THE EFFECT OF OCTAVE AND TIMBRE COMBINATIONS

ON UNDERGRADUATE BAND MEMBERS’ PERCEPTION OF PITCH

by

CLINTON M. STEINBRUNNER

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Nathan B. Kruse

Department of Music

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

August 2019

2

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis of

Clinton M. Steinbrunner

candidate for the degree of Master of Arts.

Committee Chair

Dr. Nathan B. Kruse

Committee Member

Dr. Kathleen A. Horvath

Committee Member

Dr. Ryan V. Scherber

Date of Defense

June 29, 2019

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained

for any proprietary material contained therein.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 5

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 7

Tuning as an Individual Process .............................................................................. 8 Instrument Timbre ................................................................................................... 9 Ensemble Tuning Procedures and Octave Displacement ........................................ 10

Need for the Study .................................................................................................... 11

Purpose and Problems of the Study ........................................................................... 14

Summary ................................................................................................................... 14

Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................... 18

Pitch Perception and Performance ............................................................................. 19 Just Noticeable Difference (JND) .......................................................................... 20 Pitch Perception Preferences and Performance Tendencies .................................... 24 Experience Effect on Pitch Preference and Accuracy ............................................. 26 Relationships Between Perception and Performance .............................................. 28

Common Practices .................................................................................................... 29 Temperament ........................................................................................................ 30 Development of Intonation Skills .......................................................................... 33 Musician Perceptions of Tuning Practices ............................................................. 38

External Stimulus Pitch Factors ................................................................................. 40 Instrument Timbre ................................................................................................. 40 Tone Quality ......................................................................................................... 42 Octave Displacement ............................................................................................. 45

Summary ................................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 47

Purpose and Problems of the Study ........................................................................... 47

Participants ............................................................................................................... 48 Consent ................................................................................................................. 48

Instrument Development ........................................................................................... 49 Stimulus Creation .................................................................................................. 49 Data Collection Instrument .................................................................................... 52 Pilot Testing .......................................................................................................... 52

Procedures................................................................................................................. 53 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 56

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................. 58

4

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 64

Research Questions 1 and 2 ....................................................................................... 65

Research Questions 3 and 4 ....................................................................................... 68

Implications .............................................................................................................. 70

Limitations of the Current Study ............................................................................... 75

Conclusions and Future Research .............................................................................. 77

APPENDICIES ............................................................................................................. 80 APPENDIX A: Letter of Cooperation Request Email ................................................ 80

APPENDIX B: Institutional Approval ....................................................................... 80

APPENDIX C: Informed Consent Document ............................................................ 83

APPENDIX D: Recruitment Script ............................................................................ 86

APPENDIX E: Instrument Sample Spectra ................................................................ 87

APPENDIX F: Stimulus Presentation Orders ............................................................ 88

APPENDIX G: Data Collection Forms ...................................................................... 88

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 93

5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Participant Demographics ...................................................................... 59

Table 4.2 Timbre Response Accuracy .................................................................... 61

Table 4.3 Cent Deviation Response Accuracy ........................................................ 62

Table 4.4 Pitch Discrimination Difficulty .............................................................. 63

6

The Effect of Octave and Timbre Combinations on

Undergraduate Band members’ Perception of Pitch

Abstract

by

CLINTON M. STEINBRUNNER

The purpose of this research was to measure the effects of instrument timbre and

octave combinations on the accuracy of undergraduate wind band members’ perception

of pitch, as well as these variables’ effect on the perceived difficulty of the same task.

Participants (N = 92) from three college bands identified 24 pitch pairs as in-tune or out-

of-tune. These pairs consisted of an in-tune stimulus pitch presented in single or

combined octaves (clarinet, tuba, clarinet and tuba, clarinet and bass clarinet) followed by

an experimental pitch (trombone) with deviations of 0, ±10, or ±15 cents. Participants

also responded to the perceived ease and difficulty of assessing pitch related to these

combinations. Results indicated that single octave stimulus pitches produced the most

accurate responses and were perceived as the easiest condition to hear differences in

pitch. Among combined octave stimuli, the dissimilar timbre pairing produced the most

accurate results. Further results showed increased accuracy for sharp pitches over flat,

and the tuba stimulus over the clarinet stimulus, indicating a possible effect of instrument

tone quality on pitch perception in the study.

7

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Music educators have long considered good intonation a vital part of ensemble

performances. Performers in concert band settings must adjust their instrument to a

standard pitch and continually monitor their intonation in relation to other members and

internally. Tuning refers to the specific task of adjusting pitch and falls under the more

general term of intonation (Morrison & Fyk, 2002). These procedures have been

reinforced by the inclusion of intonation ratings at adjudicated events, both on the

individual and large ensemble level. Concert band directors have reported using varying

processes and skills to improve students’ ability to tune their instruments (Scherber,

2014). The list of professional literature in trade magazines, books, online articles, and

professional development sessions is ever growing, and highlights a continued interest in

this subject. While some sources dedicate entire chapters to the concept of intonation

(Lisk, 1991a), other authors have provided entire texts dedicated to the sole subject of

intonation (Garofalo, 1996; Jagow, 2012).

Ensemble teachers should seek to guide their students effectively through a

complicated landscape of sound and tone variables if they hope to foster improved

intonation skills. The ability to tune any note effectively can be affected by each

instrument’s acoustical design, temperature variations, physical differences among

performers, environment and each performer’s personal ability to hear fine variations in

pitch (Garofalo, 1996; Hovey, 1976; Jagow, 2012; Lisk, 1991b). Individual differences in

instruments and performers as well as each ensemble’s unique blend of timbres, tone

qualities, and octaves can have an effect on the tuning process. These differences interact

8

and compound during the “tuning-up” process that often precedes ensemble rehearsals

(Garofalo, 1996; Jagow, 2012; Lisk, 1991a). These and other factors combine to make

tuning a skill that is ever changing and requires constant adaption from students and

teachers alike. The overarching term intonation can refer to various procedures and skills

(Morrison & Fyk, 2002), adding to the complexity of discussing the subject.

Under the umbrella term of intonation, “tuning a note” can change meaning

depending on the goals at hand. Aside from simply adjusting instruments to a set standard

at the beginning of rehearsal, these goals include adjusting embouchures and voicings or

employing alternate fingerings to compensate for instrument tendencies, and/or altering

individual pitches to bring a chord in tune (Garofalo, 1996; Jagow, 2012). Perhaps

principal among all of these activities is the ability for performers to perceive a pitch,

whether it is provided by another instrument or an internal concept, and to alter their own

pitch to match the reference. When considering the variety of factors that can affect pitch

between performers, such as embouchure, instrument, and experience, it stands to reason

that the tuning process may be unique to each individual.

Tuning as an Individual Process

The factors affecting intonation, both on the personal and ensemble levels, can

lead to each member experiencing the tuning process in a different way. Hovey (1976)

commented on the individual nature of intonation in his book outlining school band

rehearsal procedures and recommended that students be given time in every rehearsal to

hear their own instruments in relation to the rest of the ensemble. Hovey believed that

this practice would allow students to gain experience matching their own pitch to the

varying octaves and timbres around them. Byo and Schlegel (2016) also found evidence

9

to support the individual nature of intonation through surveying advanced, collegiate

wind instrumentalists about the tuning process. Based on their findings, Byo and Schlegel

asserted that:

Pedagogically, it is unlikely that an unchanging tuning “routine” often

observed in school ensembles will lead to the versatile ear. Some

combination of fixed (consistent) and variable tuning experience led by

knowledgeable and perceptive teachers/conductors seems appropriate, but

questions of what, how much, and when persist. (p. 355)

Research on variables such as instrument timbre and octave displacement can

serve as a precursor to actual performance tasks related to pitch discrimination,

the ability to recognize changes in pitch.

Instrument Timbre

Researchers and educators have regarded timbre as an important factor in

intonation processes. Lisk (1991) considered the connection between both aspects so

important he included intonation as a subsection of timbre in his book outlining rehearsal

strategies. Directors and clinicians have made the argument that effective tuning cannot

happen until students are able to produce a characteristic tone (Jagow, 2012; South,

2006). However, esearch on the relationships between timbre and intonation has shown

mixed results. Ely (1992) found that dissimilar timbral combinations like flute and

saxophone increased the accuracy of participants to hear variations in pitch. As a factor in

performance, Ely also found that instrumentalists played flatter when matching another

instrument timbre, implying greater accuracy at matching pitches with similar timbral

combinations. This result stands in contrast to Cummings (2007), who found no like

10

timbre advantage between flutes and violins in the same octave, and to Byo et al. (2011)

and Byo and Schlegel (2016), who found no advantage among woodwind instruments in

the same octave. The effect of timbre in a wind band is especially changeable,

considering the many possible combinations of different instruments. The mechanics by

which each wind instrument produces its tone create a particular timbre and range of

available pitches. This connection may call into question the possible effects of reference

pitch octave.

Ensemble Tuning Procedures and Octave Displacement

The process of “tuning-up” encourages ensemble members to adjust their

instruments to match a reference pitch, typically provided by another ensemble member

(Byo, Schlegel, & Clark, 2011). Secondary and collegiate wind band directors have

reported this procedure as an important daily practice (Scherber, 2014). Although sources

dedicated to wind band intonation recommend various tuning procedures, the concept of

tuning from the “bottom-up” is one of the most commonly detailed (Jagow, 2012; Lisk,

1991a; McBeth, 1972; Scherber, 2014). This particular approach begins with a

presentation of the tuning pitch from a tuba, encouraging ensemble members to hear and

tune to the higher harmonics presented. Lisk (1991) reinforced this concept when he

wrote, “All upper pitches must be related to the fundamental…It is the ‘basic law of

ensemble pitch.’ Effective balance, blend or intonation cannot be achieved without this

understanding” (p. 62). Proponents of tuning from the lowest voice in a band have

claimed improvements in balance and blend (Jagow, 2012; Lisk, 1991b; McBeth, 1972).

Jagow summed up the primary justification for this tuning method, stating, “[s]tudents

should listen to the lower voices to balance their pitch, as it is easier to match pitch with

11

lower voices than it is with higher voices” (p. 70). This assertion, however, stands in

contrast to research that has shown a decrease in tuning accuracy among middle school

and high school students who tuned their instruments to a tuba stimulus pitch (Byo et al.,

2011; Scherber, 2014). In both of these studies, participants were more accurate when

responding to woodwind instruments that sounded two octaves above the tuba. These

tendencies may point to a greater ease at matching higher octaves, although timbre may

remain an additional, confounding factor. Additional research related to the effect of

stimulus timbres and octaves on the pitch perception of developing musicians may

provide information on the effectiveness of traditional tuning practices and inform the

development of new ones.

The current study seeks to reveal possible relationships between timbres,

octave displacements, and combinations of these two factors on the pitch

discrimination accuracy of college musicians. Comparing the accuracy of

participant responses between conditions may provide additional insight into the

ways that these factors affect intonation in a large ensemble.

Need for the Study

While previous research has shown various effects of octave displacement

and timbre on pitch discrimination and performance (Byo et al., 2011; Byo &

Schlegel, 2016; Cummings, 2007; Geringer, MacLeod, & Sasanfar, 2015;

Scherber, 2014), none of the studies included the possible effect of concurrent

pitches presented in octaves and varying timbre combinations. Educational

resource authors have endorsed tuning strategies that present tuning pitches in

octaves with varying timbres. Two examples include Jagow (2012), who

12

recommended using clarinet and tuba as an ensemble tuning pitch, and Lisk

(1991), who proposed using principal players across multiple instrument families.

Aside from exploring the individual conditions of timbre and octave

displacement, the possible relationship of these two variables may require further

investigation. Byo and Schlegel (2016) acknowledged this relationship, writing:

Two of those demands for high school musicians are stimulus timbre and

octave (Byo et al., 2011). We have yet to fully control for these variables

in a manner that reveals how they may interact with each other and with

the experience and skill level of musicians. (p. 356)

Although Byo et al. (2011) explored these demands through a performance task,

the current study represents an initial exploration into students’ abilities to assess

and perceive pitch through a pitch comparison task. An additional consideration is

the experience level of participants.

Previous research has included participant responses to stimulus pitches

with varying octaves and timbres at the middle school (Scherber, 2014), high

school (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014), and collegiate levels (Byo & Schlegel,

2016). Byo and Schlegel (2016) recruited highly-achieving college musicians

through the recommendation of applied wind faculty. While researchers have

observed differences at the middle school and high school levels (Byo et al.,

2011; Scherber, 2014), stimulus octave and timbre did not affect the responses of

advanced collegiate musicians (Byo & Schlegel, 2016). These results suggest that

the advanced musicians may have reached a level of expertise that allowed them

to navigate changes in octave and timbre without a difference in performance.

13

The current study includes collegiate band members who are primarily non-music

majors. This population might assist in avoiding possible ceiling effects while

collecting results that are still generalizable to ensembles in the process of

developing pitch discrimination and intonation skills. Thus, the current study will

include three areas that, when combined, are underexplored in extant research on

tuning and pitch perception: octave displacement, timbre combinations, and

collegiate participants representing a wider variety of ability level.

14

Purpose and Problems of the Study

With the intent of gaining a deeper understanding of pitch perception among

instrumentalists, the purpose of this research was to measure college wind band

members’ ability to accurately assess the pitch variance of tones in response to varying

stimulus octaves and timbres, presented in isolation and concurrently. A secondary focus

was on the students’ perceived difficulty of discriminating pitch in each setting. The

specific problems of the study were (a) to determine whether individual or combined

stimulus octaves have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as

in tune or out of tune, (b) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus timbres

have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of

tune, (c) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus octaves have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of tune,

and (d) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus timbres have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to assess a tone as in tune or out of tune.

