-groups.

DISCUSSION

The most familiar music for all groups was the Silver
Burdett/Ginn category. Responses ranged from the comparison
group of sixth-grade subjects' "very familiar, but can't name it" to
the college students' "performed, studied it in lesson, class, or
course." Yet, the only significant positive correlation between
knowledge and preference in this category, and the highest among
all of the correlations, occurred with the sixth-grade subjects, per-
haps corroborating Hargreaves' findings (1984) regarding the

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 339

Table 6

Groups with Significantly Higher Ratings of Music Excerpts

Excerpts
Group Keyboard Choral Band Orchestral

Hindemith
High school Keyboard Choral Band N.S.
Keyboard Orchestra

Music major Keyboard Choral Band N.S.

Choral Keyboard Orchestra

Stravinsky
High school N.S. Choral Band N.S.
Keyboard

Music major Keyboard Choral Band N.S.

Choral Keyboard Orchestra
Orchestra Orchestra

Mozart

High school Keyboard N.S. N.S. N.S.

Music major Keyboard N.S. N.S. N.S.

Choral

Eclectic
High school Keyboard Choral Band N.S.
Orchestra Keyboard

Music major N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

Silver Burdett/Ginn

High school N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

Music major N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.

"recency of knowing" and its effect on

Knowledge ratings increase from t
music-majors group in all categories
Hindemith/Stravinsky and jazz. The
subjects to those categories was "Not
Hindemith/Stravinsky preference m
(music majors' ratings were the high

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
340 GREGORY

Table 7
Correlations between Mean Preference and Mean Knowledge Ratings

Hindemith/ Silver
Ratings Stravinsky Mozart Eclectic Burdett/Ginn Jazz

Grade 6

(n = 79) (22) (20) (17) (20)

Preference 128 139 155 142 164

Knowledge 42 64 101 115 71

Correlation .38 ** .46 ** .39 .67 ** .19

High School

(n = 184) (56) (48) (45) (35)

Preference 141 150 177 171 154

Knowledge 43 86 147 160 43

Correlation -.33** -.31* .46 ** .15 .22

Music Major

(n = 140) (41) (36) (34) (29)

Preference 158 180 186 168 167

Knowledge 51 121 187 187 70

Correlation .30 ** .36 * .13 .16 .51 **

* p <.05; ** p <.01

similar and relatively high for

that the influences of educators,
sion on music-preference decisio
at different stages of the listener
ticular data (p. 31).
Ratings for the "least-known" m
were the only ratings suggesting
school and college musicians. In
for the band excerpts, and the
ratings for the keyboard and c
with a performance medium durin
tening preference of unfamiliar

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 34

particularly when compared with treatments of other media by the

same composer. Selections of Mozart, the only other single-compos-
er category, were relatively more familiar than the Hindemith/
Stravinsky selections, and preference ratings were basically not relat-
ed to instrumental medium.
Selections in the eclectic category were more familiar to the
dents than were the Mozart selections. Instrumental biases were
lacking in the analysis of the music majors' preference ratin
school subjects, however, indicated a definite instrument-r
preference in this category. In addition, the only positive sign
correlation between knowledge and preference data for th
school group was in the eclectic category.

CONCLUSION

Music performance apparently plays a role in the evolut

classical music preference of musicians. Instrumental b
less apparent among music majors, compared to high sc
cians; yet, both groups demonstrated media-based prefe
unfamiliar classical music. Further study seems warranted.
The relationship between studying music and preferr
remains elusive. The degree to which subjects report kno
specific music excerpt appears to lack any predictive co
with the degree of reported preference for that selection.
Although limited in scope and hampered by the "repre
al" issue of most music-preference research, the findin
study seem to suggest that music training broadens one's re
to music within and across genres. Within the classical g
performance-media-based listening biases were somewhat less
apparent among the most trained group, the music majors.
Likewise, unfamiliar classical music received relatively higher ratings
from this group. The fact that high school and college musicians
apparently maintain a preference for nonclassical music (jazz, in
this particular study, and the sixth-grade subjects' preferred music)
even when they are exposed to other genres, including classical
music, suggests a broadening effect of music training on listening
preference.

REFERENCES

Alpert, J. (1982). The effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher
approval of music on music selection and preference. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 30, 173-186.
Brittin, R. V. (1991). The effect of overtly categorizing music on preference
for popular music styles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39,
143-151.
Brown, A. (1978). Effects of televised instruction on student music selec-
tion, music skills, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26,
445-455.
Geringer, J. M. (1982). Verbal and operant music listening preferences in

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
342 GREGORY

relationship to age and musical training [Special issue]. Ps

Music, 1 47-50.
Geringer,J. M., & McManus, D. (1979). A survey of musical taste
ship to age and musical training. College Music Symposium, 19,
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L. G., & Randall, A. (1974). Music listen
ences of elementary school children. Journal of Research
Education, 22, 284-291.
Greer, R. D., Dorow, L.G., Wachhaus, G., & White, E. R. (1973). Adult
approval and students' music selection behavior. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 21, 345-354.
Haack, P. (1982). A study of high school music participants' stylistic prefer-
ences and identification abilities in music and the visual arts. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 30, 213-220.
Hargreaves, D. J. (1984). The effects of repetition on liking for music.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 35-47.
Kawaguchi, E., & Gregory, D, (1990). CRDI [Computer software].
Tallahassee: Center for Music Research, School of Music, Florida State
University.
LeBlanc, A. (1982). An interactive theory of music preference. Journal of
Music Therapy, 19, 28-45.
Peery, J. C., & Peery, I. W. (1986). Effects of exposure to classical music on
the musical preferences of preschool children. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 34, 24-33.
Price, H. E. (1985). The effect of conductor academic task presentation,
conductor reinforcement, and ensemble practice on performers' musical
achievement, attentiveness, and attitude. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 31, 245-257.
Price, H. E. (1988). The effect of a music appreciation course on students'
verbally expressed preferences for composers. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 36, 35-46.
Price, H. E., & Yarbrough, C. (1987). Expressed opinions of composers,
musical training, recording ownership, and their interrelationship. In C.
K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett (Eds.), Applications of Research in Music
Behavior (pp. 232-243). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Price, H. E., & Swanson, P. (1990). Changes in musical attitudes, opinions,
and knowledge of music appreciation students .Journal of Research in Mu-
sic Education, 38, 39-48.
Shehan, P. K. (1984). The effect of instruction method on preference,
achievement and attentiveness for Indonesian gamelan music. Psychology
of Music, 12, 34-42.
Steele, L. (1968). Effects of social reinforcement on the musical preferences
of mentally retarded children. Journal of Music Therapy, 4, 57-62.
Wig, J. A., & Boyle, J. D. (1982). The effect of keyboard learning experien-
ces on middle school general music students' music achievement and
attitudes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 163-172.

September 14, 1993

This content downloaded from 128.59.82.245 on Wed, 06 Sep 2017 23:03:45 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms