|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 THE EFFECT OF ARTICULATION STUDY ON STYLISTIC EXPRESSION IN HIGH SCHOOL MUSICIANS JAZZ PERFORMANCE By DAVID CHARLES EDMUND A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 David Charles Edmund
3 To my mother and father
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the individuals who contributed their support, assistance, and wisdom throughout this process. First, I thank Evan Rogovin and John LaCognata for their important contributions to this study I thank Claudio Fuentes for his guidance on statistical design and rationale. I thank Diane Fischler fo r her editing expertise and moral support I extend a heart -felt debt of gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Timothy S. Brophy, for his never ending support throughout the past four years. He is a role model for excellence and the most generous professor Ive ha d the pleas ure of studying with. I am grateful to Dr. Russell Robinson for his guidance throughout my undergraduate and doctoral studies. Dr. Robinson is a brilliant teacher, musici an, and mentor. He has provided direction and support throughout my career pursuits. I want to thank Dr. Leslie Odom and Dr. John Bengston for serving on my doctoral committee, but more importantly, for inspirin g me as a scholar and musician. I thank Gary Langford for being my primary musical mentor and role model. I also thank G ary Langford and Chris Sharp for their generous contributions in the completion of this study. Finally, I am grateful for members of my family who have supported me in pursuit of this degree. I thank my m other, sister, Cedric and Irene for their consiste nt wisdom and faithful support. I thank my father for his inspiration. I thank my sister for always being there when I needed advice. I thank my mother for helping during those trying times and for providing the most steadfast suppor t of all of my lifes endeavors.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 14 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 18 Definition o f Terms ..................................................................................................................... 19 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 20 Delimi tations ............................................................................................................................... 20 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................................................................... 21 Style Theory ................................................................................................................................ 21 Philosophical Rationale .............................................................................................................. 23 Jazz Edu cation History ............................................................................................................... 28 Jazz Improvisation ...................................................................................................................... 30 Improvisation Research .............................................................................................................. 35 Jazz Pedagogy ............................................................................................................................. 57 Jazz Pedagogy Summary ............................................................................................................ 63 Articulation in Jazz Style ............................................................................................................ 65 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 70 Jazz Articulation Survey ............................................................................................................. 70 Pilot Study ................................................................................................................................... 71 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 74 Control Group Treatment ........................................................................................................... 78 Experimental Group Treatment .................................................................................................. 78 Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................... 79 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 81 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 89 Content Validity .......................................................................................................................... 90 Construct Validity ....................................................................................................................... 91 Descriptive St atistics ................................................................................................................... 92
6 Gain Scores .................................................................................................................................. 93 Reliability .................................................................................................................................... 94 Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 96 Relationships among Posttest Results and Independent Variables .......................................... 99 Post -treatment Questionnaires .................................................................................................... 99 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 113 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 113 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 115 Sample Improvisations .............................................................................................................. 122 Theoretical Implications ........................................................................................................... 124 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 125 Implications for Music E ducation ............................................................................................ 127 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 130 APPENDIX A JAZZ ARTICULATION SURVEY ......................................................................................... 131 B JAZZ ARTICULATION SURVEY RESPONSES ................................................................ 133 C EDMUND JAZZ INTERPRETATION PROFILE (EJIP) ..................................................... 134 D JAZZ IMPROVISATION LESSONS ..................................................................................... 138 E JAZZ ARTICULATION LESSONS ....................................................................................... 142 F ARTICULATION EXERCISES/PRACTICE SCHEDULE .................................................. 146 G RESEARCH APPROVALS ..................................................................................................... 153 H POST TREATMENT QUESTIONNAIRES .......................................................................... 158 I PARENT CONSENT/STUDENT ASSENT LETTERS ........................................................ 160 J CONTENT VALIDITY DESCRIPTORS FOR A PANEL OF JAZZ EDUCATORS ........ 163 K CONTENT VALIDITY RATING INDEX OF THE JAZZ INTERPRETATION PROFILE ................................................................................................................................... 166 L BASIC BLUES, COMPOSED BY THE RESEARCHER AND USED TO DEMONSTRATE MELODIC APPLICATIONS OF THE BEBOP SCALE ...................... 169 M TRANSCRIBED IMPROVISATION SAMPLES ................................................................. 170 N JAZZ IMPROVISATION RATING INSTRUMENT USED IN THE PILOT .................... 174
7 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 178 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 185
8 LIST OF TABLES Table P age 2-1 Maduras dimensions of improvisation ................................................................................ 69 3-1 Jazz improvisation lesson contents ....................................................................................... 88 4-1 Demographics ( N = 32) ........................................................................................................ 105 4-2 EJIP subtests and criteria scoring ranges ............................................................................ 105 4-3 Means and standard deviations on the EJIP ....................................................................... 106 4-4 Mean gains on subtests, total test and performance element scores ................................. 106 4-5 Reliability coefficients for pretest/posttest combined ........................................................ 107 4-6 Pretest reliability coefficients .............................................................................................. 107 4-7 Posttest reliability coefficients ............................................................................................ 108 4-8 .......................................................... 108 4-9 Content validity: suggested EJIP criteria ............................................................................ 109 410 Pearsons r correlations: MAP musical sensitivity and EJIP scores ( n = 11) ................. 110 411 One sample t test of melody component scores ( N = 32) .................................................. 110 412 One -sample paired t -tests for mean gains within groups ................................................... 110 413 Two -Sample t tests for mean pretest to posttest differences between groups (N = 32) .. 111 414 Three -way fixed effects ANOVA: IVs/scores ( N = 32) .................................................... 111 415 Three -way fixed effects ANOVA: group/pretest/posttest ( N = 32) ................................. 111 416 GLMa ANOVA to examine performance of the three -way fixed ANOVA model .......... 111 417 ANOVA for effects of instrument, grade, experience, and MAP scores ( N = 32) .......... 112
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 The bebop scale ...................................................................................................................... 84 3-2 Ratings descriptors on melody tests 1 and 2......................................................................... 84 3-3 Selections for melodic interpretation without articulation .................................................. 85 3-4 Minor blues with articulations ............................................................................................... 86 3-5 Sample minor ii V I phrases ................................................................................................ 87 4-1 Residual plot of EJIP data used in three -way linear ANOVA .......................................... 104 4-2 Residual vs. normal percentiles plot ................................................................................... 104
10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE EFFECT OF ARTICULATION STUDY ON STYLISTIC EXPRESSION IN HIGH SCHOOL MUSICIANS JAZZ PERFORMANCE By David Charles Edmund August 2009 Chair: Timothy S. Brophy Major: Music Education The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of articulation practice on the stylistic interpretation of jazz melodies and improvisations for high school wind musicians. A data gathering i nstrumen t was developed and employed in the collect ion of pretest and posttest measures of jazz performance. Three broad components of jazz performance were measured; technical skill, melodic interpretation, and improvisa tion ability. Participants were 45 students from jazz ensembles in two suburban Florida high schools. T wo factors contributed to the stipulation that data collection for the main portion of the study include saxophonists, trombonists and trumpet players only ( n = 33). First, the jazz performance measure was specifically designed to evaluate melodic interpretation Second, e xperimental treatment s included practice of articulatio n exercises written particularly for wind musicians Pretest data was gathered prior to treatments, which consisted of improvisation instruction for the control group ( n = 18), and improvisation instruction complemented by articulation instruction for the experimental group ( n = 15). Both treatment periods lasted for three weeks, with instructional treatments lasting 30 minutes per day, for four days of the week.
11 In addition to improvisation instruction and articulation instruction, j azz band experience, year in school, and musical instrument served as independent variables. Scores on the Musical Sensitivity portion of Gordons (1965) Musical Aptitude Profile served as extraneous variables. Dependent variables were subtest scores, musical element scores, total test scores, and gain scores from the pretest and posttest measures of jazz performance. Results indicated that experim enta l group participants showed a greater degree of improvement than control group participants in all areas of jazz performance. Results from a three -way linear fixed model ANOVA suggest that group differences on the pretest ( p = .4149) were more substant ial than differences on the posttest ( p = .9993). This may indicate that members of the experimental group closed a gap in initial differences reflected by pr etest scores. Results from a two -s ample t test for mean pretest to posttest differences between the two groups suggest that improvements made by the experimental group approached significance in the areas of style gains ( p = .06) and melodic style gains ( p = .09).
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION John Coltrane, like many of the modern jazz musicians, feels that the music itself speaks far more fluently than any human ever could. (Gleason, 1995, video track 20) The spontaneous nature of spoken conversation is analogous to that of jazz performance. Conversation constitutes a form of improvisation, which itself is a primary component of jazz music. Additional comparisons exist. Jazz educators and research ers (Azzara, 1993; Berg, 2002; Berliner, 1994; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Wilson, 2002) frequently refer to jazz language or vocabulary. Music in general is often considered to be its own language. Linguistic dialects are often verbalized with what many co nsider regional accents. Orators possessing unique gifts are deemed articulate. In music articulation involves techniques which influence the placement and nature of accentuation. When learning proper concepts of jazz articulation, students are encour aged to imagine phonetic syllables such as dee -dit, ba -doo -bah (Bash & Kuz mich, 1989; Goins, 2003). Aebersold (2000) instructed jazz students to think of articulation as proper enunciation (p. 1). The relationship between enunciation and linguistic expression is similar to the relationship between articulation and musical expression. Stylistic expression is an indispensable component of jazz performance. Elliott (1983) suggested that jazz be approached as an expressive form (p. 183). He fur ther surmised that the principal value of jazz music stems from ways in which its musical elements are manipul ated/ emphasized to produce jazz style (p. 184). Though jazz performance is embodied by musical individuality, educators (Bash & Kuzm ich, 1989; Bessom, Forcucci & Tatarunis, 1980; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Goins, 2003; May, 2003; Poulter, 2008; Wilson, 2002) continue to find that even the musics most subjective aspects can be transmitted from teacher to learner.
13 Historically, jazz has learned aural ly, but its presence in academia has led to the development of countless methods and materials for instruction. Jazz ensembles exist in secondary music programs throughout the United States. The abundance of jazz bands in American music programs may relate to the significance of jazz in American culture. Hazell, Porter, and Ullman (1993) stated that jazz is Americas great art form (p. 448). Jazz is often considered Americas most significant contribution to the arts (Berliner, 1994; Collier, 1993; Hazell et al., 1993), while Bash and Kuzmich (1989) claimed jazz is Americas only original art form (p. 7). Others deem jazz to be Americas classical music. Dobbins (1980) considered the jazz ensemble Americas truly indigenous orchestra (p. 41). In 1987, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to support Joint Resolution 57, in which Congress recognized jazz as a rare and valuable national American treasure to which we should devote our attention, support and resources to make certain it is preserved, un derstood, and promulgated (Hazell et al. 1993, p. 442). Musical benefits from learning to play jazz are numerous. Jazz band participants learn to perform within a broad range of genres, including swing, bebop, salsa, funk, rock, fusion, and bossa nova. J azz ensemble performance also affords students the opportunity and challenge of playing independent parts. Musical independence leads to the development of stylistic individuality (Bash & Kuzmich, 1989). Jazz pianist and pedagogue Billy Taylor (1986) expla ined, In a typical jazz performance each individual performer contributes his or her personal musical perspective and thereby graphically demonstrates the democratic process at work (p. 21). Improvisation is a primary element in jazz performance. Bash a nd Kuzmich (1989) regarded improvisation as the heart of jazz (p. 6) and the core of jazz instruction (p. 7).
14 Improvisation is standard number three of th e National Standards (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994) in music education and is considered an essential aspect in the music education o f American students ( Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Lehman, 1999; Mark, 1996). Dunscomb and Hill (2002) state d that some music educators believe that jazz classes embody the perfect environment in whi ch to teach all of the National Standards for music e ducation (p.11). Goins (2003) explicated that the skills necessary to perform jazz are the same skills promoted throughout the MENC [Music Educators National Conference] National Standards as an integr al part of its primary objectives toward the development of the competent musician (p. 218). Bash and Kuzmich (1989) claim ed that it is the developmental techniques of improvisation that distinguish jazz from all others and that give jazz education valid ity (p. 7). Improvisation is more than an essential element of jazz performance; it is an important skill in demonstrating musical creativity. Creative expression may also be a vehicle for fostering individuality. Improvisation requires the musician to audiate (see definition for audiation) (Gordon, 1986) sounds before playing them, whereas performing written music does not require the same degree of audiation (Sawyer, 1999). Azzara (1993) provided evidence that improvisation contributes significantly to achievement of instrumental performance in elementary school students. In addition to the skill of improvisation, performing in jazz ensembles provides the following benefits for students: a. Expanded musical experience b. Increased independence (often onl y one musician per part) c. Increased sight reading skills d. Rhythmic diversity/complexity (Bessom, Forcucci, & Tatarunis, 1980) Statement of the Problem T he benefits of learning to play jazz are well documented, yet teaching the art of jazz performance inv olves various challenges The personal, subjective nature of spontaneous musical
15 production makes it difficult to standardize criteria for performance quality. Jazz ensemble performance involves a vast array of tec hniques and skills, from formation of piano voicings to percussion styles and techniques to phrasing and articulation for players of wind instruments. In the for ewo rd to Bash and Kuzmichs (1989) jazz ensemble ma nual, Jamey Aebersold attributed these difficulties to a lack of standardization in s econdary schools: Todays colleges and universities unfortunately have no standard, across -the -board jazz education requirements for gra duating Music Education majors As a result, there has been a great deal of confusion about how to teach jazz in public school music programs. (p. vii) Many of these challenges are addressed within the wide range of available method texts on jazz performance and improvisation (Baker, 19 83; Bash & Kuzmich, 1989; Coker, 1970; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Goins, 2003; Haerle, 1989; Lawn, 1995; Reeves, 1989; Wilson, 2002). Teaching interpretation, however, is one of the greatest challeng es faced by jazz instructors. J azz style has been traditiona lly learned through aural imitation (Laughlin, 2001; Milkows ki, 2001). Hence, a challenge exists for jazz educators to lead students beyond rote imitation and toward development of stylistic interpretive ability While many of the musical parts for jazz st udents provide detailed annotations for stylistic interpretation, others are less specific. Goins (2003) explained that not all arrangers and composers provide the same degree of detailed information when it comes to helping the director correctly interpr et what the writer or arranger wanted (p. 60). Many established college jazz studies programs exist throughout the United States, including the University of Nort h Texas, Indiana University, Berklee College of Music, University of Miami, University of No rth Florida, Univer sity of Northern Colorado, and the Eastman School of Music. Yet, the historical relationship between jazz studies and academia may be described as dubious. According to Sawyer (1999), many people have a common, nave
16 misconception about jazz music that it does not require training, expertise, and complex cognitive skills, because the musicians are thought to be simply playing whatever comes into their heads (p. 194). Others criticize university jazz programs as producing school jazz musicians, who rely excessively upon chord/scale patterns when improvising. The school jazz accusation pertains to performance style as well. An additional problem for music educators in public schools is the ir lack of skil l due to a declining emphasis upon improvisation in Western music (Sawyer, 2000). The lack of familiarity wi th jazz and improvisation breed the standard nave view that i t is pure inspiration and cannot be taught (Sawyer, 1999, p. 203). Bessom, Forcucci and Tatarunis (1980) dispute d this view: Improvisatory skill does not come easily, but it is possible to teach it to high school students, and even beginning levels of improvisation can contribute a great deal to music learning (p. 143). Through empirical studies, others (Azzara, 1993; Humphreys & Nelson, 2002; Laughlin, 2001; May 2003) have found that jazz improvisation may be effectively taught. Experimental research in the field of jazz improvisation and jazz instruction has been sparse, as well as problematic (Brophy, 1998; Meadows, 2005). If educators are to provide quality jazz instruction, they must understand the process of developing the musical skills required to perform jazz. Through experimental studies, researchers may determine characteristic patterns indicating metho ds in which students learn to improvise and play stylistically. The nature of improvisation with regard to skill development has been investigated by many ( Azzara, 1993; Berliner, 1994; Brophy, 2005; JohnsonLaird, 1988; Laughlin, 2001; Pressing, 1987; Sa wyer, 2000; Tumlinson, 1991; Webster, 1987, 1990). Quantitative research in jazz improvisation is less abundant ( Bash, 1984; Burnsed, 1978; Coggiola, 2004; Laughlin, 2001; Madura, 1996; May, 2003; McDaniel, 1974; Pfenninger, 1990; Tumlinson, 1991), though