Summary

The current study builds upon previous research related to the effects of

instrument timbre and octave displacement on pitch perception (Byo et al., 2011; Byo &

Schlegel, 2016; Scherber, 2014). The author seeks to further previous findings by

presenting participants with a range of isolated and concurrent stimulus pitches. This

process could lead to an increased understanding of how instrument timbre and octave

displacement are related to each other. Additionally, the presentation of concurrent

pitches reflects tuning procedures outlined in professional literature (Jagow, 2012; Lisk,

1991b). The next chapter presents the concepts of pitch perception and pitch

15

performance, and features early studies as a guide to the methodologies that appear in

extant research. The remainder of the second chapter outlines research related to internal

and external factors affecting pitch perception and performance, as well as the instruction

of intonation skills. The terminology below will be used throughout this document and

serves as a foundation for understanding current and previous research related to pitch

perception and performance.

Definition of Terms

Beats or beating – The pulsations of amplitude that result from two simultaneous

pitches differing only slightly in frequency. (Garofalo, 1996; Helmholtz, 1954)

Cent – Unit of measurement for an interval based on frequency ratios. A cent is

1/1200 of an octave. (Jagow, 2012)

Complex tone – A tone containing relatively high amplitude levels of upper

harmonics, as in the sawtooth waveform produced by and oboe or violin. (Rossing, 2002)

Discrimination – The ability of an individual to assess and recognize changes in

pitch. (Morrison & Fyk, 2002)

Equal temperament – A scale in which twelve equal semitones make up an

octave. Each semitone is equal to 100 cents. (Jagow, 2012; Rossing, 2002)

Experimental and stimulus tones – In the current study, the stimulus tone is the

initial tone presented in a pitch-pair comparison task. Experimental tones are presented

second, and participants compare those pitches to those of the stimulus tones. Stimulus

tones consist of varying combinations of instruments timbres and octaves, while

experimental tones are presented in a consistent octave and timbre.

16

Hertz (Hz) – A unit of measurement for frequency; the number of vibrations or

complete cycles of a sound wave occurring within a second. (Gallagher, 2009)

Intonation – Various skills related to accurate perception or performance of

pitch. (Morrison & Fyk, 2002)

Just noticeable difference – The smallest deviation in pitch at which the auditory

system perceives two different pitches. (Weber, 1834)

Just temperament – A tuning system in which the adjustment or tempering of

intervals is based on harmonic ratios. In this system, the notes in the major triad have

frequencies in the ratios of 4:5:6.

Pitch – The frequency of a tone, referring to either pitch classification (e.g., F#)

or a specific note (e.g., F#4). (Randel, 2003)

Pitch matching – A musical task in which participants aim to replicate the pitch

of a stimulus tone through instruments or pitch producing devices. (Morrison & Fyk,

2002)

Pitch perception – The purely aural process of discriminating pitch, as opposed

to performance. (Morrison & Fyk, 2002)

Pythagorean temperament – A tuning system in which the largest possible

number of perfect fourths and fifths are present. (Rossing, 2002)

Simple or pure tone – A tone containing relatively low amplitude levels of upper

harmonics, as in the sinusoidal (sine) waveform of a flute sound. (Rossing, 2002)

Temperament – A wide range of methods for adjusting or tempering the pure

mathematically correct tuning of the notes and intervals in a scale. (Gallagher, 2009)

Timbre – The tonal quality or color of a sound. (Gallagher, 2009)

17

Tuning – To adjust the pitch of an instrument to match a standard frequency or to

establish typical intervals. (Gallagher, 2009)

18

CHAPTER 2

Review of Related Literature

Accurate intonation is an important aspect of individual and large group

performances. Achieving this task varies depending on a wide range of internal and

external factors. Chief among the external factors are variables related to reference

pitches, such as timbre and octave displacement. The current study aims to gain

additional data on how these two factors affect pitch perception among collegiate

instrumentalists through the use of a pitch comparison task. Participants also will respond

to questions related to the relative difficulty of comparing tones with varying stimulus

timbre and octave combinations. Previous research on pitch discrimination and tuning

practices informed the concepts and methods employed in this study. These studies and

their resultant discoveries are discussed in detail below.

The following review of literature begins with a brief synopsis of three early

studies that serve as a framework for defining pitch perception and pitch performance,

and that aid in the contextualization of subsequent research. This introduction is followed

by a synthesis of research results that is divided into three main categories. The first of

these categories contains studies related to pitch perception, pitch performance, and

directional preferences. Research comparing perception and performance tasks also will

be examined in light of the current study. The second category contains research

reflecting common practices among ensemble directors and individual musicians with

regard to tuning systems, intonation training, and thought processes. These practices,

coupled with performer descriptions of their personal tuning procedures and experiences,

highlight methods that require more research to support anecdotal assertions of

19

effectiveness. The third category contains external conditions that can affect individuals’

ability to perceive and perform pitch accurately. These factors include instrument timbre,

tone quality, and octave displacement of stimulus pitches. This chapter concludes with a

summary of the most salient aspects related to the current study.

Pitch Perception and Performance

The current body of research on intonation has situated the concept of pitch

primarily through perception and performance tasks. Pitch perception is an individual’s

ability to discriminate pitch by aurally comparing tones, whereas pitch performance (or

pitch matching) results in the actual production of a pitch through the manipulation of a

musical instrument (Morrison & Fyk, 2002). For example, a teacher listening for whether

two instrumentalists are “in-tune” with each other is engaging in a pitch perception task.

The students, on the other hand, are engaging in pitch performance as they attempt to

match their pitch to the other performer. Researchers have worked to isolate and study

these two tasks in various ways, which has led to common methodologies. The following

section outlines early studies in order to define these methodologies, and to connect them

to perception and performance tasks. Detailed results associated with these studies are

contained in the remainder of this review of literature.

Geringer (1978) employed both perception and performance processes in his

seminal study of 96 randomly selected undergraduate and graduate music students. Each

participant performed a mixolydian scale, either by singing or playing a wind or string

instrument. Each participant recorded the scale unaccompanied and with a piano

accompaniment consisting of the same scale. Following this initial performance, half of

the participants performed both of the tasks again after receiving instruction to adjust

20

their pitch to create the most accurate performance. This served as the performance task

for the study. The other half of the participants were instructed to utilize a pitch control

knob to adjust the pitches of their initial performance to match those of the

accompaniment. This procedure served as the perception task, due to the fact that

participants simply were altering, rather than actively creating, the comparison tone. For

each task, Geringer calculated the absolute deviation from standard pitch to determine

perception preferences and performance tendencies.

A perception task similar to Geringer’s (1978) required participants to compare

tones and determine whether they were in tune, rather than actively adjusting one pitch

with a control knob (Wapnick & Freeman, 1980). In this study of 50 undergraduate music

majors, each participant listened to a pair of clarinet tones and identified the second as

sharp, flat, or in tune. By presenting comparison tones that were in tune, 12 cents sharp,

and 12 cents flat, Wapnick and Freeman were able to compare the accuracy of

participants for each condition. Researchers have used these early studies as models to

investigate varying aspects of pitch perception and performance, including the pitch

variation at which individuals perceive two different pitches. The specific results of these

studies are outlined below.

Just Noticeable Difference (JND)

In order for the auditory system to perceive two different pitches, there must be an

appreciable deviation between the two. Weber (1834) defined this point as the just

noticeable difference, or JND. Although Weber employed this term with regard to the

entire sensory system, auditory and music education researchers have designed studies to

gain a sense of where the JND for pitch discrimination lies.

21

One method for determining the JND of pitches has been to test the point at which

participants perceive a change in pitch as it gradually increases or decreases in frequency.

Madsen, Edmonson, and Madsen (1969) employed this methodology in their study of

students (N = 200), consisting of evenly-sized subgroups of second graders, fifth graders,

eighth graders, eleventh graders, college juniors who were non-music majors, college

juniors who were music majors, graduate music students, and music faculty. Participants

listened to a pitch (F#) that went gradually higher, gradually lower, or stayed the same.

Madsen et al. provided a switch for participants to indicate the point in time that they

perceived a difference in pitch. Upon conclusion of the pitch, participants marked on a

piece of paper the direction in which they perceived the pitch changing. Average scores

showed increased accuracy as participants grew in age and experience. Madsen et al.

reviewed the times at which participants indicated a change in pitch and found that the

perception of modulated frequency was most accurate at approximately 10 cents.

Another method that researchers have employed to measure JND has been a

comparison of two discrete pitches. Bentley (1973) utilized a pitch comparison task to

study adults holding degrees and/or professional diplomas in music (n = 130) and

advanced music students ranging in age from 11 and 18 (n = 70). Bentley tested

participants in large groups using a pre-recorded tape of pitch pairs that decreased in

frequency deviation as the test continued. The test also included two items with the same

frequencies. Participants responded as to whether the tones displayed upward movement,

downward movement, or were the same. After analysis of all data, Bentley found that a

difference of approximately 11 cents was the smallest deviation that led to the

discrimination of two different pitches in a group testing setting.

22

Researchers also have completed pitch discrimination studies in which

participants complete tasks one at a time. Parker (1983) sought to examine the pitch

discrimination abilities of violinists, pianists, and trombonists through a pitch comparison

task. Participants in Parker’s study consisted of one group containing 15 trombonists and

15 pianists, and a second group consisting of 15 violinists and 15 pianists. Both groups

completed the same exercise and contained no overlap in participation. Parker selected

seven pitches and used a pure tone generator to create unaltered reference stimuli and 10

comparison tones for each pitch increasing by intervals of 10 cents. Participants listened

to a random order of 1-second reference pitches followed by 1-second comparison

pitches through headphones as well as four speakers. Two seconds of silence separated

each of the pitch pairs in a trial, and 4 seconds of silence separated each trial. Participants

indicated on a response sheet whether they perceived the tones as one or two pitches.

Parker found no significant differences between the pianists in each group and the

violinists or trombonists. Among all four groups, Parker found that the JND was

approximately 20 cents. Unlike Madsen et al. (1969) and Bentley (1973), Parker chose

only to utilize comparison pitches that were sharper than the reference stimuli. This may

have skewed the results toward a higher JND when considered in conjunction with

research that has shown a tendency for participants to demonstrate a greater tolerance for

sharp intonation than flat (Geringer, 1978; Geringer et al., 2015; Madsen & Geringer,

1976; Wapnick & Freeman, 1980). This particular concept will be explored later in this

chapter.

Testing participant abilities to discriminate pitches presented simultaneously is an

avenue of research that more closely relates to tuning procedures experienced by

23

students. Clark (2012) investigated the pitch perception abilities of high school (n = 64)

and undergraduate (n = 64) wind instrumentalists using two pitch comparison tasks, one

that presented tones sequentially, and one that presented tones simultaneously. Each task

utilized two pitches (Bb4 and E4) and presented random pairs with deviations of 0, ±5,

±7.5, and ±10 cents. A synthesizer created each reference pitch and deviation. One

second of silence separated tones that were 2 seconds long in the sequential task. In the

simultaneous task, the experimental pitch joined the reference pitch after 2 seconds, with

both pitches sounding at the same time for 2 seconds. Clark chose to present each task

separately to avoid additional difficulty. Participants listened to pitch pairs through

headphones and recorded on a response whether the experimental pitch was lower, the

same, or higher than the reference tone. Simultaneous pitch presentations resulted in

significantly more accurate responses than sequential (p = .0002). Cent deviation also

was significantly different (p < .0001), with changes of ±10 and ±7.5 cents more

accurately identified than ±5 cents. Pitch pairs with no deviation were identified the least

accurately. These results indicated, on average, a JND closer to 10 cents than 5 cents.

Considered as a whole, research related to JND can inform a practical pitch

deviation range that is categorized as “in-tune.” Although the technical definition of this

term would be two pitches that have the exact same frequency, a broader musical

definition incorporates the perception abilities of humans to hear differences in pitch.

Studies involving pitch matching performances tasks have set this threshold at ±5 cents

(Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Ely, 1992). A more in-depth look at intonation

includes a comparison of responses to flat and sharp pitches of the same magnitude.

24

Pitch Perception Preferences and Performance Tendencies

The concept of pitch perception and studies surrounding it have played an

important role in music education research. Numerous studies have shown a tendency for

undergraduate and graduate musicians to prefer sharp intonation over flat intonation,

including the studies used to define pitch perception and performance (Geringer, 1978;

Wapnick & Freeman, 1980). Geringer’s perception task elicited more sharp than flat

responses, indicating that participants were less sensitive to, or were more accepting of,

sharp intonation. Similarly, participants in Wapnick and Freeman (1980) demonstrated

greater accuracy identifying flat pitches over sharp pitches. Participants’ greater ability to

identify flat pitches in these two studies were indicative of a preference for sharp

intonation. In another early study, Madsen and Geringer (1976) found that 50

undergraduate and graduate music students showed a preference for sharp intonation

when listening to detuned recordings of a trumpet with accompaniment. Limitations in

the methodology due to poor accompaniment tone quality prompted a follow-up study.

Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan (2001) completed this follow-up, in which 150

undergraduate and graduate music students rated in-tune and out-of-tune trumpet

performances using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very poor intonation) to 7

(excellent intonation). Not only was sharp intonation preferred, but participants assessed

flat intonation as more out of tune than sharp when listening to altered trumpet

performances with piano accompaniment. Undergraduate and graduate music students (N

= 150) in Geringer, MacLeod, and Sasanfar (2015) also displayed a preference for sharp

intonation. Participants in this study rated altered trumpet, violin, and voice performances

25

with piano accompaniment on a scale ranging from 0 (mostly in tune) to 11 (extremely

out of tune).

In the previous three studies, participants rated flat performances more harshly

than equally sharp performances. However, the speed with which participants actually

respond to intonation perception tasks has been another topic of interest for researchers.