17 a number of experimental studies serve as mo dels for the present study. Few research ers have focused upon objective measurement of jazz improvisation. Burnsed (1978) rated middle school blues improvisations. His rating instrument was adapte d from Partchey (1973) who evaluated sixth grade mallet percussion solos. Others, including Bash (1984), Horowitz (1995), Laughlin (2001), Madura (1996), May (2003), McPherson (1993), Pfenninger (1991), and Tumlinson (1991), have evaluated student jazz improvisations using rating scales. Researchers (Azzara, 1993; Tumlinson, 1991) have included stylistic elements such as phrasing, dynamics, and articulation as criteria within jazz rating instruments, yet no studies have placed particular emphasis upon performance of jazz style or the relat ionship between articulation and style. Benward and Wildman (1977) explained the importance of articulation, stating that anyone who has heard a non jazz player read a transcribed Charlie Parker solo and then has compared that performance with the origina l recording knows the importance of articulation for idiomatic jazz performance (p. 63). In addition, jazz method texts typically devote very little space to articulation. Benward and Wildmans (1977) lengthy resource designated only four pages to the subject. Baker (1983) devoted less than one page to articulation and Wilson provided a chapter on articulation, but included nothing regarding tongue -slur patterns. Furthermore, jazz directors typically spend little rehearsal time teaching students how to art iculate particular phrases. Baker (1983) described articulation as the manner in which a note is attacked or a group of notes is attacked or joined together (p. 13). Two specific components of articulation were addressed in this study: 1. Patterns of ton guing and slurring (especially in eighth note patterns) for wind instrumentalists 2. Legato phrasing and smoothness of note initiation
18 Legato phrasing and the smoothness associated with it may be considered strictly a stylistic/interpretive technique. On th e other hand, patterns of tonguing and slurring affect the fluidity and timing of playing jazz lines, which will in turn influence a players style. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of articulation practice on the stylistic interpretation of jazz melodies and improvisations for high school wind musicians. The study was guided by the following research question : What is the effect of articulation instruction on stylistic expression in jazz performance for high school saxophone, trombone and trumpet players? To address this question, the following sub -questions were examined: 1. To what extent is articulation taught and demonstrated in jazz band rehearsals, arrangements and jazz method texts? 2. To what extent does methodical articulation practice enhance stylistic expression of melodies? 3. To what extent does practice of articulation exercises improve technical facility? 4. To what extent does practice of articulation exercises improve ones ability to improvise, especi ally with regard to stylistic interpretation? 5. Do students who practice articulation studies improve overall jazz performance ability to a greater extent than those who do not engage in such practice? 6. What were the students attitudes regarding improvisat ion and articulation instruction? Participants engaged in pretest and post test performances of a researcher -designed jazz interpretation profile. The profile consist ed of jazz melodies, scales and a sample blues i mprovisation. A j azz scale using various articulations w as performed to control for instrumental ability. Two participant groups (A and B) underwent a period of jazz ensemble and improvisation ins truction. Group A (control) studied jazz melodies in the context of ensemble
19 rehearsal and receive d improvisation instruction. In addition to course study in jazz im provisation and jazz ensemble, Group B (experimental) engage d in a number of jazz articulation exercises. It is hypothesized that s tudents in Group B will show no signific ant improvement on profile post test scores. Definition of Terms This study involves some terms in need of clarification, which will be defined as follows: a. Articulation: T he pattern of tonguing and slurring when playing consecutive notes in a phrase. This is a non -comprehensi ve definition used only for the purposes of this study. b. Audiation : T he ability to hear and feel music for which the sound is not physically present (Gordon, 1986, p. 3). c. Basic blues: A 12-measure form consisting solely of dominant seventh chords (ex. B uc hholz Blues, Appendix L ) built solely on the first, fourth and fifth scale degrees and following the standard blues progression. d. Bebop scale: A n eight -note scale, which may be described as a major scale including the lowered seventh scale degree (Figure 3 1). e. Call and response : A n ear -training method in which the instructor plays a short musical phrase and the students imitate that phrase on their instruments. f. Interpretation: T he manner in which a melody is played; e xecution of style g. Jazz ensemble : A jazz big band, consisting of a rhythm section (piano, bass, drums and often guitar) and horns, which typically include five saxophones, four to five trombones and four to five trumpets. h. Minor pentatonic scale: A five -tone sc ale relative to the major pentatonic. For example, A minor pentatonic consists of the same tones as C major pentatonic (C, D, E, G, A). The tonality of the scale changes, however, when starting on or emphasizing the sixth scale degree (in this case, A). i. P hrasing: C ohesive nature of a melodic phrase; phrasing is qualified through expressive elements including dynamics and articulation. j. Piano voicing: The selection and organization of chord tones to be performed on piano for a given chord.
20 k. Style : A uthentic ity of performance within the given musical idiom. Style is evaluated in terms of tone quality, phrasing and articulation. l. Swing : C haracteristic rhythmic feel originating with the 1930s swing era. While swing rhythms are often described as having a triplet -feel, n o accurate form of notation exists to properly reflect swing. Significance of the Study Results of this study will benefit jazz educators and student musicians. Articulation notation is often not specified in jazz arrangements. The necessary degree of specificity dictates that band leaders seldom spend time teaching proper articulation patterns. Articulation patterns become inherent through listening and practice for jazz musicians. With knowledge on the effects of articulation practice, jazz educa tors may enhance the collective stylistic interpretation of their jazz ensemble, as well as that of its soloists. Methodical articulation practice may prove beneficial for students overall jazz performance. In addition to improved style, students will li kely make gains in technical proficiency. Improvised solos will be executed with a greater degree of fluency. With an established repertoire of articulation exercises, stylistic expression in jazz performance will be facilitated more effectively than throu gh rote methods of the past. Delimitations The following areas are not addressed in this study: a. a ny type of musical performance other than jazz b. j azz musicians at levels other than high school c. c omponents of articulation other than tongue -slur patterns (e. g., rooftop accents and staccato articulation )
21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This review of literature consists of the following seven topics: (1) t heories on musical style (2) p hilosophical rationales (3) j azz education history, (4) j azz improvisation (5) i mprovisation research 6). Jazz pedagogy and (7) j azz articulation The initial topic contains a description of Meyers (1989) theory of style and syntax, which serves as a theoretical rationale for the current study. The second topic consists of philosophical views regarding modes of learning which relate to methodological procedures and hypothesized results in the current study. The third topic involves a brief history of jazz education, including a description of the evolution of ja zz methodology. The fourth topic is a discussion of the nature and importance of ja zz improvisation, with descriptions of findings from some who have determined that jazz improvisation can be taught. The fifth topic includes information from related jazz i mprovisation research and research studies pertaining to musical style The sixth topic is a surve y of jazz teaching materials, with details on ways in which style and improvisation are addressed within those materials. The seventh topic is concerning jazz style, expression and the nature of the relationship between articulation and style Style Theory A central premise for this study is supported by Meyers (1989) theory of style, constraints, and syntactical choices made within those constraints. Meyer stated: Style is a replication of patterning, whether in human behavior or in the artifacts produced by human behavior, that results from a series of choices made within some set of constraints (1989, p. 3). Garber claimed that we seriously need to deve lop a more complete understanding of the syntaxes of jazz (1995, p. 75). Some syntactical restraints appear to be unique to jazz (Elliott, 1983). In the Foreword to the International Association of Jazz Educations (IAJE) Jazz Studies
22 Guide (Caramia et al ., 2001), Dave Brubeck noted that style is a unique characteristic of jazz. He described the components of jazz (particularly notation, harmony, and scales) as being synonymous with those of classical music, but with stylistic differences. Brubeck stated t hat understanding the difference in style is similar to knowing the difference between a Mozart interpretation from a Chopin (Caramia et al., 2001, p. 4). Poulter (2008) bolstered Meyers style theory, noting the constraint of a time continuum allows expression within constraints, creativity within a framework (p. 3). He also cited the necessity of discipline when learning an artful skill. If true, musicians may learn to operate within musical constraints, ultimately enhancing stylistic capacities. Gene rative devices in the form of scales, melodies, rhythms, articulation patterns, etc. (p. 10) must be firmly established for effective jazz performance. Poulter noted that learning situations are to be guided by constraints. Limiting and refining the generative possibilities reduces the cognitive load (p. 10). Bash and Kuzmich (1989) provided further support, explaining jazz articulation is based on several practices and rules of interpretation and phrasing (p. 90). Meyer (1989) also noted that in t he arts, the constraints governing the choices made are seldom explicitly recorded or consciously conceptualized, even by those most accomplished in their use (p. 12). Elliott (1983) explains chief among the laments of the experts is the frequency with w hich the salient aspects of jazz style seem to elude both teachers and students (p. 164). Musicians often cannot verbally describe how they perform certain functions. They conceptualize a particular sound quality and aim to produce it. However, if musicians can explain how to achieve a particular performance standard, others will likely benefit. Garber (1995) explained the paradox involved here. Jazz musicians learn by mimicking others, yet it is originality that sets the jazz musician apart from others. T hus, through mimicking one learns not
23 only the textuality of jazz but that jazz has a textuality (Garber, 1995, p. 75). A goal in all educational settings is to facilitate understanding, which in turn leads to accelerated learning. By establishing syntac tic rules and sets of possibilities within parameters, it becomes more probable that desirable choices be made. Musicians may be more likely to achieve positive results. Because musical style is an essential component of improvisation, connections exist b etween theories on style and creativity. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) developed a well known and expansive theory of creative process. He explained that creative domains involve symbolic rules nested in culture. A succinct definition of creativity is given as t he process by which a symbolic domain in the culture is changed (1996, p. 8). According to Csikszentmihalyi (1996), creativity contains three primary elements: (1) c ulture containing symbolic rules (2) a person contributing novelty within a symbolic domain, and (3) A field of exper ts to provide validation (p. 6) He duly noted that musicians involved in creative process (i.e. improvisation) must initially learn within established traditions and techniques Theoretical postulations heretofore described provide support for a systematic examination of creativity, style, and articulation. Style theories reveal the likelihood that it is possible to develop valid, structured forms of musical practice resulting in the enhancement of students abilities in the expressive domain. Substantial attention to th eory may direct music research and music education toward development of valid practice methods and routines Theory indicate s that outcomes from this study will provide evidence that practice of articulation exercises enhance stylistic interpretation for high school jazz musicians. Philosophical Rationale Philosophical validation exists (Berliner, 1994; Elliott, 1986, 1995; Reimer, 2004; Whyton, 2006) for resear ch and deliberation of syntactical teaching and learning methods in the expressive domain of jazz performance. Syntactical learning in jazz include s facets such as
24 tech nique development kinesthetic learning specialized practice, study of written musical patterns, and procedural knowledge acquisition, which Elliott (1986) referred to as processual meaning (p. 45) Philosophy provides evidence which help s to substantiate these facets of syntactical learning Philosophy also provides a rationale for student development of creative (e.g., improvisational) abilities Jazz ensemble performance provides opportunities for students to participate in the creative musical domain through improvisation. Reimer (2004) noted that general music programs adequately address content standards one and two (which involve development of vocal and instrumental ability) of the National Standards (Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994), but neglect or do not adequately addres s the other standards. H e stated that few general music programs achieve the f ull, balanced array of learning the nine content areas delineate as being basic (p. 34). Students need opportunities to broaden musical understanding (Reimer, 2004) and participating in jazz ensemble facilitates those opportunities. Syntactical teaching and learning requires a degree of structure and explicitness. Regelski (2005) postulate d that spec ialized learning take s place in jazz ensembles. He advocated approaching general music classes and ense mbles as laboratories, where general skills are taught, then honed by engagement in and study of a highly specialized practice (p. 237). Specialized learning may refer to knowledge of particular techniques which are acquired through procedural learning Cutietta and Stauffer (2005) claimed just as formal knowledge grows directly out of the verbal learning mode, technical knowledge grows directly out of the procedural learning mode ( p. 128). Elliott (1986, 1995) hypothesized that students learn best by attaining knowledge through procedures, or active learning, and that jazz has generators of both syntactical and processual
25 meaning (1986, p. 45). He explained that jazz is a way of performing; a way of being in music (p. 45). His philosophical stance relates to learning techniques (e.g., articulation patte rns) unique to jazz. This position bears philosophical implications for music educators. Elliott (1986) stated that teachers must blend preconceived tasks and sequences with processes their own intu itions tell them are potentially significant for students (p. 46). Elliott (1995) explicitly corroborated the importance of articulation ability in relation to his own musical development : This legato aspect of my musicianship developed as an aside (in pa renthetical relation) to the central thrust of my effort: learning to make music artistically in relation to the norms and ideals of a specific musical practice. (p. 61 62) Elliott (1995) studied with a trombone instructor, whose objective was to improve E lliotts legato articulation ability, which resulted in improved performance of jazz ballads. Elliott (1995) contended that procedural knowledge enhances performance ability, and also guides understanding, resulting in greater appreciation when listening t o music. Articulation skill requires the physical ability of manipulating the ton gue and airstream in a fluid manner, which influences melodic flow. Smoothness of articulation also depends upon the musicians physical ability to operate saxophone keys, trumpet valves, or the trombone slide in conjunction with the air stream and tongue movement. Consequently, practice of articulation patterns involves kinesthetic learning. Elliott (1986) explained that kinesthetic involvement in the performance of jazz can be a significant factor in the generation of processual musical meaning (p. 49). Elliott (1986) proposed that kinesthetic learning enhances expression of the rhythmic dimension of jazz and that rhythmic/kinesthetic learning can take place through teacher -s tudent interactions (i.e., call and response which was a technique used in treatments for the current study. For a description of call and response methods see Appendices D and E ). Berliner (1994) provided further support for the significance of physical skill when playing jazz:
26 The ideas that soloists realize during performances depend as much on the bodys own actions as on the bodys synchronous response to the mind. The body can take momentary control over particular activities -such as articula tion of a well -worn vocabulary pattern or a lengthy new phrase transmitted to it. (p. 190) Berliner (194) explained the connection between motor skills and musical cognition with an analogy to linguistic articulation, but he also related motor skills to technique in instrumental perform ance: When leading, the body pursues physical courses shaped not only by the musical language of jazz, but by idiomatic patterns of movement associated with the playing techniques of an instrument (p. 190). Elliott (1995) cited particular applications for kinesthetic learning, in which students incorporate action goals when developing melodic expression or the rhythmic concept of swing in jazz : Action goals target specific details of selected musical challenges. For example, within the larger action -goal of learning to interpret and perform a selected musical work, students might focus on such sub goals as learning how to interpret the melodic expressions of sadness in a Romantic choral work or learning how to perform jazz swing authentically. (p. 278) Some may consider procedural knowledge, study of patterns, and kinesthetic learning an overtly canonical approach for students learning jazz perf ormance. However, Elliott (1995), Koopman (2005), and Whyton (2006) cited a necessity for, and benefits of the development and implementation of a jazz canon. Koopman (2005) explained that jazz performance practices have become standardized, but also demand extensive technical skill: For many musicians, amateurs and professionals alike, large parts of the repertoire remain beyond reach because of the heavy demands they make on the performers technique (p. 89). Syntactical, procedural, and kinesthetic lea rning are considerably linked with technical ability in music. Whyton (2006) cited the potential of canonical jazz education in terms of community support.