Scherber (2014) analyzed response times of 24 middle school and 23 high school

students comparing two tones that were presented through a computer. Flat tones elicited

faster response times at smaller deviations than did sharp tones, indicating a greater ease

at identifying low comparison pitches. As a whole, the aforementioned studies

demonstrate that a preference for sharp intonation has been observed through the

accuracy of responses to out of tune pitches, perceived severity of pitch deviations, and

response times.

In addition to studies that have focused on perception preference, research on

actual performance tendencies has helped to create a broader understanding of pitches

produced by musicians. Undergraduate and graduate music students (N = 96) in

Geringer’s (1978) scale study performed pitches on average more sharp than flat. Karrick

(1998) found similar results in his study of professional musicians (n = 9) and advanced

college students at the graduate and undergraduate level (n = 9). Each participant was

asked to record both lines of a duet along with a synthesized recording of the alternate

line. Performed pitches were more likely to be sharp than flat in performances of both the

upper and lower duet lines. Morrison (2000) designed a similar study with 304 wind

instrumentalists ranging in experience from their first year of band instruction to 7 or

more years of instruction. Participants recorded a simple melody in unison with a

26

stimulus recording of the same melody. As part of the method, one third of the

participants were offered the opportunity to tune their instruments to a single stimulus

pitch before beginning. Errors in pitch for melodic recordings as well as initial stimulus

pitch tunings were significantly more likely to be sharp than flat (p < .05). In another

setting, Cummings (2007) recruited 16 flutists and 16 violinists to perform pitches with

unison stimulus pitches and stimulus pitches at specific harmonic intervals. Responses in

each scenario were more likely to be sharp than flat. In a final example, middle school

students (n = 24) and high school students (n = 23) tuned their instruments in response to

stimulus pitches sounded by an oboe, clarinet, and tuba (Scherber, 2014). Although no

significant difference was found in pitch direction when tuning to the oboe and clarinet,

responses were more likely to be sharp when tuning to the tuba (55%). This result brings

into question the effect of instrument timbre and octave on tuning accuracy, which will

be discussed later in this chapter. In each of the aforementioned studies, musicians from

the middle school to advanced collegiate level displayed a preference for sharp

intonation, not only when listening to tones, but also when producing them.

Experience Effect on Pitch Preference and Accuracy

One consideration with regard to pitch preference is the experience level of the

musician. Yarbrough, Karrick, and Morrison (1995) and Yarbrough, Morrison, and

Karrick (1997) conducted studies with 197 elementary, middle, and junior high ensemble

members (1995) and 113 high school ensemble members (1997). In both studies,

participants demonstrated pitch perception by matching an experimental pitch to a

stimulus pitch through the use of a pitch control knob. Yarbrough et al. (1995, 1997)

tested pitch performance accuracy by detuning each participant’s instrument and asking

27

them to tune to a stimulus pitch. The researchers recorded response pitches from each

task and analyzed the absolute cent deviations from the stimulus pitch. Researcher

analysis of pitch deviation scores on the performance task showed a consistent decrease

as years of experience increased across both studies (Yarbrough, Karrick, & Morrison,

1995; Yarbrough, Morrison, & Karrick, 1997). These results demonstrated an increased

tuning ability as students grew in experience. The researchers did note, however, that this

result may have been due to a loss of less successful students in the band program

(Yarbrough et al., 1997). Similarly, participants in each study were able to discriminate

pitches in the perception task more accurately as their years of experience increased.

Geringer et al. (2001) found similar perception results when comparing high school and

college level musicians’ ratings of detuned recordings. Although these results also could

have been attributed to the withdrawal of less successful students, a general trend of

increased accuracy with additional experience was apparent for performance and

perception tasks (Geringer, Madsen, & Dunnigan, 2001).

In more recent research, Byo, Schlegel, and Clark (2011) and Byo and Schlegel

(2016) reinforced previous findings related to playing experience and the ability of

musicians to tune their instruments to varying stimuli. The initial study (2011) included

72 high school wind instrumentalists, and the follow-up study included 63 advanced

college musicians. Results similar to the two Yarbrough et al. (1995, 1997) studies

emerged, as the accuracy of performance increased with experience level. In each pair of

studies, less experienced musicians typically played flatter, while experienced musicians

typically played sharper (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Yarbrough et al., 1995;

1997). Although these trends may show an increased preference for sharp intonation with

28

increased performance level, Yarbrough et al. (1995) noted that physical factors also

might contribute to this correlation. The ability to perform wind instruments “at pitch”

can be related to embouchure strength, and younger, less experienced musicians simply

may lack the physical ability to produce pitches at a consistent level (Yarbrough et al.,

1995). Unlike performance tasks, perception measures did not show an increased

preference toward sharp responses as musicians gained experience (Geringer et al., 2001;

Yarbrough et al., 1995; 1997). The incongruity in performance and perception results has

prompted debate as to whether meaningful correlations exist between the two activities.

Relationships Between Perception and Performance

While some research has focused solely on the individual aspects of performance

(Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Duke, 1985; Karrick, 1998; Morrison, 2000) or

perception (Geringer et al., 2001; 2015; C. Madsen & Geringer, 1976; Wapnick &

Freeman, 1980) a number of studies have included both, allowing for comparisons

between the two (Ballard, 2011; Ely, 1992; Geringer, 1978; Yarbrough et al., 1995;

1997). Of the studies previously discussed, Geringer (1978) and Yarbrough et al. (1995,

1997) each measured pitch perception through the use of a keyboard pitch bend knob,

and pitch performance through an instrumental performance task. None of the three

studies showed significant correlations between the two tasks. Still, Geringer (1978)

found that the perception task was both sharper and less accurate among college music

majors, and Yarbrough et al. (1997) found that the performance task was sharper and less

accurate among high school wind players. These results may point to a performance

ability among college music majors that surpasses pitch perception alone. Ely (1992)

studied the ability of 27 flute, clarinet, and alto saxophone music majors to match pitch

29

while performing a melody with recordings of the same three instruments. As a

perception task, participants listened to duet recordings and circled numbers

corresponding to out of tune note pairs on an answer sheet. There was a low correlation (r

= .073) when comparing this task to the performance task.

In another analysis, Worthy (2000) studied 32 wind instrumentalists from high

school band programs and 32 wind instrumentalists from a large state university. Worthy

found a low correlation, ranging from -.13 to +.20, between the participants’ ability to

match pitch and recognize pitch differences in various tone quality settings. More

recently, Ballard (2011) tasked 60 undergraduate wind majors to play, sing, and listen to

the Star-Spangled Banner with various accompaniments. No correlations were present

between the pitch performance deviations of participant vocal responses, instrumental

responses, and abilities to detect out-of-tune notes (p > .05). The lack of correlations in

these studies may lend credence to the hypothesis that physical factors related to

performing on an instrument may affect general pitch tendencies. One such variance, as

Ballard (2011) hypothesized, was the difference in pitch perception when frequencies

were transmitted through bone and air conduction. These findings also could point to

different strategies or processes between active tuning of an instrument and passive

perception of pitch.

Common Practices

Practices related to the performance, perception, and instruction of pitch

relationships can provide context regarding the ways in which musicians negotiate

intonation. The following section begins with a discussion surrounding temperament, or

the specific frequencies of each tone in a 12-note chromatic scale (Berg & Stork, 1995).

30

This is followed by research on various methods of teaching the concept of intonation

and improving pitch discrimination and pitch matching. Finally, an examination of

musicians’ responses to various intonation tasks provides individual perspectives to the

intonation process.

Temperament

Research on the use of various temperaments has been conducted to determine

patterns in the performance of musicians and the preferences of listeners. While the

research presented earlier in this chapter focused on the relationship between unison

pitches, the concept of temperament relates to a variety of pitches, both melodically and

harmonically. Researchers have explored three primary tuning systems: just intonation,

based on the consonance of the major triad; Pythagorean intonation, creating the largest

possible number of perfect fourths and fifths; and equal temperament, consisting of

equally sized half steps (Rossing, 2002).

Research also has shown that wind players have exhibited a preference toward

equal temperament during melodic interval performance tasks (Ballard, 2011; Karrick,

1998; Scherber, 2014). In Karrick’s (1998) study, advanced wind instrumentalists at the

collegiate (n = 9) and professional levels (n = 9) performed a duet, first by playing the

melody with a synthesized harmony line and then the harmony line with a synthesized

melody. Karrick analyzed 728 resultant intervals and compared them to equal

temperament, just, and Pythagorean tuning systems. Performed intervals showed the least

deviation in cents from equal temperament (M = 6.5). Pythagorean tuning produced the

second highest deviation (M = 8.7), and just intonation produced the highest deviation (M

= 13.1). Deviation scores produced no significant differences from equal temperament

31

between student and professional participants. Karrick examined the individual intervals

produced while performing to a synthesized alternate line, providing no harmonic context

to determine temperament. While this method offered insight into typical, individual

performance tendencies, it did not assess each musician’s ability to respond and adapt to

various temperaments.

In order to gauge the performance tendencies of instrumentalists in various

temperaments, harmonic context has been a necessary stimulus. Ballard (2011) asked 60

undergraduate wind instrument majors to perform pitches from the first phrase of the

Star-Spangled Banner, with four different accompaniment scenarios. These

accompaniments included equal temperament, just, and Pythagorean tuning systems, as

well as no accompaniment. Although a musical introduction was included before each

task to provide context for tonality and tuning, participants were unaware of the varying

temperaments that were presented. The researcher analyzed all pitches, calculating the

mean cent deviations and standard deviations for each accompaniment condition. Ballard

found a significant difference between the three tuning conditions (p < .001). Mean and

standard deviations for the equal temperament condition were the lowest, with no

significant difference when compared to the unaccompanied condition. These results

indicated an increased performance level under equal temperament and a tendency to

perform in equal temperament, even when unaccompanied. Ballard also included a

similar perception task, in which participants listened to performances of the same

pitches and intonation conditions with randomly altered melodic tones. Participants then

circled notes that they perceived as out of tune. Unlike the performance task, tuning

condition did not have a significant effect on participant perception performance (p >

32

.05). These results may point to enculturation in equal-temperament, both through

listening to music and performing in equal-temperament settings.

More recently, Scherber (2014) asked 24 middle school and 23 high school

students to perform a simple 12-bar melody after tuning their instrument to a stimulus

pitch. The focus of this task was on melodic intonation, measuring the interval width of

specific melodic intervals in the example. These intervals included the unison, major

third, perfect fourth, perfect fifth, octave, and first and last note (also a unison). The cent

size of each melodic interval was compared to standards in equal temperament and just

intonation. Scherber found a significant interaction between temperament and interval (p

< .05), suggesting that participant responses reflected a specific tuning system. Fourths

and fifths showed the least deviation from just intonation, while major thirds deviated the

least from equal temperament. Although fourths and fifths showed the smallest deviation,

these intervals are only different by 2 cents between equal temperament and just

intonation. In addition, each interval larger than a unison was only performed in one

direction, which has been shown to affect pitch deviation (Duke, 1985). These

considerations of interval size, pitch approach direction, and lack of data on the

remaining major intervals, limit the conclusions on temperament that can be drawn from

Scherber’s study. Regardless, this study, in conjunction with Karrick (1998) and Ballard

(2011), provides evidence that differences in temperament are apparent in performance

tasks related to simple harmonic intervals, full accompanied settings, and melodic

intervals.

33

Development of Intonation Skills

Teaching large ensembles how to tune can be approached through a wide range of

strategies. The importance of intonation to quality band performances is evident in the

publication of trade articles related to the subject (Barnes, 2010; Burch-Press, 2000;

Groeling, 2003). Not only have books devoted entire chapters to the subject (Lisk,

1991b), Jagow (2012) produced a comprehensive text about the many facets of wind

instrument intonation. Scherber (2014) found that both secondary school and collegiate

band directors considered daily tuning of high importance. Although the directors agreed

on the importance of daily tuning, the practices most commonly employed varied among

the respondents. For example, while school directors primarily reported using concert F

and Bb to tune, collegiate directors reported using concert A, with Bb and F as less

common choices. School directors’ preferred tuning note may have been affected by their

tendency to use a tuba for the reference pitch, as collegiate directors preferred the oboe.

A smaller number of collegiate directors employed the tuba and clarinet to provide tuning

notes. These findings reinforced those of Byo, Schlegel, and Clark (2011), who found

that tuba was the most commonly reported instrument among 72 high school wind

instrument players. In Scherber’s study, directors tended to use live instruments to

provide tuning pitches and employed a “bottom-up” approach (Scherber, 2014). This

approach starts with the lowest voice in the ensemble, often the tuba, and then adds

sections in an ascending order of instrument tessitura. These findings illustrate how

instructors commonly choose to tune at the beginning of a rehearsal, but they do not

provide information on how instructors actually teach the skill of tuning.

34

Many articles and books prescribe a specific method for tuning ensembles

(Barnes, 2010; Burch-Press, 2000; Hovey, 1976; Jagow, 2012; Lisk, 1991b; McBeth,

1972; South, 2006); however, research is still being completed on the effectiveness of

these techniques. Teacher feedback on student performance is a common occurrence in

ensemble settings and provides one avenue for research. In both Yarbrough et al. (1995,

1997) instrument tuning and perception studies, wind instrumentalists ranging in

experience from 1 to 7 or more years completed a performance task on their instrument

and a perception task using a pitch control knob. Three groups received differing

information about their initial pitch in both the performance and perception tasks. The

researchers informed the first group that they would probably be sharp and the second

group that they would probably be flat. The third group received no information

regarding pitch direction. Knowledge of the detuned direction of the participants’

instruments in the performance task and the tuning knob in the perception task did not

have a significant effect on participant accuracy (p > .05). These results were consistent

across students at the middle school (1995) and high school (1997) levels. Although these

studies did not appear to support teacher feedback as an effective educational strategy for

addressing pitch direction, additional research could address more frequent and specific

instruction.