27 The construction and celebration of a jazz canon facilitates a quasi -hegemonic form of control over the discourse, in which education is used as a support mechanism to disseminate its power to the wider jazz community. (p. 75) Whyton s comments appear to be cautionary, if not outright accusat ory. He explained the apparent indictment by regarding the pot ential for jazz pedagogy constituting a threat to inherent social values associated with the music: Pedagogy has the critical potential to expose jazzs celebration of autonomous art, hidden beneath the mask of jazz as social text. It is therefore understandable that education has a threatening potential, and thus tends to be discredited by certain sectors of the jazz community. ( 2006, p. 74) Though some in the jazz community are incredulous about a canonical approach to education, educators are ab le to elicit support through the use of methodology. Whyton (2006) explicated that the benefits of a canonical approach to jazz education include development of objective standards, which aid educators when seeking support for materials, programs, or publi cations. S kepticism regarding jazz improvisation education is often due to pedagogical emphasis on scales and technical patterns. This skepticism is valid to a degree considering the need fo r students to understand melodic development when improvising. Over use of patterns when improvising may result in triteness confounding ones ability to develop coherent melodies However, study of patterns may prove to be valuable when combined intuitively. Articulation patterns, in particular, may result in developme nt of technique, eventually leading to melodic fluidity and stylistic authenticity. Elliott (1995) stated that It is entirely appropriate to describe competent musical performers as thinking very hard and very deeply (but tacitly) as they perform (or impr ovise) as they construct and chain musical patterns together; as they vary, transform, and abstract musical patterns; as they judge the quality of their musical constructions in relation to specific criteria and traditions of musical practice; and as they interpret the emotional expressiveness of musical patterns. (p. 56) Canonical, procedural, syntactic, and kinesthetic approaches to learning jazz performance are grounded in philosophy. The philosophies delineated here may be considered a tapestry,
28 weaving an image of viable skill development in the expressive domain of jazz performance. Philosophical declarations of music educators (Berliner, 1994; Cutietta & Stauffer, 2005; Elliott, 1986, 1995; Reimer, 2004; Whyton, 2006) provide a rationale for conducting methodological, syntactical research in jazz education. Jazz Education History L iterature pertaining to jazz performance and education reveals that jazz is a valid and uniquely American art form (Bash & Kuzmich, 1989; Caramia et al., 2001; Collier, 1993; Dobbins, 1988; Elliott, 1983; Goins, 2003; Hazell, Porter & Ullman, 1993; McKeage, 2004; Poulter, 2008). Consequently, jazz has become increasingly established in academia (Elliott, 1983; Ferguson, 2004; Fischer, 2003; Gabbard, 1995; Goins, 2003; Mark, 1987; May, 2003; Whyton, 2006). In 1941, The New School of Social Research in New York became the first school to offer jazz history courses, taught by jazz aficionados Leonard Feather, Robert Goffin, and Marshall Stearns (Milkowski, 2001). In 1942, Ge ne Hall, a graduate student at North Texas State (now the University of North Texas), composed a dissertation on curriculum for dance band majors. His work became the basis for a jazz studies degree at North Texas, the first public university to offer such a degree (Milkowski, 2001). In 1947, The North Texas Two oClock Lab Band was the first performing jazz ensemble for which students received credit hours (Milkowski, 2001). In 1945, engineer, pianist and arranger Lawrence Berk began teaching at the Schil linger House of Music. The school changed its name to the Berklee School of Music in 1954. In 1966, Berklee awarded its first Bachelor of Arts degrees. Seven years later, Berklee was accredited and became the Berklee College of Music (Milkowski, 2001). To this day, North Texas and Berklee are two of the leading jazz studies programs in America. Edwards, Griffin, and OMeally (2004) provided further validation of collegiate jazz studies:
29 One of the wondrous oddities of our current moment is that the best adv ice to a serious jazz player in training is not to drop out and study in New Yorks nightclubs but to attend one of the several conservatories where excellent jazz instruction, by accomplished jazz artists, i s richly available. (p. 1) Jazz ensembles in hig h schools have become more prevalent as well. In 1960, there were approximately 5,000 high school jazz bands; by 1970, that number tripled (Milkowski, 2001). Music educators interested in jazz education met in 1965 at the Music Educators National Conventio n (MENC), and formed the NAJE (National Association for Jazz Educators), now an international organization). In 1968, it became an affiliate of MENC (Milkowski, 2001). Jazz education extends beyond high school and college ensembles. Ferguson (2004) sugges ted the importance of elementary school students learning about various jazz genres. Yet, some educators and researchers hold negative attitudes about the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of jazz in education (Dobbins, 1988; Mark, 1987; Whyton, 2006). Whyton (2006) explained jazz education is discredited through claims that it is responsible for stifling creativity and the development of jazz (p. 74). Bash (1991) noted the dif f iculty of teaching and evaluating jazz improvisation. One such difficulty stems from the fact that many educators lack the knowledge and skill to effectively teach jazz. Sawyer (1999) claimed that music educators have traditionally been concerned with teaching skills related to the notated music of the European canon: Composition, reading, and instrumental performance (p. 192). Others have cite d the m usical benefits of st udying jazz performance. Dobbins (1988) listed th e following musical benefits: a. a bility to maintain tempo b. n ecessity for understanding of music theory c. c reative interdependence between musician and group d. m usical experience integrated in to the daily lives of students
30 Chappell (2007) noted the advantage of musical interaction when using jazz as a teaching tool. One form of interaction takes place wh en soloists and rhythm section players respond to each others rhythmic, melodic, and harmonic devices. Wehr -Flowers (2006) stated: Jazz studies offer students an opportunity to be creative and expressive through improvisation in an art form derived from m usical elements of many cultures. Jazz improvisation is also spontaneous improvisation in a musical language that is uniquely American; therefore, the study of jazz and its people and culture can be considered an essential component of studying American hi story and American music education. (p. 338) Recent emphasis on accountability and standardized objectives in education provides further validation. Jazz studies provide a musical format in which teachers may address each of the nine National Standards for music education (Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Wehr Flowers, 2006). Jazz education has been a substantial component of secondary and post -secondary music curriculums for over 60 years. The contributions of jazz to American music history and music education est ablish an enduring position for jazz studies and performance. Research on jazz performance and jazz improvisation is needed to inform the growing field of jazz educators and pedagogues. Examinations of musical expression and creativity may produce results transmittable to other musical genres. Jazz Improvisation Improvisation is a defining element of jazz performance (Chappell, 2007; Gould & Keaton, 2000; Rose, 1985) and an essential aspect in music educat ion (Mark, 1996; Lehman, 1999; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002). As one of nine National Standards for music education, improvisation is considered not only an essential element of jazz performance, but it is also an important skill in demonstrating musical creativity. Poulter (2008) explained that Improvisation cons titutes the original element in the musical evolution of all societies. Even today, most indigenous and folk music styles retain improvised elements. Some, such as ragas and flamenco, operate according to well developed and complex patterns of improvisatio n. (p. 7)
31 Sawyer (1999) stated that several music educators have pointed out that improvisation requires the ability to think musically, what is sometimes called audiation; whereas performing from a score does not require this kind of cognitive processi ng (p. 203). Yet, because improvisation does not have high value in Western music, teachers rarely learn the skill (Sawyer, 1999). Byo (1999) found that of the nine National Standards, music educators are least likely to implement improvisation and compos ition. This is likely due to the challenging nature of teaching creative acts in music. The spontaneous nature of improvisation has led many to ask the question: Can improvisation be taught? The lack of familiarity with jazz and improvisation breeds the standard nave view that it is pure inspiration and cant be taught (Sawyer, 1999, p. 203). May (1998) explained jazz improvisation has often been thought of as a gift of self -expression that lends itself to neither instruction nor evaluation (p. 1). Be ssom, Forcucci, and Tatarunis (1980) disputed this view: Improvisatory skill does not come easily, but it is possible to teach it to high school students, and even beginning levels of improvisation can contribute a great deal to music learning (p. 143). Poulter (2008) explained the necessity for improvisation practice. Aspiring improvisers must master certain musical elements (e.g., rhythm, harmony, melody, and stylistic expression) in order to effectively function within the jazz genre. Poulter (2008) s tated that w hile the inclination to improvise is universal, the ability to improvise musically must be attained through rehearsal ( p. 5). Educators have designed and implemented methods for attaining improvisation ability. Bingham (2007) designed and tested an improvisation module for beginning band students. The purpose was to develop improvisation skills for beginning wind musicians in a concert ensemble setting. W hile an abundance of resources are available that aid individual instruction, Bingham
32 (2007) noted that improvisation materials designed for group setting s are limited. Binghams study included the following v ariables : judges scores on a pretest consisting of six melodies, posttest scores for the same melodies, a post treatment measurement of students ability to play arpeggios, and a measure of improvisational ability. Scores for each variable ranged from 1 to 10, though no subscores for particular performance aspects were given. No correlat ion coefficients were reported A paired t test wa s used to measure posttest gains on performance of melodies. Improvement was found to be significant ( p = 0.00 for five of the six melodies, though only 52% of the total sample scores ( N = 72) were included. Bingham (2007) reported that the module improved students articulation in terms of maturity. To teach improvisation, educators must be able to objectively evaluate student progress. The challenge involved with improvisation stems from the fact that improvisation requires mastery of many musical skills Poulter (2008) characterized successful improvisation as that which exhibits the characteristic elements of the common practice styles of jazz performance (p. 29). He duly noted the necessity for recognizable indicators of success. Poulter (2008) proposed that those indicators include: a. m usical fundamentals b. p ulse and meter c. i nternal rhythm d. a rticulation e. c orrect style f. rhythmic interest g. n ote choice h. s olo development i. s pace j. i nteraction k. m elody and phrasing l. d ynamics m. s pecial effects n. o verall shape
33 o. c reativity p. e motional impact (p. 29 33) Rose (1985) stated: problems arise when attempts are made to evaluate the quality of an improvised solo (p. 46). He explained that isolation of musical elements is necessary to better evaluate student abilities. Rose (1985) di vided jazz improvisation into eight elements: a. t ransition/continuity b. s cales, modes and non -harmonic tones c. response/sensitivity d. e xpressiveness e. c ontinuity/sense of direction f. t echnical skill g. a ccuracy h. e xploration (p. 47) Dunsc omb and Hill (2002) also argued that improvisation can be taught. Their theory stemmed from the belief that the key to improvisation ability is internalizing the language of jazz, often referred to as jazz vocabulary ( Berg, 2002; Berline r, 1994, p. 95; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002, p. 10; Wi lson, 2002, p. 190). Azzara (1993) explained that improvisation means that an individual has internalized a music vocabulary and is able to understand and to express musical ideas spontaneously (p. 330). Further more if students learn to improvise through construction of patterns via use of scales, modes and arpeggios, educators must be privy to ways those devices are synthesized in the formation of melody. If jazz performance is indeed analogous to linguistics, then articulation may be considered critic al to performance ability. Johnson -Laird (1988) provided further support for the language analogy. According to Johnson -Laird, improvisers depend upon a set of basic structures that are committed to memory (p. 77). Improvising requires application of t hose basic structures, as in the process of
34 conversing. Johnson-Laird (1988) substantiated the importance of formal structure in music with a theory proposed by Igor Stravinsky: The advantage of studying music is that it can be treated as a pu rely formal, syntactic exercise; and at least one great composer, Stravinsky, argued in his Poetics of Music that music should be composed and listened to as purely formal patterns in time. By studying musical improvisation, a psychologist accrues yet another advantage : improvisers perform in real time, that is, they cannot go back and change what they have played. (p. 77) Johnson -Laird further noted that improvisers initially learn through aural imitation. Imitation (i.e. the aural approach) has long been the method utilized by jazz performers. As did Poulter (2008), Berg (2002) stressed the importance of ear -training via call and response practice: Remember, any language is most quickly assimilated through listening and imitation (p. 43). Berliner (1994) explained that artists aural understanding and appreciation of music guide interpretation of theoretical material and drive its applications (p. 168). He stated that theoretical and aural knowledge coexist. While some jazz musicians learn primarily through theore tical/syntactical approaches, others have been brought up in the aural mode. Berliners text constitutes a thorough case study on the process of learning to improvise. Included in his explorations are the relationship between composition and improvisation, pathways to understanding improvisation (absorption, interpretation, and synthesis), and standard practices of improvisers throughout differing jazz genres. Literature pertaining to jazz improvisation reveals that improvisation ability requires practice, skill mastery, and unique forms of cognition. The creative nature of jazz improvisation presents educational challenges, but findings demonstrate that it can be taught. Improvisation ability is most effectively facilitated when educators utilize criteria indicators for success. The analogy of jazz improvisation to linguistics is a recurring theme found in literature pertaining to jazz improvisation. This analogy has implications for research in the areas of jazz improvisation
35 and expression. Language acqui sition methods (i.e., aural imitation) have been considered in jazz methodologies and studies pertaining to jazz improvisation research. Improvisation Research Elliott (1983) called for more rigorous standards of research and intellection (p. 171) in the field of jazz studies. Though jazz research may be considered to be in an infa ntile stage, many studies exist regarding improvisation. Q uantitativ e research in the field of jazz studies is challenging due to the personal, subjective and creative nature o f spontaneous music performance. Poulter (2008) explained while current practices are increasingly informed by research and sound pedagogy, they remain inescapably rooted to past exigencies (p. 15). However many studies on the subject s of jazz and/or im provisation have been conducted which serve as models for the present study Some have examined non -jazz improvisation (Azzara, 1993; Brophy, 1998; Partchey, 1973) while others (Bash, 1984; Briscuso, 1972; Burnsed, 1978; Horowitz, 1995; Laughlin, 2001; Madura, 1996; Marcus, 2004; May, 1998; Paulson, 1985; Pfenninger, 1990; Tumlinson, 1991) have conducted studies specific to jazz improvisation. McDaniel (1974) examined musical, cultural, and socioeconomic differences between jazz and non jazz musicians. The nature of improvisation with regard to skill development has also been investigated (Berliner, 1994; Brophy, 2005; JohnsonLaird, 1988; Partchey, 1973; Pressing, 1987; Sawyer, 2000; Webster, 1987, 1990). Briscuso (1972) explored relationships between jazz improvisation ability and Musical Aptitude Profile (MAP) (Gordon, 1965) scores. Briscusos (1972) study involved high school musicians ( N = 48). He administered improvisation instruction once per week for a 30 week period. Students performed prepared and spontaneous improvisations on a 32 -measure pop song (p. 15) and a 12-bar blues. Improvisations were rated by three judges using five -point
36 Likert scales (5 = excellent, 4 = above average, 3 = average, 2 = below average, 1 = poor) for the following criteria: a. h armonic awareness b. rhythmic development and interest c. m elodic expressiveness d. a bility to play with jazz style e. i ndividuality (p. 17) Interjudge reliability ranged from r = .44 to .73. Briscuso (1972) clai med that because students played arrangements during treatment, that the research was an investigation of jazz style and interpreta tion. The general objective of the course was to develop improvisational facility that would demonstrate students ability t o play jazz style (p. 14). However, n o specific results were reported on the style or expression criteria. Student improvisation scores were divided into three equal levels (highest n = 18, middle n = 18, and lowest n = 18 scores) based upon MAP results An ANOVA was used to examine interactions between t otal means on each of the four performances type of improvisation (spontaneous and prepared) and aptitud e level. Interactions between jazz improvisation ability and MAP scores on the Rhythm and Tonal I magery subtests were not significant, but interactions with the Musical Sensitivity subtest were reported to be significant at the p = .05 level This indicated that relationships exist between MAP Musical Sensitivity scores and improvisation achievement f or both spontaneous and prepared improvisation. Briscuso (1972) also obtained significant results for interactions between improvisation ability and the two types of improvisation. Student scores on prepared improvisations were higher than scores on sponta neous improvisations. These results indicated that with additional specific instruction, all students, regardless of aptitude levels, are able to impr ove improvisational performance (p. 37).
37 Some researchers have developed reliable instruments for evalua tion of students creative musical products. Partchey (1973) rated sixth graders (N = 165) improvisations on mallet percussion instruments. Three judges evaluated student products using a nine -point scale for the following criteria: 1. p itch accuracy 2. rhythmic clarity 3. t onal variety 4. rhythmic variety 5. u nity. The first two criteria were considered performance criteria and the last three were considered creative criteria. The rating scale ranged from 1 to 9, using the terms weakest and strongest as an chors. Interjudge reliability coefficients on pretest and posttest performances ranged from r = .91 to .95 for performance, creativity, and performance/creativity combined. Participants were divided into three treatment groups: feedback, models and repetit ion. Each treatment involved a particular form of intervention between initial and subsequent improvisation performance s. T he repetition treatment involved no intervention. Partchey used an ANOVA to examine the effects of treatments on gain scores No sign ificance was found for mean gains among the treatment groups. Significance was found for gain scores within groups on the creativity ( p < .05) and combined ( p < .01) tests. This indicated that treatments did not have significantly different effects, but th at each of the treatments produced significant gains on creativity and combined test scores. M ean gains (creative = 5.80/combined = 7.73) for the feedback treatment group were higher than the other two groups ( models group creative = 3.60/combined = 1.85, repetition group creative = 1.85/combined = 3.25). This result led Partchey to administer a t test to examine differences between scores for the feedback group and
38 the average of scores for the other two groups. Those differences were evident, but not sign ificant ( p < .20). Brophy (2005) conducted a three year longitudinal study on the developmental nature of childrens (N = 62) xylophone improvisations. He designed and administered a measure of mallet skill to control for instrumental ability. Brophy (200 5) analyzed structural characteristics of improvisation, including repeated and developed melodic motives, repeated and developed rhythmic motives, pulse adherence, phrases, and antecent/consequent phrases (p. 120). Quantification of structural character istics was expressed by number of occurrences. Each characteristic was o perational ly defined. For example, a developed melodic motive was defined as 3 7 pitches that form a distinct pattern that is simultaneously different from and similar to a previously performed melodic motive (p. 125). To establish reliability, two judges participated in quantification (range r = .81 to .91). A repeated measures MANCOVA was used in data analysis with age (range 7 9) as the independent variable and structural characteristics as dependent variables Results indicated significant effects ( p < .049) of age for repeated melodic motives, pulse adherence, repeated rhythmic motives, and antecent/consequent phrases but no significant effects for development of melodic motives Mallet skill was found to have a significant effect ( p < .01) on improvisation ability. Brophy proposed that improvisation is developmental in nature, noting that experience is related to ones ability to improvise meaningfully. T he research desi gn utilized in Brophys study provided a model for future studies, especially regarding operational defining of structural characteristics in music and the application of control for instrumental ability. Azzara (1993) investigated the effects of improvisation study on the music achievement of fifth grade (N = 66) wind and percussion students. Azzara designed an improvisation curriculum,