Directing student attention during the tuning process is another form of teacher

instruction that has been employed in large ensemble settings. Morrison (2000) presented

167 high school band students with 5 or more years of instruction with the melodic task

of performing a simple, four-bar, melodic line along with a recorded model. Morrison

divided the population into three groups, consisting of two experimental groups and one

35

control group. The first experimental group (n = 55) received the opportunity to tune their

instruments to a single pitch before performing the melody, the second experimental

group (n = 51) received instruction to perform as in-tune as possible, and the control

group (n = 61) neither tuned their instruments nor received instruction. Morrison selected

four melodic pitches in advance, and analyzed performances to determine whether

correlations existed between tuning procedure, researcher provided instructions, and

participant accuracy. No significant differences were found between any of the three

groups (p > .05). Participants in this study did not show a change in performance when

prompted to direct their attention to intonation in general, but other studies have

addressed directed attention on more specific aspects of the process.

Directing student attention on certain parts of the tuning process, such as tone

rather than pitch, has been an additional topic of research. Worthy’s (2000) timbre study

involved high school (n = 32) and college (n = 32) wind instrumentalists who tuned their

instruments to stimulus pitches with varying timbres. While some participants attempted

to match the pitch of the stimulus, other participants attempted to match the tone. No

significant difference was present between those participants who matched the timbre of

a tone and those who matched the pitch.

Another method of internalizing pitch requires students to reproduce the pitch

through vocalization (e.g., singing, humming) before playing it on their instruments

(Scherber, 2014). Silvey, Nápoles, and Springer (2018) investigated this approach with

72 undergraduate music majors who played wind instruments. Each participant matched

the pitch of a pre-recorded oboe after three different pre-tuning conditions, which

consisted of singing the pitch, humming the pitch, and maintaining silence. After

36

analyzing cent deviations of each performance, results between the three conditions were

non-significant (p = .192). Although singing created the lowest average deviation, there

was no significant difference between the two conditions. While some studies have

presented snapshots of isolated, short-term instructional techniques (Morrison, 2000;

Silvey, Nápoles, & Springer, 2018; Yarbrough et al., 1995; 1997), other studies have

documented the viability of long-term auditory and pitch discrimination training

programs.

Participants in longitudinal studies have received increased time to internalize and

effectively apply strategies, providing more applicable results to the traditional classroom

setting. Platt and Racine (1985) tested the ability of 32 undergraduate students to match a

stimulus pitch through the use of a potentiometer dial connected to a computer. This dial

allowed participants to alter the pitch of an experimental tone until it matched the pitch of

a preceding stimulus tone. Platt and Racine divided the participants into three groups:

novice musicians with less than 1 year of experience (n = 14), musicians with 4 or more

years of experience who did not regularly tune an instrument (n = 9), and musicians with

4 or more years of experience who regularly tuned and instrument (n = 9). All

participants completed a pre-test, four additional training sessions, and a post-test. During

the training sessions, half of the participants received feedback in the form of an on-

screen visual graph while the other half did not. Results showed that participants

exhibited increased abilities to discriminate pitch by more accurately matching the

stimulus tone. This was especially true among the inexperienced musician group. A

second experiment in the study revealed that inexperienced participants (n = 24) who

received feedback improved their performance significantly compared to those who did

37

not receive feedback (p = .035). This significance applied only to the comparison of

complex tones, or those tones that contained harmonics. These results stand in contrast to

the lack of significance found regarding feedback in Yarbrough et al.’s (1995, 1997)

single test experiments. Although Platt and Racine were able to show participant

improvement, the individual, computer-based training sessions do not generalize readily

to the typical ensemble-based classroom.

Approaching intonation instruction on a broader scale, Scherber (2014)

constructed a large group intonation unit based on professional literature, and tested its

effectiveness among 24 middle school students and 23 middle school students. Two

middle schools and two high schools served matched samples with one experimental and

one control group at each level. As a pre-test, each participant completed a computer-

based pitch comparison test, a pitch matching performance task, and a melodic

performance task. The intonation unit lasted 6 weeks and contained the topics of beatless

tuning, vocalization, interval recognition and reproduction, unison melodies, electronic

tuner user, large-group tuning procedures, and ensemble balance. Following the 6-week

instructional period, all participants completed a post-test that mirrored the tasks of the

pre-test. Results of pre- and post-tests were non-significant (p > .05), although minimal

improvement was shown among experimental participants. Future research spanning a

longer period of instruction and a narrower scope of instructional techniques may provide

more applicable results. Aside from research that has focused on one specific technique

or process among groups of players, additional value could be found in exploring the

concept of intonation from a more individual perspective. This approach could allow

38

researchers to highlight the unique differences in student performers, and their varying

approaches to the tuning process.

Musician Perceptions of Tuning Practices

Although research has shown commonalities in ensemble tuning practices such as

reference instrument and pitch (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014), musicians’ perceived

difficulty of this processes may shed light on misconceptions of some ensemble

members. Byo et al. (2011) asked high school wind instrumentalists to complete a pitch

matching performance task with three different stimulus timbres. These timbres included

the oboe, clarinet, and flute, each playing a Bb4, and the tuba playing a Bb2. Although

the tuba timbre elicited responses with the greatest pitch deviation, participants rated it

the easiest tuning timbre in a follow-up question. This inconsistency in perceived ease

and performance accuracy may have been a result of process familiarity, as 82% of the

same group of students also responded that their band typically tuned to the tuba. This

perception, however, disappeared among advanced college musicians (N = 63) in a

follow-up study, where students cited tuba as both the easiest and hardest instrument to

which to tune (Byo & Schlegel, 2016). Unlike Byo’s (2011) initial study with high school

students, there was no significant difference in pitch-matching accuracy among advanced

college students (2016), regardless of the instrument that supplied the reference pitch.

This result may have been due to the high level of expertise that participants already had

gained tuning their instruments in various conditions. These responses reflect external

aspects of stimulus timbre, but do not provide insight on the individual strategies that

students employ during an intonation task.

39

The internal thought processes of individuals during tuning tasks is another

valuable way to add context to current research on tuning procedures. Byo and Schlegel

(2016) collected survey information from 63 advanced college students and categorized

their responses to gain an understanding of students’ discrete thought processes. The first

prompt asked participants to “describe how you know you are out of tune” (Byo &

Schlegel, p. 354). Participants most commonly reported relying on various strategies

consisting of beat experience, timbre experience, visceral experience, and feel

experience. Student responses suggested that pitch discrimination while playing a wind

instrument was not only a mental endeavor, but that it employed various modes of

experience. The second prompt asked participants to “describe the strategies you use to

get in tune” (Byo & Schlegel, p. 354). When describing personal strategies for bringing

their instruments in tune, students reported the use of two main tactics. The first tactic

was beat elimination, which consisted of listening for a reduction in “beats” resulting

from sound waves that were out of tune, or that interfered with one another. The second

tactic was the implementation of varying comparative strategies, where participants

continually adjusted their own pitch, sometimes to extremes, to compare various self-

produced tones to the static tuning note. This use of comparative strategies may have

been directly related to the experiences that participants described when deciding whether

a pitch was in tune; however, Byo and Schlegel did not collect adequate information to

confirm a relationship. The variety of responses related to the ease of tuning to specific

stimuli (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014) and approaches to tuning a pitch (Byo &

Schlegel, 2016) suggest that individuals do not always engage with intonation in identical

ways. In addition, musicians’ perceptions may not align consistently with end results.

40

Despite this, many participants mentioned timbre both in responses related to deciding

whether a pitch was in tune, and to the strategies they used to tune a note (Byo &

Schlegel, 2016). This observation may indicate a link between this aspect of music and

pitch, although the two concepts can be individually isolated and altered.

External Stimulus Pitch Factors

The perception of pitch can be affected by a number of factors outside of the note

that is produced. Instrument timbre is one of these considerations and can be observed in

the various types of instruments in concert band settings. Tone quality adds another layer

of distinction on top of timbre. Researchers have explored the effect of characteristic and

poor tone qualities as well as bright and dark tone qualities. Additionally, instruments

producing tones with similar timbres and tone qualities can be distinguished through

different performance octaves. All three of these considerations are present in large

ensemble tuning procedures, which can complicate the process for students. The

following section includes a discussion of these influential variables.

Instrument Timbre

Similar to the tone quality of a pitch, timbre also has been shown to have a

considerable effect on the perception and performance of matching tones. Initial studies

focused on the difference between simple tones, those containing a fundamental pitch

only, and complex tones, those that consist of a fundamental pitch with added harmonics

(Platt & Racine, 1985). Platt and Racine (1985) found that musicians and non-musicians

ranging in age from 22 to 40 (N = 12) adjusted pitches more accurately through the use of

a potentiometer when they were comparing similar tone types. In addition, participants

perceived complex tones as more sharp than simple tones. The effects of complex tone

41

presentation became apparent even when only the first harmonic was presented with the

fundamental. These findings are germane to the study of instruments, as all acoustic

instruments produce tones with harmonics (Helmholtz, 1954). Platt and Racine only

tested the perception of participants, but additional studies have included performance

aspects as well.

Research concerning pitch discrimination and performance related to timbre has

shown differences between the two tasks. In Ely (1992), undergraduate and graduate

instrumental music majors (N = 27) performed duets with pre-recorded alternate lines of

varying timbres. Ely then presented these recordings as a perception task, in which

participants circled out-of-tune harmonic pitches. Participants were more accurate at

discerning pitch in duets with differing instruments. In contrast, the instrument providing

the second part of the duet had no particular effect on those same students’ pitch

performance. Musicians in the same study tended to play flatter when matching a

different instrument timbre. Cummings (2007) analyzed the pitches that college flutists (n

= 16) and violinists (n = 16) performed in response to flute and violin timbres in varying

harmonic conditions. Similar to Ely, Cummings found no like timbre advantage in

performance accuracy. With regard to the perception of specific instrument timbres,

Geringer et al. (2015) found significant differences in accompanied contexts (p < .001).

Specifically, participants consistently heard mis-tuned trumpet notes flatter than either

violin or soprano. The researchers also observed an effect of vocal generosity, as there

was a much greater tolerance for mis-tunings in the voice sample than the two

instrumental recordings. These results once again reinforced the effect of timbre on

perception tasks. In contrast to Geringer et al. (2015), no significant differences were

42

found in pitch matching accuracy between woodwind instruments in the same octave

(Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Scherber, 2014). The latest of these studies

(Byo & Schlegel, 2016) replaced the clarinet stimulus with a tuner-created pitch in the

same octave, which once again created no significant difference. Byo et al. (2011), Byo

and Schlegel (2016), and Scherber (2014) each included tuba as a stimulus timbre in their

studies, sounding two octaves below the woodwind timbres. The tuba stimulus timbre

produced the least accurate responses among high school students (Byo et al., 2011) and

middle school and high school students (Scherber, 2014). While Byo et al. (2011) found

statistical significance when comparing the accuracy of responses to the tuba timbre and

woodwind timbres (p = .0004), Scherber (2014) found none. Results in the

aforementioned timbre studies may point to an effect of presentation octave, a factor that

will be addressed later in this section. Much like researchers who have investigated

responses to various wind instruments timbres, other researchers have investigated

responses to varying tone qualities produced by the same instrument.

Tone Quality

Educators and conductors often have cited tone quality as being vital to the

intonation process (Jagow, 2012; Lisk, 1991a; South, 2006). The belief that accurate

tuning exercises cannot be completed unless a characteristic tone is presented on the

instrument often underpins this claim (South, 2006). Researchers have explored both the

ability of musicians to perceive good tone quality versus poor tone quality, and the

influence of tone quality on the perception and performance of pitch (Geringer et al.,

2001; C. Madsen & Geringer, 1976). Madsen and Geringer (1976) investigated these

concepts by asking undergraduate and graduate music students to respond to recordings

43

of a professional trumpet performer. Two recordings were selected by a panel of music

faculty to represent good and poor tone quality. These recordings did not deviate in

intonation more than ±2 cents from equal temperament. The first task presented each

recording in isolation, while the second task presented combinations of good and poor

tone quality, with synthesized organ accompaniments altered to 25 cents flat, 50 cents

sharp, and in-tune. While all participants were able to distinguish between good and poor

tone quality in unaccompanied examples, data did not indicate the same ability to do so in

accompanied contexts. Geringer et al. (2001) completed a follow-up study in which they

more carefully monitored the pitch of the trumpet recordings, changed the

accompaniment to a synthesized piano, altered the pitch of trumpet recordings rather than

accompaniments, and included instrumentalists at the high school (n = 60) and collegiate

(n = 60) levels. The results of this follow-up examination contradicted the initial study’s

findings, as all participants were able to identify good and poor tone quality in both the

unaccompanied and accompanied settings. Participants in both studies demonstrated an

overall preference for good tone quality in all conditions. In the follow-up study, tone

quality was found to have a significant effect on intonation ratings (p < .001).

Conversely, intonation conditions in the same study had a significant effect on tone

quality ratings (p < .001). Geringer et al. argued that the difference in results for the

follow-up study were due to changes in the stimuli. In analyzing the trumpet recordings

used for these studies, the researchers noted that the primary difference was an

underrepresentation of upper level harmonics in the poor tone quality recording. In

addition to explaining the difference between good and poor tone qualities, the harmonic

make-up of tones also has allowed researchers to define bright and dark tone qualities.

44

Researchers have found that musicians’ perception of certain tones as bright or

dark has an effect on both the perception and performance of pitch (Geringer & Worthy,

1999; Wapnick & Freeman, 1980; Worthy, 2000). Geringer and Worthy (1999) employed

the use of a spectrogram to define dark tones as those that emphasize lower harmonic

frequencies, bright tones as those that emphasize upper frequencies, and standard tones as

a more even distribution of harmonics. In the same study, 36 undergraduate music

majors, 36 college students, and 44 high school students listened to 24 tone pairs with

varying tone qualities and pitch discrepancies. Participants rated the tone quality and

intonation of each tone pair using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Researchers found a

significant effect of tone quality on intonation ratings (p < .0001). In general, brighter

stimuli elicited sharper response, and darker stimuli elicited flatter responses. Participants

also displayed a tendency to rate dark stimulus tones more harshly than bright tones.