39 which served as the treatment for the study. At the end of the treatment period, participants performed three researcher -composed etudes used to measure musical achievement. One etude was student -prepared, another was prepared with help from the instructor/researcher, and the third was sight read. Four judges rated instrumental performance of the three etudes using five poin t scales on each of three musical dimensions (tonal, rhythm, and expression). Azzara Azzaras (1993) rating scales consisted of continuous criteria for the tonal and rhythm ic dimensions and additive criteria for the expressive dimension. Each criterion level was described verbally. Additive criteria for the expressive dimension were: 1. The student gives movement to the music 2. The student demonstrates an understanding of dynami cs 3. The student has good tone quality. 4. The student plays with an appropriate style of articulation. 5. The student demonstrates an understanding of the appropriate phrasing (p. 334) Groups were divided into experimental (receiving improvisation instruction) and control (no receiving improvisation instruction). Group mean differences of instrumental achievement were analyzed using a two -way ANOVA. Azzara found that those who received improvisation instruction performed at significantly higher achievement levels than students without improvisation instruction on two of the three etudes ( p < .05) H e concluded that improvisation skills contribute to more accurate student instrumental pe rformances when reading from notation (p. 339). Instrumental jazz improvisation researchers include Burnsed (1978) who rated middle school (grades 7 -9) students ( n experimental = 114, n control = 121) blues improvisations with the purpose of developing a reliable, formal evaluation of jazz improvisation. Experimental treatment in Burnseds study consisted of 20 minute improvisation lessons for five weeks. The
40 control group received no additional treatment. Burnsed obtained pretest and posttest ratings for improvisation, sight reading ability, and students attitudes toward band. His improvisation rating instrument was adapted from Partchey s (1973) measure of sixth grade mallet percussion solos. Burnsed asked three judges t o evaluate eight criteria of solos using a three-point rating scale. The three levels were described as low, middle, and high. Improvisation scores ranged from 3 24. Criteria included the following : a. repetition b. i mitation c. rhythmic contrast d. t onal contrast e. p hr asing f. rhythmic accuracy g. p ulse accuracy h. p itch acuracy He achieved moderate interjudge reliability (r = .58, r = 72 and r = .76, composite r = .6 9). Burnsed explained that moderate reliability was likely caused by a few factors. The rating criteria modeled after Partchey (1973) may not translate well to jazz. Another consideration was that one of the three judges had little experience with middle school band students. T test results suggested that improvisation instruction had significant effects ( p < .05) on sight reading ability within all grade levels and treatment groups except for the 8th grade control group and the 9th grade experimental group. ANCOVA results for the overall effects of improvisation instruction on sight reading ability were not significant ( p < .267). Burnsed administered Gordons (1965) MAP to measure students musical aptitude. He found that aptitude and improvisation posttest scores did not strongly correlate ( r = .29). Burnsed used the Watkins -Farnum (1954) Performance Scale (WFPS) to obtain pretest and posttest measures of instrumental sight reading ability. Due to time constraints, sight reading pe rformances were limited to 8measure phrases fro m three selections Three judges rated WFPS
41 phrase selections for pitch and rhythm accuracy, using additive scales ranging from 1 8 (one poin t for each accurate measure) on each of the criteria. Reliability c oefficients ranged from r = .89 to .93. In the same study, Burnsed (1978) measured students attitudes toward band using a researcher -designed attitude profile. The profile consisted of 23 items, each consisting of four responses, ranging from strongly di sagree (1 point) to strongly agree (4 points). A sample item stated that band would be important even without concerts and football halftime shows (p. 110). Reliability for the attitude scale was calculated using Cronbachs alpha, and ranged from r = .87 to .94. An ANCOVA for pretest to posttest differences between treatment groups on the attitude profile resulted in significance ( p < .02). Experimental group students attitude profile scores toward band improved, while control group students attitude pr ofile scores did not improve. This suggested that students attitudes toward band improve after experiencing improvisation instruction. Bash (1983) examined the effectiveness of three instructional methods on the acquisition of jazz improvisation skills i n high school instrumentalists ( N = 60) The first method was technical, with emphasis on chords and scales. The second method was aural, and supplemented the first method through vocal and instrumental imitation. Bash (1983) claimed that all aural percep tion activities encompassed stylistic gestures of the non -technical dimension (p. 53). The third method was analytical, and supplemented the first method with analysis of classic jazz recordings. Treatments were administered one hour per week for seven weeks at a local college on Saturday mornings. Experimental treatments from other studies tend to take place in the context of jazz ensemble rehearsal.
42 Bash (1983) created an Improvisation Performance Instrument (IPI) in which he employed seven -point Liker t scales (low = 1 2, average = 3 5, high = 6 7) for ten criteria: 1. n ote accuracy (within chords) 2. p rogression accuracy (among chords) 3. i ntonation 4. t ime 5. s tyle (appropriate to the music) 6. e xcitement 7. c ommunication of ideas 8. p hrasing 9. e xpression (plays with emotion) 10. a rticulation (uses a variety of attacks) (p. 199) Eighteen jazz educators participated in a validity assessment of the IPI. Bash expressed validity of the IPI through agreement percentiles (range 73% to 94%) resulting from those assessments. The IPI was ad ministered in pretests and posttests. Participants were divided into three groups for the varying forms of treatments and one control group, which received no improvisation instruction. Improvisation products assessed with the IPI consisted of two choruses of blues Bash found that the IPI may serve as a predictor for improvisation potential. Three jazz educators judged the total sample of improvisations. Reliability for composite IPI scores ranged from r = .83 to .95. Bash measured relationships between IP I pretest scores and age ( r = .197), Gordon (1965) MAP total raw scores (range r = -.154 to .117), and scores on the Musical Sensitivity portion of the MAP ( r = -.154, .075, and .010 on the three Musical Sensitivity subtests). This suggested little to no r elationship between age or musical aptitude and improvisation ability. Bash examined effectiveness of instructional treatments using a multivariate AN COVA with IPI posttest scores as the dependent variable and the three forms of treatment as independent variables He found significant differences between the control and all three
43 instructional groups (p = .001) as well as significance between the technical treatment and the two non -technical instructional treatments (p = .004), but no significant differences ( p = .294) between the two nontechnical treatments Tumlinsons (1991) ratings instrument is among the most inclusive found in jaz z improvisation research. Tumlinson (1991) purported that no such model existed which embodied all the elements recogni zed by experts in the field (p. 9). Tumlinson sought to develop and test systematically a theoretical model that delineated the constructs and subsumed variables of jazz improvisation performance (p. 5). The study involved student and professional wind musicians. Tumlinson analyzed jazz pedagogy materials to develop a framework of previous construct delineation. Through factor analysis, Tumlinson indentified 33 variables among seven constructs, which consisted of: a. h armonic appropriateness b. rhythmic usage c. m elodic usage d. j azz style e. i ndividuality f. e xpressiveness g. form After surveying existing litera ture (among which was Bash, 1984; Burnsed & Price, 1984; Schilling, 1987) on jazz assessment and pedagogy, Tumlinson wrote the 33 variables as statemen ts. Among the 33 was the following variable: demonstrates control in selecting tones that correspond with the sounding chord (1991, p. 143). Another variable regarding articulation was stated as: Uses a wide variety of articulations (p 146). As a result of studying articulation, Tumlinson found that this area lacked distinctiveness from the other stylistic groupings (p. 96). Tuml insons finding implies a definitive link between articulation and style because articulation
44 related to style in the sam e mann er as other expressive performance elements (e.g., tone quality and rhythmic feel) Tumlinson developed l ists of categorical terms and then composed statements using those terms. Key terms included in the style construct were rhythmic feel, articul ation, sound manipulation and tone (p. 48). Each statement included an explanation, and was used as part of the Descriptive Improvisation Measurement Instrument (DIMI). Content validity was established by a panel of two jazz experts, who made suggestions and contributed to the editing of the initial list. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine interrelationships among variables. The study ( N = 120) included 60 students and 60 professionals. Ages for student participants were not given. The profe ssional samples consisted of prior recordings, with varying styles, song titles and instrumentation. Tumlinson (1991) reported that t he variety of performances, especially the variability of quality exhibited in the rhythm sections, was problematic for the reliability of the study. Tumlinson attained interjudge reliability using Cronbachs alpha 0.87). As did May (1998), Tumlinson (1991) found improvisation to be a single factor. Another pertinent finding was t hat student improvisations accounted for only five constructs whereas professional improvisations accounted for the seven constructs previously listed. The five student constructs were: a. rhythmic/melodic variety b. f luency c. s tyle/time feel d. m elodic breadth e. m elodic/harmonic congruity Tu m linson provided a thorough source of descriptor variables, which could be used for those devising a jazz improvisation measurement instrument.