Worthy (2000) investigated the effect of timbre on both perception and

performance among wind instrumentalists at the collegiate (n = 32) and high school (n =

32) levels. Similar to Geringer and Worthy (1999), participants compared pitch pairs and

rated the second pitch on tone quality and intonation using a 5-point Likert-type scale.

This served as the perception task. As a performance task, each participant attempted to

match stimulus pitches consisting of bright, dark, and standard tone qualities on their own

instrument. Worthy found a significant difference in pitch deviations with regard to

stimulus tone quality in both the perception (p < .001) and performance tasks (p < .001).

Participants perceived and produced sharper responses when listening to or matching the

pitch of a bright tone, and flatter responses when listening to or matching the pitch of a

dark tone. Low correlations ranging from -.13 to +.20 were present between subjects’

45

ratings on the perception and pitch deviation tasks. The observed trend of timbre and tone

quality to affect the perception and performance of pitch supports the often cited

importance of producing a characteristic tone when tuning (Garofalo, 1996; Jagow, 2012;

Lisk, 1991b; South, 2006). Existing research related to timbre and pitch perception has

dealt primarily with stimulus tones consisting of one timbre, although students are often

asked to tune in a setting where multiple timbres and octaves sound at the same time.

Octave Displacement

Within the concert band setting, instruments of varying tessituras present pitches

across as many as five or six octaves, requiring performers to negotiate octave

displacements on a regular basis. This can be observed in the practice of a “bottom-up”

tuning procedure reported by band directors (Scherber, 2014). In this procedure, the tuba,

or lowest voice in the ensemble, provides the pitch to which all other instruments tune. In

studies of high school students (Byo et al., 2011) and high school and middle school

students (Scherber, 2014), participants performed with the greatest pitch deviation when

responding to a tuba stimulus tone. This tone sounded two octaves below the three other

woodwind tones in the study. Despite this, participants in Byo et al. (2011) reported tuba

as the most common instrument used to provide the tuning pitch in their high school

ensembles. Collegiate musicians did not perform significantly better when responding to

woodwind or tuba stimulus timbres, indicating that they may have already achieved an

optimal performance level at responding to a wide range of timbres and octave

displacements (Byo & Schlegel, 2016). Although Byo et al. (2011) reported pitch

deviations that were significantly different when comparing woodwind and tuba stimulus

tones (p < .0004), Byo and Schlegel (2016) stated that, “We have yet to fully control for

46

those variables in a manner that reveals how they may interact with each other and with

the experience and skill level of musicians” (p. 356). When taken into consideration with

studies that showed no correlation between instrument tone color and performance on

pitch matching exercises (Worthy, 2000), the effect of octave displacement remains a

viable course of inquiry.

Summary

Researchers have studied many factors related to the perception and performance

of pitch. Although tuning can be seen as an individual task, it often takes place in the

large ensemble setting (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Scherber, 2014).

External factors in this environment, including multiple timbres and octaves, complicate

the perception of pitch in the band context. Current studies have approached the effects of

timbre and octave displacement on middle school, high school, and college musicians,

but only through using isolated stimulus pitches. This approach makes it difficult to

discern individual effects, as previous studies that involved woodwind and tuba stimulus

timbres did not isolate each of these variables (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016;

Scherber, 2014). By presenting stimulus tones of varying timbres and octaves both

concurrently and in isolation, the current study seeks to gain further insight into these

variables. Finally, the most recently studied populations included middle school and high

school band members (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014) as well as advanced college

musicians (Byo & Schlegel, 2016). Collecting data on the pitch perception of

undergraduate music majors and non-majors can provide data on a less frequently studied

population.

47

CHAPTER 3

Methodology

The current study highlighted the ability of college musicians to discriminate

pitch in varying octave and timbre combinations. Previous research has focused on these

concepts through the use of tasks employing single octave and single timbre stimulus

tones (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Cummings, 2007; Ely, 1992; Geringer et

al., 2001; Scherber, 2014). These studies, however, did not address the possible effect of

two, simultaneous stimulus tones with differing octaves and timbres on perception

accuracy. Researchers also have employed the use of pitch-pair comparison tasks to

investigate many aspects of pitch perception (Geringer & Worthy, 1999; Scherber, 2014;

Wapnick & Freeman, 1980; Worthy, 2000), which have yielded promising results. Thus,

the design of the current study employs a pitch-pair comparison task to determine the

possible effect of simultaneous stimulus tones on the perception of pitch.

Purpose and Problems of the Study

With the intent of gaining a deeper understanding of pitch perception among

instrumentalists, the purpose of this research was to measure college wind band

members’ ability to accurately assess the pitch variance of tones in response to varying

stimulus octaves and timbres, presented in isolation and concurrently. A secondary focus

was on the students’ perceived difficulty of discriminating pitch in each setting. The

specific problems of the study were (a) to determine whether individual or combined

stimulus octaves have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as

in tune or out of tune, (b) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus timbres

have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of

48

tune, (c) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus octaves have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of tune,

and (d) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus timbres have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to assess a tone as in tune or out of tune.

Participants

Participants (N = 92) in this study consisted of undergraduate music majors (n =

31) and non-music majors (n = 61) from three university band programs in the

Midwestern United States. Two band programs were situated within private, liberal arts

universities, and one band program was situated within a private, research university.

Ensembles in the current study were similar in size, ranging from 40-70 members, and

employed participants from university concert bands that consisted of both music majors

and non-music majors. This population was chosen to prevent possible ceiling effects

such as those found in Byo et al. (2016) and, potentially, to provide results that could be

transferable to developing ensembles at the high school and middle school levels.

Consent

The primary investigator requested letters of cooperation from each participating

university via email (see Appendix A). When the letters were received, approval was

sought from the primary university’s oversight committee. Once approval was granted

(see Appendix B), the primary investigator contacted the band directors at three

universities to request official participation. The primary investigator provided all

students over the age of 18 with a letter of consent (see Appendix C), provided a verbal

explanation of the study (see Appendix D), and answered any questions immediately,

prior to data collection. No ensemble members were younger than 18 years of age. In

49

addition, graduate students and community members were excluded from participation in

this study.

Instrument Development

Stimulus Creation

A researcher-designed stimulus was created that employed original and open-

source sound files. Some researchers have chosen to create custom samples of live

instruments (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014), while others have utilized pre-existing

instrument sample libraries (Geringer & Worthy, 1999; Worthy, 2000) for use in

experimentation. Given the scope and nature of the current study, selecting pre-existing

sound samples was the most efficient means of collecting data related to authentic

instrument recordings. The University of Iowa Electronic Music Studios (Fritts, n.d.)

provides free, unrestricted, professionally-recorded instrument samples from which

stimulus and experimental tones were drawn. Staff at the University of Iowa Electronic

Music Studios recorded these instrument samples in an anechoic chamber utilizing a

Neumann KM 84 cardioid condenser microphone. These recordings were edited and

sequenced to provide comparison pitch pairs with varying timbre and octave

combinations.

The four instrument tones that were drawn from the University of Iowa Electronic

Music Studios were clarinet, bass clarinet, trombone, and tuba. Specifically, clarinet and

tuba samples served as stimulus timbres due to their frequent utilization in ensemble

tuning research (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Scherber, 2014). For the

purposes of this study, bass clarinet samples will be used to compare pitches presented in

octaves using instruments of similar and dissimilar timbres. The trombone served as the

50

experimental timbre, due to the fact that its range typically falls between that of the

clarinet and tuba. In addition, the trombone presented a harmonic middle ground, with

fewer upper harmonics than the clarinet and more than the tuba (see Appendix E).

Experimental tones not in the octave of either stimulus tone prevented same-octave pitch

recall on participant responses. Six chromatic pitches were randomly selected within a

comfortable range for each stimulus and experimental pitch to reduce experimental

fatigue, pitch memory, and tonality. Pitches included E4, F#4, G4, G#4, A4 and C5 on

clarinet; E2, F#2, G2, G#2, A2, C3 on tuba and bass clarinet; and E3, F#3, G3, G#3, A3,

and C4 on trombone.

Individual fluctuations between recorded samples related to pitch, amplitude, and

length necessitated additional editing to reduce possible effects on the results. All audio

manipulation in the current study was completed using Logic Pro X (“Logic Pro X,”

2017). Each sample was pitch-corrected using Logic Pro X within one cent to ensure that

the attack, body, and decay of each note maintained a consistent pitch level. Sample

volumes were normalized to -20db to increase consistency, while presenting a minimal

change from the original recorded level. Sample envelopes were shortened or lengthened

as needed using Logic Pro X’s time shift feature to ensure an exact length of 2 seconds.

Clark (2012) found that high school and college participants identified out-of-tune

pitches at ±7.5 and ±10 cents more accurately than at ±0 and ±5 cents in a paired

comparison task using pitches in the same octave. The current study employed

experimental pitches with increased magnitude differentials of -10, -15, +10, and +15

cents. The increased magnitudes were a result of pilot testing, which revealed deviations

of ±7.5 and ±10 cents may be too small due to the octave displacement between reference

51

and experimental pitches. Previous research utilized a 5-cent threshold for “in-tune,”

although these tasks either presented both pitches concurrently or in the same octave

when in an asynchronous arrangement (Byo et al., 2011; Byo & Schlegel, 2016; Clark,

2012; Ely, 1992). Experimental pitch variations were created utilizing Logix Pro X’s (X)

pitch shift feature. Resulting experimental tones netted five different trombone samples

for each pitch used in the study, inclusive of an unaltered version.

A stimulus presentation order was created so that direct repetition of stimulus

types, specific pitches, and experimental tone variations were avoided. The stimuli

presentation order was (a) clarinet, (b) clarinet and bass clarinet, (c) tuba, and (d) clarinet

and tuba. Order alternation of both octave conditions (single and layered) and timbre

combinations (similar and dissimilar) were presented a total of six times, resulting in 24

pitch pairings. The primary investigator assigned pitches to ensure equal representation

among each timbre combination. No two pitches occurred consecutively, minimizing the

effect of pitch memory. Similarly, pitch variations of 0, 0, -10, -15, +10, and +15 cents

were assigned to each stimulus timbre and pitch, with minimal immediate repetition of

each condition. This order was presented to half of the first two participating ensembles

(Group A, n = 47) and in reverse order to the remaining half of these ensembles (Group

B, n = 45) (see appendix F). Researcher error resulted in one additional deviation of -10

cents and no deviation of -15 cents for the combined stimulus timbre of clarinet and bass

clarinet in both orders. Participants in the third ensemble were low in number (n = 5), and

were only presented with the Group B order. This decision was made to balance the

overall number of Group A and Group B participants. The use of two presentation orders

served as an attempt to ameliorate order effect.

52

The primary investigator used Logic Pro X (2017) to organize and layer stimulus

recordings into two single-tracks, one forward and one backward. Pitch-pairing timings

mirrored Clark (2012) and included 2-second-long stimulus and experimental pitches,

separated by 1 second of silence. A 5-second delay separated each pair of pitches, during

which time participants indicated their responses on a corresponding response sheet. Each

pairing was preceded by a recorded, verbal announcement of the upcoming pair number.

Data Collection Instrument

Each participant received an investigator-designed response sheet to record

responses to the pitch-comparison task, perceived task difficulty, and demographic

information (see Appendix G). A check box at the beginning of the form offered

participants the option to indicate non-participation in the study. Participants selected

responses to the perception task by checking in-tune (Y) or out-of-tune (N) for each of the

24 pitch pairs. Response items regarding perceived task difficulty were similar to those in

Byo et al. (2011): “In the instrument pairings you heard today, which instrument or

grouping of instruments do you believe made it the easiest to hear the trombone as in-

tune?” and “In the instrument pairings you heard today, which instrument or grouping of

instruments do you believe made it the most difficult to hear the trombone as in-tune?”

The response sheet included the option for participants to indicate that they perceived no

difference in their ability to hear the trombone pitch as in-tune with regard to reference

pitch instrument.

Pilot Testing

Prior to the main study, five graduate music education students and one music

education professor completed a content validity study using the stimulus sequences.

53

Each of the participants held an undergraduate degree in music, reflecting advanced pitch

perception training. The content validity group was split into two groups of three, with

each listening to either the initial or reverse stimulus order. The primary investigator

requested feedback specific to sample audio quality, consistency among individual

pitches and timbres, difficulty of the task, response form ease of use, and appropriateness

for undergraduate instrumentalists.

Responses to the pilot test were similar between both order groups, suggesting

that the recordings differed only by order; however, both order groups recommended

three adjustments. First, pilot test participants suggested that the overall task may be too

difficult due to small variations in in-tune and out-of-tune pitches. This consensus led the

primary investigator to raise the experimental pitch differences from ±7 and ±10 cents to

±10 and ±15 cents. Second, a line was added on the response sheet for each example

pairing in order to make it clear that participants should not respond to these examples.

Third, an example was added to the verbal instructions to clarify the various possible

reference pitch instrument combinations.

Procedures

The current study’s procedures were similar for each of the three data collection

locations. The primary investigator informed directors of all procedures and needs for the

study in advance. Directors had the opportunity to discuss details and ask questions

through email or phone call. Data were collected at all three sites during the ensemble’s

regular rehearsal time and in the regular rehearsal room. Data collection took place

during the academic semester for all three sites. Participants in the first location were

recruited before their final spring concert, and participants in the second and third sites

54

were recruited after their final spring concert. On the day of data collection, each

rehearsal space was pre-set with the typical arrangement of chairs and stands for

rehearsal. At the first two sites, the primary investigator placed two informed consent

forms, one response sheet, and a pen on each stand, alternating forms for groups A and B.

All participants at the third site received forms for group B and were not split into two

groups due to low number of participants (n = 5). Unforeseen circumstances at the third

site caused a loss in planned rehearsal time and prevented testing during a time with an

existing expectation of attendance. Consent forms and response sheets for Group A were

printed on white paper, and consent forms and response sheets for Group B were printed

on cream paper. Students entered the rehearsal room at each location without taking out

instruments and sat in their typical seats. After all students were in their seats, the

primary investigator read a description of the current study to the ensemble and requested

participation from all members in the ensemble (see Appendix D). Ensemble members

were then directed to read the informed consent form and offered the chance to ask

questions in front of the ensemble or privately. Those members who choose not to

participate remained in the room and checked the appropriate box on their response sheet.

Graduate students and community members were dismissed from the room until the

conclusion of the study.

At the first two sites, the pre-placed forms on each music stand randomly divided

ensemble members into two groups. Although forms were place face down on each stand

to prevent early reading, paper color was used to indicate which group each ensemble

member had been assigned to. The first group of participants (Group A at the first two

sites and Group B at the third site) remained in the ensemble rehearsal room to complete

55

the perception task. The second group (Group B at the first two sites only) walked to a

pre-determined, acoustically-isolated area of the building in order to prevent students

from hearing the stimulus recording for Group A. When exiting the room, participants

left their response sheets on their music stands. The ensemble director accompanied

group B at the first site and remain in the alternate location until the completion of the

study. Ensemble directors for the second and third sites were not present during any

portion of the study to protect student participation anonymity. The primary investigator

then read the following instructions to each of the participants in Group A (Group B at

the third site):

You are about to be presented with 24 pitch combinations. The first pitch you

hear will be an in-tune reference pitch. Reference pitches will be provided by

individual and combined recordings of clarinet, bass clarinet, and tuba. For

example, you may hear a clarinet alone, or a clarinet and tuba together. The

second pitch you hear will be provided every time by a trombone and may be

sharp, flat, or in-tune when compared with the reference pitch. You will be asked

to mark on your paper if the trombone is in-tune or out-of-tune in comparison to

the first pitch. Both pitches will sound for 2 seconds, with 1 second of silence in

between. Each pitch pair will only be played once, and you will have 5 seconds to

respond on your sheet. Each grouping will be proceeded by a recorded

announcement of the upcoming item number. Two in-tune example pairings will

be presented before the first actual question. The experiment will last less than 5

minutes total. Are there any questions?

56

At each school site, the stimulus recording was played from the researcher’s

computer, a mid-2014, 13.3” MacBook pro. Two Creative Reference multimedia

monitors (CR3) were provided by the researcher for use at each location, with the

computer and speakers set to full volume across all tests. Participants recorded responses

to the discrimination task as well as the demographic and perception questions using

pencil and paper. The primary investigator provided pencils for any participants who

required one.

Once Group A at the first two sites and Group B at the third site completed the

pitch discrimination task, the primary investigator asked participants to answer the

remaining questions and demographic information on their response sheets and return

them with their consent forms. The study concluded at the third site once all participants

had returned response sheets and consent forms. Group A and Group B switched

locations at the first two sites once all forms for Group A had been returned. Group B

then underwent the same procedures as Group A, only with the reverse stimulus order

track. Once all participants in Group B returned their response sheets and consent forms,

Group A returned to the rehearsal room. The primary investigator offered all participants

the opportunity to ask questions about the study after all response and consent forms had

been collected.

Analysis

All responses provided were coded for the use in statistical analysis. Participant

responses to pitch comparison items were entered into Microsoft Excel (2016) and the

“find and replace” feature was used to identify correct and incorrect responses. Incorrect

responses to the pitch pair task were coded as incorrect (0) or correct (1). Five response

57

forms were then randomly selected and coded by hand to verify accuracy. Data related to

institution, year in college, music major, instrument, diagnosis of hearing loss, and

selections for easiest and most difficult timbres were entered into the spreadsheet using

numerical codes. Demographic information was tallied to provide an overview of the

participant population. Accuracy averages related to the pitch comparison task were

calculated for each timbre combination, cent deviation, presentation order, instrument

voice group, and individual participant. The average scores of participants that indicated

a diagnosis of hearing loss were found to be at or above the average of all participants

and were therefore included in analysis.

Calculated averages were used to run correlations between each timbre

combination and the between-subject factors of stimulus order, institution, instrument

voice group, and status as a music major. No significant differences were found for any

of the factors, resulting in the analysis of all data as a single population. Accuracy

percentages for each timbre combination and cent deviation were analyzed using the Chi-

square “Goodness-of-fit” test to determine the significance of responses to each variable.

58

CHAPTER 4

Results

The purpose of this study was to measure the ability of undergraduate band

members to accurately assess pitch when presented in individual and combined stimulus

timbres as well as individual and combined stimulus octaves. A secondary focus was on

the students’ perceived difficulty of discriminating pitch in each setting. Participants (N =

93) from three universities completed a listening exercise consisting of 24 tone pairs

containing an in-tune reference pitch and experimental test tone. One response form was

excluded from inclusion, due to unclear markings on the response sheet. This resulted in

a final participant count of 92. Reference pitches were presented using varying timbres

and octave combinations (clarinet, tuba, clarinet and bass clarinet, and clarinet and tuba).

Participants heard each reference timbre a total of six times throughout the listening

exercise. A comparison tone, played by a trombone, followed each reference pitch and

deviated by 0, ±10, or ±15 cents. Participants responded as to whether they perceived

each pitch pair as in-tune or out-of-tune using an answer sheet. Following the perception

task, participants indicated which timbre they believed made it the easiest and most

difficult to hear the comparison (trombone) tone as in-tune. Participants at the first two

universities were assigned randomly to one of two groups. Group A listened to an initial

presentation order, while group B listened to a reverse presentation order. Participants at

the third university only listened to the reverse order due to a low number of participants

and the ability to provide a more even number of responses between the two presentation

orders. A p value of < .05 for statistical significance was set a priori.

59

Responses to the pitch pair task were coded as either incorrect (0) or correct (1),

and averages were calculated for each timbre and cent deviation. The average scores of

participants that indicated a diagnosis of hearing loss were found to be at or above the

average of all participants and were therefore included in analysis. A series of initial

correlations were calculated to determine whether presentation order, institution, status as

a music major, or instrument voice group produced significant differences with regard to

timbre accuracies. Table 4.1 below presents an overview of participant demographics.

No significant difference was found between the presentation orders of Group A

(n = 47) and Group B (n = 45). A correlation was calculated between the first and second

universities only, due to the low number of participants at the third university. No

significant difference was found between the first two sites (p = .1). The responses of

Table 4.1 Participant Demographics University 1 University 2a University 3 Total Total Participants 33 54 5 92 Year 1 11 22 2 35 2 8 15 1 24 3 4 11 1 16 4 10 5 1 16 Major Music major 12 17 2 31 Non-music major

21 37 3 61

Instrument Group Soprano 16 26 4 46 Tenor 9 17 1 27 Bass 2 4 0 6 Percussion 6 7 0 13 aOne participant chose not to indicate year, resulting in 53 responses in that section.

60

non-music majors and music majors also were not significantly different (p = .0646).

Participant responses were divided into four voice groups, depending on their primary

instrument. The soprano group consisted of flute, oboe, clarinet, alto saxophone, and

trumpet; the tenor group consisted of tenor saxophone, bassoon, horn, trombone, and

euphonium; the bass group consisted of bass clarinet, baritone saxophone, and tuba; and

the final group included all percussionists. No significant differences were found based

on instrument group. All participants were treated as one group in the remaining analysis

due to lack of significance in all of the aforementioned variables.

Total correct and incorrect responses for each timbre condition were tallied from

all participants and analyzed using a Chi-square “Goodness-of-fit” test. Expected

proportions were .5 for each response option (correct or incorrect) in a specific condition.

Total number of responses for each timbre can be found below in Table 4.2. Results from

the tuba trials were the only ones that resulted in significant differences, X2 (1, N = 552)

= 16.7, p < .001. Tuba reference timbres also elicited the highest percentage of correct

responses (58.70%), followed by clarinet (53.26%), clarinet and tuba (52.72%), and

clarinet and bass clarinet (46.56%). Clarinet and bass clarinet was the only reference

timbre combination that resulted in more inaccurate responses than accurate responses,

although the results were not statistically significant. When considering all responses as a

whole, participants accurately assessed pitch 52.81% of the time.

61

Correct and incorrect responses to each of the five experimental pitch deviations

were tallied and analyzed for significance using the Chi-square “Goodness-of-fit” test.

Although an equal number of sharp, flat, and in-tune pitches were presented for each

timbre, researcher error resulted in one extra deviation of -10 cents and no deviation of -

15 cents for the clarinet and bass clarinet timbre combination. This error resulted in an

unequal number of responses to deviations of -10 and -15 cents. A summary of responses

by deviation can be found below in Table 4.3. Significance was found for all deviations

except for +10 cents. The highest percentage of correct responses was found for those

experimental pitches with a deviation of +15 cents (69.29%), X2 (1, N = 368) = 54.79, p

< .001. Pitch pairs with no deviation resulted in the next highest percentage of correct

responses (62.36%), X2 (1, N = 736) = 45.01, p < .001. Although not statistically

significant, +10 cent deviations had the next highest accuracy (54.62%) (p = .085).

Experimental pitches that were either sharp or in-tune resulted in more correct responses

than incorrect responses, while flat deviations in pitch resulted in primarily inaccurate

responses. Pitch deviations of -15% had the second lowest accuracy (36.23%), X2 (1, N =

Table 4.2 Timbre Response Accuracy

Timbrea Correct Incorrect Percent Correct χ 2

Clarinet 294 258 53.26 2.35 Tuba 324 228 58.70* 16.7 Clarinet & Bass Clarinet 257 295 46.56 2.62 Clarinet & Tuba 291 261 52.72 1.63 Note. df = 1 for all calculations. Expected proportions are .5 for correct and incorrect responses. an = 552 *p < .001

62

276) = 20.93, p < .001, and pitch deviations of -10 cents had the lowest accuracy

(32.82%), X2 (1, N = 460) = 54.27, p < .001.

After completing the pitch pair perception task, each participant indicated on their

response form which timbre they believed made it the easiest and most difficult to hear

the experimental tone as in-tune or out-of-tune. The response form also provided

participants the opportunity to indicate no perceived difference. An even distribution

between all responses would have resulted in a response rate of 20% for each of the five

options. Table 4.4 below contains a summary of the collected data. Although most

individuals only chose one option, two participants indicated two instruments or

groupings as the easiest, and one participant indicated two instruments or groupings as

the most difficult. In addition, one participant selected two instruments or groupings for

both easiest and most difficult. The two most commonly selected timbres for ease of

pitch perception were clarinet (38.94%) and tuba (24.21%). These timbres align with the

percentages of correct responses on the perception task, which were the highest for

clarinet (25.21%) and tuba (27.78%). Participants selected clarinet and tuba (35.1%) and

Table 4.3 Cent Deviation Response Accuracy

Correct

Responses Incorrect

Responses Percent Correct

χ 2

-15 cents (n = 276) 100 176 36.23* 20.93 -10 cents (n = 460) 151 309 32.83* 54.27 0 cents (n = 736) 459 277 62.36* 45.01 +10 cents (n = 368) 201 167 54.62 3.14 +15 cents (n = 368) 255 113 69.29* 54.79 Note. df = 1 for all calculations. Expected proportions are .5 for correct and incorrect responses. *p < .001

63

clarinet and bass clarinet (29.78%) as the two most difficult timbres to hear as in-tune.

These two timbres also had the two lowest percentages of correct responses, garnering

24.95% and 22.04%, respectively. Approximately 10% of participants reported “no

difference” between timbres with regard to perceived ease and difficulty of the task.

Table 4.4 Pitch Discrimination Difficulty Participant Reported

Easiest

(N = 95)a Most difficult

(N = 94)a Correct responses

(N = 1,166) Clarinet % 38.94 12.63 25.21 n 37 12 294 Tuba % 24.21 12.76 27.78 n 23 12 324 Clarinet & Bass Clarinet % 13.68 29.78 22.04 n 13 28 257 Clarinet & Tuba % 12.63 35.1 24.95 n 12 33 291 No difference % 10.52 9.57 n 10 9 aThe Ns do not equal the total number of participants (N = 92), because one participant rated clarinet and tuba easiest; one participant rated tuba, and clarinet and bass clarinet easiest; one participant rated tuba, and clarinet and tuba easiest; one participant rated clarinet and, clarinet and bass clarinet most difficult; and one participant rated clarinet and bass clarinet, and bass clarinet and tuba most difficult.

64

CHAPTER 5

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to measure the effects of instrument timbre and

octave combinations on the accuracy of undergraduate wind band members perception of

pitch as well as these variables’ effect on the perceived difficulty of the same task. The

specific problems of the study were (a) to determine whether individual or combined

stimulus octaves have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as

in tune or out of tune, (b) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus timbres

have an effect on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of

tune, (c) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus octaves have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to accurately assess a tone as in tune or out of tune,

and (d) to determine whether individual or combined stimulus octaves have an effect on

instrumentalists’ perceived ability to assess a tone as in tune or out of tune.

Participants in the study responded to 24 pitch pairs with stimulus tones of

varying timbres (clarinet, tuba, clarinet and tuba, clarinet and bass clarinet) and an

experimental tone (trombone) that was either in-tune or out-of-tune with the stimulus

tone. Following this portion of the study, participants indicated which timbres or

combinations of timbres they believed made it the easiest and most difficult to hear pitch

pairs as in-tune. Results indicated possible effects of timbre and octave combinations on

both the accuracy of participant responses and the perceived difficulty of the task.

The discussion of results from the current study and their relationship to previous

research begins with two sections. The first section explores research questions one and

two, while the second section explores research questions three and four. The research

65

questions are presented in pairs due to similarity of question types and overlapping of

data related to answering each question. A single implications section, informed by the

results of all four research questions, follows this discussion. Lastly, the limitations of the

current study are presented followed by general conclusions and suggestions for future

research.

Research Questions 1 and 2

The first research question aimed to clarify the possible effects of individual and

combined stimulus octaves on instrumentalists’ ability to accurately perceive pitch. A

slight trend can be observed in the results of this study, in that the two timbres with the

highest percentage of correct answers were the clarinet (53.26%) and tuba (58.70%).

Each of these timbres sounded in their own octave. The two timbre combinations of

clarinet and bass clarinet (46.56%) and clarinet and tuba (52.72%) received the lowest

percentage of correct answers. Although both individual octave presentations received

the highest percentage of correct answers, the clarinet, and clarinet and tuba accuracies

only differed by .54%. The greatest accuracy difference was between the single octave

tuba timbre and combined timbres of clarinet and bass clarinet. These stimuli elicited a

difference of 12.14% and included tuba, the only stimulus timbre that reached statistical

significance (p < .001).

Previous research featuring high school and middle school band members who

tuned their instruments to varying stimulus timbres and octaves indicated that tuba

provided the least accurate responses (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014), but a similar

study of advanced college musicians revealed no significant difference (Byo & Schlegel,

2016). The current study, consisting of a wide range of undergraduate band members,

66

showed that tuba elicited the most accurate responses among all timbre conditions. The

presence of a single, most accurate stimulus suggests that undergraduate band members,

on average, may still be developing intonation skills. The presence of tuba as the most

accurate stimulus in the current study and least accurate in previous research could be due

to a difference in task. Participants in Byo et al. (2011) and Scherber (2014) completed a

pitch matching performance task, while participants in the current study completed a

pitch pair perception task. Previous research also has shown a low correlation between

similar perception and performance tasks (Ballard, 2011; Ely, 1992; Geringer & Worthy,

1999; Yarbrough et al., 1995, 1997). Performance tasks typically include pitches being

performed concurrently, while the current study presented pitches in an asynchronous

manner. While it would appear that the single presentation of octaves produced more

accurate results, timbre also appeared to play an important role in participants’ ability to

assess pitch pairs accurately.

The second research question was related to the first research question due to the

inherent tessitura and timbre properties of specific instruments, but considered the effect

of varying timbres in isolation and combination. The only timbre that reached statistical

significance in the current study was the tuba, which also had the highest percentage of

correct responses (58.7%). This was followed by the clarinet (53.26%), which both

sounds in a higher octave and has a different timbre. Combining the clarinet and tuba

timbres resulted in the third highest accuracy of responses (52.72%), differing from the

tuba alone by 5.98% and the clarinet alone by .54%. The only stimulus that resulted in

more incorrect responses than correct responses was the clarinet and bass clarinet

combination (46.56%), which was comprised of two similar timbres. Averages indicate

67

that individual timbres may be heard most accurately, followed by combined timbres that

are dissimilar, and combined timbres that are similar. These findings should be

considered cautiously, however, due to the presence of significance for only one

condition (tuba alone). Previous research related to instrument timbre and tone quality

may provide additional insight into the trends observed.

The trombone timbre chosen for the experimental pitches may have had an effect

on the accuracy of results in the current study. The increased accuracy of responses to the

tuba over the clarinet may demonstrate an advantage for stimulus and experimental tones

that have similar timbres, as Platt and Racine (1985) found. Similarly, the combined

stimulus containing a clarinet and tuba produced more accurate response than did clarinet

and bass clarinet together. These findings differed from Ely (1992) and Cummings

(2007), who found no like timbre advantage in perception and performance tasks,

respectively. The tone quality of instrument samples used may help to explain further this

divergence from previous research.

Shared tone qualities between the tuba and trombone samples may have increased

the accuracy of responses when the tuba sample was included as a reference pitch.

Previous researchers investigated the role of tone quality in pitch perception and found

that dark tones typically were perceived as flatter, and bright tones as sharper (Geringer

& Worthy, 1999; Wapnick & Freeman, 1980; Worthy, 2000). If participants in the

current study consistently heard the trombone and tuba sample tones as brighter than

those of the clarinet and bass clarinet, the difference in tone quality between the clarinet

and trombone samples could have resulted in less accurate responses.

68

Although not part of the current study’s questions, an analysis of pitch deviation

accuracy may provide insight into the results related to timbre and tone quality. Previous

research has indicated that individuals tend to perceive flat tones as more out of tune than

sharp tones of the same deviation (Geringer, 1978; Geringer et al., 2015; Madsen &

Geringer, 1976; Wapnick & Freeman, 1980). Similarly, studies focused on actual

performance have shown a tendency for musicians to perform more flat than sharp (Byo

& Schlegel, 2016; Cummings, 2007; Karrick, 1998; Morrison, 2000). Experimental tones

in the current study with flat deviations resulted in a majority of incorrect responses,

while in-tune and sharp tones resulted in a majority of accurate responses. Although some

studies have indicated no preference for sharp or flat intonation in perception (Geringer et

al., 2001) and performance (Byo et al., 2011), no known research has shown a tendency

toward hearing flat tones as more in-tune than sharp tones. For this reason, results of the

current study may point to a bright experimental tone that counteracted the out-of-tune

perception of flat pitches and exaggerated that of sharp pitches.

Research Questions 3 and 4

The third research question dealt with the effect of octave combinations on the

perceived difficulty of the pitch discrimination task. Participants in this study reported the

single octave presentations of clarinet (38.94%) and tuba (24.21%) as the easiest to

determine pitch. Participants selected the combined octaves of clarinet and bass clarinet

(29.78%) and clarinet and tuba (35.1%) as the most difficult stimuli to perceive pitch.

This perception of increased difficulty for combined octaves aligned with the percentages

of accurate responses. Single octave presentations accounted for 52.99% of accurate

responses, while multiple octave presentations accounted for 46.99% of accurate

69

responses. Participant perceptions related to timbre within each octave setting (alone or

combined), revealed discrepancies in perception and actual performance.

The fourth research question addressed participant’s perceived ease of

discriminating pitch with regard to individual and combined stimulus timbres. Although

participants rated clarinet (38.94%) as the easiest timbre and tuba (24.21%) as the second

easiest, tuba received the highest percentage of accurate responses (27.78%), followed by

the clarinet (25.21%). It is important to note that all three ensembles in this study tuned

from either a clarinet or an oboe. Participants’ familiarity with these timbres and octave

may have led to an increased selection of clarinet as the easiest timbre. In previous

research, high school participants in Byo et al. (2011) reported the tuba as the easiest

instrument to which to tune, and advanced college participants in Byo and Schlegel

(2016) reported the tuba as both the easiest and most difficult instrument to which to

tune. In contrast to these perceptions, participants in both studies performed least

accurately when tuning to the tuba. In these two previous studies, three woodwind

timbres, sounding two octaves higher, provided comparison responses to the tuba. In the

current study, undergraduate musicians more frequently cited clarinet as the easiest

timbre when comparing two pitches, but on average performed more accurately when the

tuba provided the stimulus pitch. Although the percentage of correct responses was small

between the clarinet and the tuba (2.57%), a pattern of misidentifying which timbre

provided the most accurate result was present, consistent with Byo et al. (2011).

Similar to single octave perceptions, student responses to combined timbres

differed from the actual results. Although the greatest number of participants rated the

dissimilar timbre combination of clarinet and tuba as most difficult, that particular

70

combination produced a higher percentage of correct responses (24.95%) than the similar

timbre combination of clarinet and bass clarinet (22.04%). Participants showed a clear

preference for single octave presentations over combined presentations. A lower

preference for dissimilar timbre combinations was apparent among combined octaves.

The relationship of these preferences to the percentage of correct responses should be

considered carefully, however, as the most (tuba) and least (clarinet and bass clarinet)

accurate timbres differed by only 5.74%

Implications

The results of the current study provide implications for educators who wish to

increase their students’ pitch perception accuracy and pitch matching abilities. When

considering all responses as a whole, participants accurately perceived pitches as in-tune

or out-of-tune 52.81% of the time. As a subgroup, pitch pairs that did not contain any

change resulted in an accuracy rate of 62.36%. These results seem to indicate that

developing college band students still require training to improve their pitch perception.

This room for growth also was evident in participant responses to the perceived difficulty

of each grouping. Participant responses in this study mirrored performance accuracy with

regard to the easiest and most difficult octave presentations, but not within the subgroups

of single and combined stimuli. Although students may believe that they hear and

perform pitch most accurately in response to a specific instrument, this may not be the

case always. In light of the current study and previous research, teachers can consider

isolating the various aspects of intonation, including octave, timbre, and tone quality, in

much the same way current practices separate skills such as articulation, rhythm, and

technical facility. Classroom activities and practical applications are discussed below.

71

Of primary consideration is the presence of multiple octave and timbre

combinations that occur in wind band repertoire. If students perceive single octave and

combined octaves differently, a routine for intonation training could be considered that

presents a wide variety of combinations to which ensemble members can listen and adapt.

For example, instructors could choose instrumentalists in varying octaves to provide a

reference pitch for ensemble tuning. Although previous research suggests that tuning to

the soprano octave provides the most accurate responses for high school and middle

school students, (Byo et al., 2011; Scherber, 2014), tuning to pitches in the tenor or bass

ranges could help familiarize students with varying scenarios found in band repertoire.

Instructors may wish to follow these exercises with a soprano tuning note, so that

students can compare the way they perceive pitch in each condition.

A similar tuning exercise could be utilized with regard to instrument timbre. In

the current study, similar and dissimilar timbre groupings provided different responses,

suggesting that various timbre combinations may be beneficial to developing pitch

perception. In this regard, instructors of developing ensembles who consistently present a

tuning pitch at the beginning of rehearsal using the same instrument could consider

different options as a way to expose students to a wide variety of tuning conditions. As an

example of similar timbres, a trio of saxophone voices could present the tuning pitch

during the warm-up process for a week. This could be followed the next week by a trio of

dissimilar instrument timbres, such as tuba, bassoon, and flute. This process could be

made even more practical through an analysis of repertoire that is currently being

rehearsed and a subsequent adaption of the warm-up routine. Similar to the use of scale,

rhythmic, and articulation exercises that relate to new concepts in a piece of music,

72

tuning exercises could isolate the unique octave and timbre combinations of difficult

passages. The process of tuning from a single instrument, however, may remain the most

accurate method of tuning an entire ensemble at the beginning of rehearsal.

In addition to daily exercises that require students to tune in varying conditions,

instructor feedback is imperative. Without such feedback, incorrect student pitch

perceptions could lead to a pattern of assessing pitch inaccurately at the middle school,

high school, and collegiate levels. Directors can plan to provide regular feedback, even if

rehearsal time limits them from doing so for each ensemble member during every

rehearsal. One way of approaching this task would be to divide the ensemble by section,

and then divide the sections between each day of the week. After the initial tuning

process, each student in that day’s target section could play the tuning pitch and receive

specific feedback in terms of cents sharp or flat. Electronic tuners with contact pick-ups

also could be assigned on a weekly, rotating basis so that each student in an ensemble

receives periodic feedback throughout the year. This would allow students to compare

their own perception of pitch with the measurement of the tuner. The use of these

strategies, combined with intentional tuning conditions, may help to inform and improve

intonation accuracy among ensemble members.

Instructors of developing ensembles such as middle school, high school, and

collegiate bands might want to keep tone quality and timbre in mind when working

toward increased intonation skills in their students. A focus on producing a consistent and

characteristic tone quality could help to alleviate interference when tuning in the

ensemble setting. Although the importance of tone quality can be stressed, it is unlikely

that every member of a developing ensemble will produce such a tone consistently. To

73

help students understand the effect that tone quality has on pitch, directors could present

examples of bright, dark, and characteristic tone qualities. This could be accomplished by

watching an electronic tuner to ensure that pitch does not change, while performing the

same pitch using various tone qualities and asking students to evaluate them. Following

the discussion of tone quality, the teacher could lead a discussion about which notes may

have sounded flatter or sharper. Student peer-evaluation also can be an effective

technique for addressing the issue of tone quality. All of the students in a section could

perform the same pitch, followed by an informal discussion of which tones sounded the

brightest, darkest, sharpest, and flattest. By watching a tuner and making note of

variations in pitch, the instructor can guide such discussions with a knowledge of actual

deviations in pitch. After being introduced to these topics, student leaders could facilitate

small-group sectionals, allowing for each member of the ensemble to be directly engaged

in the concept, reducing the amount of time needed during full ensemble rehearsals, and

promoting student leadership.

Although auditory examples provide an immediately relevant way to engage with

pitch, timbre, and tone quality, visual representations also can help students conceptualize

these ideas. A basic way to counteract the effect of changing timbres and tone qualities

may be the occasional use of electronic tuners. By receiving a visual representation of

their pitch, individuals can begin to discern the difference between their perception of the

stimulus’s pitch and tone quality. Overuse of such devices, however, could result in

dependence and a decrease in pitch discrimination growth. A more interactive activity

could employ spectrograms of varying instruments alongside the audio files that were

analyzed to create them. These presentations can help students to recognize the role of

74

harmonics in timbre and tone quality. Once this relationship is understood, a real-time

spectrum analyzer could be projected in front of the classroom. Each student then could

be challenged to produce a bright tone and a dark tone without changing the fundamental

pitch. The real-time feedback that the spectrum analyzer presents with regard to both

pitch and harmonics could help students begin to discern each quality and how they are

interconnected more accurately.

The method through which students consume music outside of the ensemble

classroom also can be considered when planning for pitch instruction. Cell phones and

streaming music services have quickly become a primary way that individuals listen to

music. Digital audio presentations can include some type of compression, which reduces

the overall richness of the sound. Most frequently, upper harmonics are removed from the

audio file to reduce its size. The presence of a full spectrum of sound in the band

classroom differs from this, and may lead to a change in pitch perception. Spectrograms

from audio files that have and have not been compressed could help students visualize the

differences in sound and guide a discussion regarding the effects on pitch and timbre.

The unequal perception of sharp and flat pitch among ensemble members is

another area that can be addressed in the classroom. Pitch preferences in one direction or

another may stem from tuning trends heard in popular music that employ pitch as an

expressive element. Pitch manipulation through auto-tuning software has become

increasingly common in the production of music, resulting in a less authentic presentation

of pitches than previously heard in acoustic recordings. Engaging with pitch in various

modes may help students to overcome potential biases developed through recordings.

One such method is to draw students’ attention to the beats that are present in out-of-tune

75

notes. By aiming to reduce the beats in the sound, focus can be drawn specifically to the

intonation of the notes and away from external factors such as timbre or tone quality.

Pitch bending exercises can promote understanding of this process by emphasizing the

presence of beats, drawing the musician’s attention, and then working to reduce the beats.

Pitch also can be internalized through the use of humming or singing. On an individual

basis, this exercise may be useful for students who have not yet developed the

embouchure or support to play with consistent pitch on their instrument. When tuning in

a large group setting, singing or humming can serve as a way to internalize the standard

pitch before it is disrupted by the playing of other ensemble members.

The instruction of pitch perception and tuning is a multi-faceted and complex

topic. Musicians must learn to navigate changes in octave, timbre, and tone quality in

various combinations. In addition, personal biases may be developed by listening to

music that has been altered in the production stage and through compression. Although it

is important to address each of these concerns individually so that students understand

their role in pitch perception, students should be given ample opportunity to navigate

them all at once. Opportunities to hear, perform, and visualize sound can inform students

through multiple modes of engagement. Finally, consistent and reliable feedback from

teachers, peers, or electronic tuners is paramount in order for students to better

understand their individual perception of pitch and any misconceptions tied to it.

Limitations of the Current Study

There are several limitations to the current study. The first of these limitations is

the overall sample size as well as the disparity in participants between each university.

Due to unforeseen circumstances with regard to student availability and scheduling, the

76

participant count at the third university was too small to be included in calculations as a

separate entity. A larger sample size at this university would have increased the overall

power of calculations.

As mentioned in the analysis section of this study, researcher error resulted in an

unequal representation of pitch deviations for the timbre combination of clarinet and bass

clarinet. Rather than consisting of one deviation each of -10 and -15 cents, an additional

deviation of -10 cents was included in place of -15 cents. Results were calculated as

normal despite this inconsistency. The accuracy of responses across all samples with

deviations of -10 and -15 differed by only 3.4%, suggesting only a small difference in

timbre accuracy calculations.

The sound samples used in this study also may have limited the results. As noted

earlier, the tone quality between brass and woodwind instruments may have differed

enough to affect the final results. Editing these files to a consistent length and pitch level

across attack, body, and decay also may have had an effect on participant perceptions.

Participants at the first two sites commented informally after the study that the use of

synthesized tones increased the difficulty of perceiving pitch differences. This perception

may have stemmed from tones lacking a typical change in pitch between the attack, body,

and decay for the instrument.

The limited amount of statistically significant results with regard to response

accuracy by timbre limits the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Although

responses to the tuba timbre did reach significance (p < .001), the accuracy of responses

for all timbres did not deviate more than 9% from and expected guessing rate of 50%.

This may have been the result of experimental pitches that were bright in quality,

77

skewing the perception of flat deviations toward in-tune. Although pitch deviations were

increased after the pilot study, a wider range of deviations also may have produced more

significant results. Although previous research has indicated a just noticeable difference

of approximately 10 cents (Bentley, 1973; Clark, 2012; Madsen, Edmonson, & Madsen,

1969; Parker, 1983), other factors including octave displacement and the asynchronous

presentation of pitches in the current study may have increased the difficulty. Participants

also completed the study by listening to speakers in rehearsal spaces with exterior doors

and small amounts of noise pollution.

Conclusions and Future Research

Although the aforementioned limitations must be considered, the results of the

current study reflect the numerous factors and complicated nature of pitch perception. As

Morrison and Fyk (2002) defined, intonation consists of a number of skills related to the

accurate perception and performance of pitch (p. 183). If educators hope to increase

student abilities in this area effectively, it is not only important to consider factors such as

octave, timbre, and tone quality, but the ways in which these traits interact with each

other. In addition, music educators should keep in mind that student perceptions of their

abilities may not align with their actual performance. By providing wide and varying

experiences with pitch under different conditions, teachers can provide their students with

the best opportunity possible to increase their perception of pitch. The focus of this study

on a wide range of undergraduate musicians also reinforces the notion that pitch

perception is an ongoing process that develops over time. Collegiate ensembles with

diverse ability levels may benefit from occasional intonation exercises like those

suggested above.

78

Future research could explore further the effect of stimulus timbre and octave

combinations on students’ pitch perception and performance. Altering the method of the

current study so that stimulus pitches and experimental pitches overlap could provide a

worthwhile comparison to the current results. The pitch matching studies of Byo et al.

(2011), Scherber (2014), and Byo and Schlegel (2016) also could be adapted to include

stimulus pitches similar to those of this study. This treatment might produce results that

are more directly related to ensemble members’ experience tuning in a large ensemble.

Future research also could include a director questionnaire that collects information about

typical tuning procedures and the reasoning for them. Results from such a questionnaire

could provide a picture of current practices and provide context for student responses.

Although not an expansion of the current study, increased attention on just

noticeable difference in various conditions could provide a new opportunity for research.

The effect of octave displacement and pitch presentation timing on just noticeable

difference in pitch deviation remains a relatively unexplored topic. The current body of

research has broached this concept utilizing various techniques, although Clark (2012)

may be the only known researcher who has attempted to explore how just noticeable

difference might change depending on presentation factors. While Clark considered

simultaneous and sequential tone pairs alongside similar and dissimilar timbre

combinations, octave displacement remains notably absent. Additional research in this

area that presents various pitch deviations, octave displacements, and simultaneous as

well as sequential tones, could help to define how each of these differences affect the

point at which individuals begin to hear two different pitches. The importance of accurate

79

intonation to a quality performance, combined with the complex nature of pitch

perception, continues to provide ample avenues for future research.

80

APPENDIX A

LETTER OF COOPERATION REQUEST EMAIL

APPENDIX B

81

INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL

82

83

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT

84

85

86

APPENDIX D

RECRUITMENT SCRIPT

87

APPENDIX E

INSTRUMENT SAMPLE SPECTRA

Clarinet – G4

Trombone – G3

Tuba – G2

Spectra produced with Praat audio analysis software (Boersma & Weenink, 2018)

88

APPENDIX F

STIMULUS PRESENTATION ORDERS

89

APPENDIX G

DATA COLLECTION FORMS

90

91

92

93

REFERENCES

Ballard, D. L. (2011). Relationships between college-level wind instrumentalists'

achievement in intonation perception and performance. Bulletin of the Council for

Research in Music Education, (187), 19–32. http://doi.org/10.2307/41162321

Barnes, J. (2010). A practical path to better tuning. The Instrumentalist, 64(10), 30–34.

Bentley, A. (1973). Technical problems in group measurement of pitch discrimination,

and an apparent subjective preference for downward tonal movement. Psychology

of Music, 1(2), 31–38. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/030573567312005

Berg, R. E., & Stork, D. G. (1995). The physics of sound (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version

6.0.39) [Computer Software]. Amsterdam, NL: Retrieved from

http://www.praat.org.

Burch-Press, M. (2000). The ongoing process of tuning an ensemble. The Instrumentalist,

54(9), 46–48.

Byo, J. L., & Schlegel, A. L. (2016). Effects of stimulus octave and timbre on the tuning

accuracy of advanced college instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 64(3), 344–359. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416662451

Byo, J. L., Schlegel, A. L., & Clark, N. A. (2011). Effects of stimulus octave and timbre

on the tuning accuracy of secondary school instrumentalists. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 58(4), 316–328. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429410386230

Clark, N. A. (2012). Direction of mistuning, magnitude of cent deviation, and timbre as

factors in musicians' pitch discrimination in simultaneous and sequential listening

94

conditions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3723/

Cummings, P.C. (2007, June). The effects of instrument type, stimulus timbre, and

harmonic context on tuning accuracy (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/304818394?accountid=9920

Duke, R. A. (1985). Wind instrumentalists' intonational performance of selected musical

intervals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33(2), 101–111.

http://doi.org/10.2307/3344730

Ely, M. C. (1992). Effects of timbre on college woodwind players’ intonational

performance and perception. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(2),

158–167. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345565

Fritts, L. (n.d.). University of Iowa musical instrument samples. Retrieved January 25,

2019, from http://theremin.music.uiowa.edu/index.html

Gallagher, M. (2009). The music tech dictionary. Boston, MA: Course PTR. Retrieved

from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=306347&site

=eds-live&custid=s8481523

Garofalo, R. J. (1996). Improving intonation in band and orchestra performance. Ft.

Lauderdale, FL: Meredith Music Publications.

Geringer, J. M. (1978). Intonational performance and perception of ascending scales.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 26(1), 32–40.

http://doi.org/10.2307/3344787

95

Geringer, J. M., & Worthy, M. D. (1999). Effects of tone-quality changes on intonation

and tone-quality ratings of high school and college instrumentalists. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 47(2), 135–149. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345719

Geringer, J. M., MacLeod, R. B., & Sasanfar, J. K. (2015). In tune or out of tune. Journal

of Research in Music Education, 63(1), 89–101.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415572025

Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C., & Dunnigan, P. (2001). Trumpet tone quality versus

intonation revisited: Two extensions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in

Music Education, 148, 65–76. http://doi.org/10.2307/40319079

Groeling, C. (2003). Good intonation starts early. The Instrumentalist, 57(11), 20–22.

Helmholtz, H. (1954). On the sensations of tone. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Hovey, N. (1976). Efficient rehearsal procedures for school bands. Elkhart, IN: The

Selmer Company.

Jagow, S. M. (2012). Tuning for wind instruments: A roadmap to successful intonation

(1st ed.). Galesville, MD: Meredith Music Publications.

Karrick, B. (1998). An examination of the intonation tendencies of wind instrumentalists

based on their performance of selected harmonic musical intervals. Journal of

Research in Music Education, 46(1), 112–127. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345764

Lisk, E. S. (1991). The creative director (3rd ed.). Ft. Lauderdale: Meredith Music

Publications.

Logic Pro X. (2017). Logic Pro X (Version 10.3.2) [Computer Software]. Cupertino, CA:

Apple, Inc.

96

Madsen, C. K., Edmonson, F. A., III, & Madsen, C. H., Jr. (1969). Modulated frequency

discrimination in relationship to age and musical training. The Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America, 46(6B), 1468–1472.

http://doi.org/10.1121/1.1911888

Madsen, C., & Geringer, J. M. (1976). Preferences for trumpet tone quality versus

intonation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 46, 13–22.

http://doi.org/10.2307/40317397

McBeth, W. F. (1972). Effective performance of band music. San Antonio, TX: Southern

Music.

Morrison, S. J. (2000). Effect of melodic context, tuning behaviors, and experience on the

intonation accuracy of wind players. Journal of Research in Music Education,

48(1), 39–51. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345455

Morrison, S. J., & Fyk, J. (2002). Intonation. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.),

The Science & Psychology of Music Performance (pp. 183–197). New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195138108.001.0001

Parker, O. (1983). Quantitative differences in frequency perceptions by violinists,

pianists, and trombonists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music

Education, 76, 49–58. http://doi.org/10.2307/40317803

Platt, J. R., & Racine, R. J. (1985). Effect of frequency, timbre, experience, and feedback

on musical tuning skills. Perception & Psychophysics, 38(6), 543–553.

http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207064

Randel, D. M. (2003). The Harvard dictionary of music (4 ed.). Harvard University Press.

97

Rossing, T. D. (2002). The science of sound. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Scherber, R. V. (2014). Pedagogical practices related to the ability to discern and

correct intonation errors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-9087

Silvey, B. A., Nápoles, J., & Springer, D. G. (2018). Effects of pre-tuning vocalization

behaviors on the tuning accuracy of college instrumentalists. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 66(4), 392–407. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022429418806304

South, J. (2006). Band and orchestra intonation: (pp. 1–4). Presented at the Midwest

Clinic.

Wapnick, J., & Freeman, P. (1980). Effects of dark-bright timbral variation on the

perception of flatness and sharpness. Journal of Research in Music Education,

28(3), 176–184. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345235

Weber, E. H. (1834). De puslu, resorptione, auditu et tactu: Annotationes anatomicae et

physiologicae (On stimulation, response, hearing and touch: Notes on anatomy

and physiology). Leipzig: Koehler.

Worthy, M. D. (2000). Effects of tone-quality conditions on perception and performance

of pitch among selected wind instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 48(3), 222–236. http://doi.org/10.2307/3345395

Yarbrough, C., Karrick, B., & Morrison, S. J. (1995). Effect of knowledge of directional

mistunings on the tuning accuracy of beginning and intermediate wind players.

Journal of Research in Music Education, 43(3), 232–241.

http://doi.org/10.2307/3345638

98

Yarbrough, C., Morrison, S. J., & Karrick, B. (1997). The effect of experience, private

instruction, and knowledge of directional mistunings on the tuning performance

and perception of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research

in Music Education, 134, 31–42. http://doi.org/10.2307/40318878