45 Laughlin (2001) examined aural versus notation based pedagogical practices and their influence on harmonic accur acy in jazz improvisation. As with Paulsons (1985) study, Laughlins study involved aural imitation through the use of call and response Laughlins work is related to the current study in terms of research design (judged results of pretest and posttest j azz performances using Likert scales for experimental and control groups), treatment, statistical analysis, and the population examined. Participants ( N = 20; n experimental = 8, n control = 12) consisted of high school students, grades 9 through 12, with no jazz experience. Independent variables included written and aural instruction. The dependent variable was harmonic skill. Laughlin (2001) developed lessons for both the written (control) and aural (experimental) methods. While some of the materials were borrowed from Reeves (1989), Laughlin gave no explanation for the manner in which lesson content and sequencing were established. Participants in the control group were given writ ten phrases composed by the researcher No articulations were marked on the written phrases A performance evaluation measure was modeled after those of Burnsed and Price (1984), Pfenninger (1990), and Tumlinson (1991). Laughlin (2001) examined the followi ng f ive performance criteria : a. h armonic awareness b. rhythmic development and interest c. m elodic expressiveness d. a bility to play with jazz style e. i ndividuality Laughlins (2001) measure, however, was more specifically oriented to harmonic accuracy. The evaluation measure included six items, each ranked on a scale from one (lowest) to five (highest). Total t est scores ranged from 6 to 30. Items for evaluation cons isted of: a. h armonic proficiency b. d emonstration of harmonically appropriate skills c. d emonstration of control in selecting tones that correspond with each chord d. d emonstration of the ability to solve problems and adjust
46 e. h armonic and melodic inventiveness f. correct notes Descriptive statements are given for five of the six item s though some statements (e g., those for harmonic proficiency and demonstration of harmonically appropriate skills) appear synonymous. The descriptive statement for harmonic proficiency was to what degree does the student demonstrate control of harmonic materials? (p. 92). The descriptive statement ( in this case, a question) for harmonically appropriate skills was does the soloist perform appropriate or correct notes for the harmonic environment? Indicate a 5 always, 4 mostly, 3usually, 2 sometimes, 1 never (p. 92). Six judges rated pretest and posttest recordings of student improvisations over the Miles Davis tune So What. Judges included music graduate students, high sc hool teachers, and university professors. Interjudge reliability was tabulated using Spearmans rho among individual items for combined pretest/posttest scores and ranged from r = .47 to .88. Judges received written instructions prior to rating recorded sa mples, but no training session was conducted prior to data collection. Laughlin made internal consistency calculations to compare combined pretest and posttest scores among the related question items (2001, p. 34). Cronbachs Alpha for internal Laughlin explained that the alpha score was tabulated from combined scores, but did not re veal whom, or how many judges generated the scores. Alpha scores are typically used to measure internal consistency among judges for tests having multiple parts. This test was exclusive to the harmonic accuracy component of improvisation, and may be consid ered to have only one part. Laughlin compared judges combined pretest/posttest scores and gain scores using an ANOVA. Results indicated significant differences (range p = .0001 to .0019) among judges
47 scores on each of the six harmonic accuracy items. Th is suggested a lack of consistency among judges. Gain scores among the judges were not found to be significantly different. ANOVA comparisons for gain scores lacked significance (range p = .079 to .765), with the exception of one item ( p = .026). Laughlin found that though judges scores varied, levels of pretest and posttest gains were fairly equivalent. A Mann -Whitney comparison of pretest to posttest differences on each item for both the experimental and control groups revealed significance ( p = .0001) for each of the six items. Differences between the experimental group (range M = 2.95 to 3.36) and control group (range M = 2.45 to 2.82) for mean posttest scores on each item do not appear to be significant However, m ean gains for the aural treatment gro up (range M = 1.00 to 1.79) were higher than those of the notation treatment group (range M = .65 to .82) for each of the six items. Therefore, Laughlin concluded that the aural method was more effective for beginning improvisers. Pfenninger (1990) made modifications to existing rating scales (Burnsed, 1978; McDaniel, 1974; Partchey, 1973) to measure jazz improvisation achievement. Participants were college jazz majors ( N = 20). Pfenninger divided improvisation into three categories (tonal element, rhythmi c elements and expressive elements) based upon Gordons (1965) Music Aptitude Profile (MAP): In Pfenningers (1990) study, six judges were asked to rate student improvisations over the tune All the Things You Are using five continuous criteria for tonal and rhythm dimensions. Five additive criteria were considered for the expressive element. Continuous criteria for the tonal dimension were the following : 1. m aintains tonality of the chord progress ion 2. m aintains note ac curacy within and among chords 3. c ohesion of tonal phrases 4. d evelopment and transposition of ideas 5. e ffectively plays and resolves non-harmonic tones (plays outside) (1990)
48 Continuous criteria for the rhythmic dimension were the following: 1. m aintains consistency of tempo 2. p erforms beat subdivisions and macro beats accurately 3. p erforms melodic rhythm accurately 4. d evelops rhythmic motives including the transposition of rhythmic ideas (p. 56) 5. i nteraction with the rhythm section (1990) Additive criteria fo r the expressive dimension were the following: 1. p lays with a suitable jazz tone, influenced by previous jazz musicians 2. e xhibits a variety of timbres 3. p lays with style suitable to the music 4. p lays throughout the range of the instrument 5. b uilds intensity throughout the solo, through the use of momentum, tension, release, and climax (p. 57) Interjudge reliability a mong the three dimensions ranged from r = .37 to .95, with the highest scores pert aining to the rhythmic dimension. Composite reliability for all judges scores on each dimension resulted in the lowest reliability for expression ( tonal r = .77 rhythmic r = .78, expression r = .67 ). Pfenninger correlated scores among the three dimensions (rhythm/expression r = .71, tonal/expression r = .18, rhythm/t onal r = .40). This indicated that the rhythmic and expressive dimensions were closely related and that the weakest relationship existed between the tonal and expressive dimensions. Madura (1996) investigated order of predictors for particular vocal improvisation tasks. Participants ( N = 101) consisted of college jazz vocalists. As with Pfenningers (1990) study, Madura divided improvisation into three dimensions (tonal, rhythm, and expression) and divided those dimensions into 18 items (Table 21) for con sideration. Tasks include d improvising over blues and ii V7 I progressions. Madura (1996) considered individual characteristics, including jazz theory knowledge and imitative ability. In Maduras (1996) study, independent variables served as predictors for vocal improvisation
49 achievement. Independent variables included jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, jazz experience, instrumental lessons gender and general creativity. Three judges rated vocal improvisation tasks in each of the dimensions using a five -point scale. Key findings were as follows: a. The order of best predictors on the blues task was jazz theory knowledge, jazz experience, and imitative ability. b. The order of best predictors on the ii V7 I task was imitative ability, jazz theory knowledge, and jazz experience. c. Instrumental lessons, voice lessons, gender, and general creative ability were not found to be significant predictors of vocal jazz improvisation achievement (1996, p. 252). May ( 1998, 2003) examined factors related to instrumental jazz improvisation achievement, including jazz theory knowledge, aural skills, and aural imitation. No treatment was administered prior to data collection. She used factor analysis of cri teria from previous studies to identify the component factors underlying instrumental jazz improvisation. Mays (1998) research is pertinent to the current study for a number of reasons. She designed an improvisation measurement instrument based upon previous studies, examined students two chorus F blues improvisations, and her participants ( N = 73) consisted of wind players w ho performed in jazz ensembles. She designed the following four measures: a. Measure of Jazz Theory Achievement (MJTA) b. Mea sure of Aural Skills (MAS) c. Measure of Aural Imitation (MAI) d. Instrumental Jazz Improvisation Measure (IJIM) (2003) May (1998) examined mean raw scores and percentile ranks to provide a reflection of difficulty level for each measurement instrument. She fou nd that the MAI was most difficult (total possible score = 70, M = 31.16, correct responses M = 45%), followed by the MAS (total
50 possible score = 36, M = 20.76, correct responses M = 58%), and MJTA (total possible score = 50, M = 30.31, correct responses M = 65%). Mays (1998) improvisation measure was modeled after Burnsed and Price (1984), Madura (1992), Pfenninger (1990), and Schilling (1987). May (1998) explained the instrumentation employed by Schilling, Burnsed & Price, and Pfenninger represents a synthesis of previous literature and provides a basis for further investigation of the nature of instrumental jazz improvisation (p. 4). Content validity and r eliability of Mays (1998) IJIM were examined with consideration to several issues, including: a. c riteria from previous studies b. i nterjudge reliability reported on measures used in those studies c. s pecific methods for evaluation to be used by the raters (e.g. descriptive terms given for each dimension being measured) May (1998) used Cronbachs alpha, yielding internal consistency m easures for the Measure of Aural Skills ( ), Measure of Aural Imitation and Measure of Jazz Theo ry Achievement 4). I nterj udge reliability for the each dimension of the improvisation measure range d from .97. May suspected high i nterjudge reliability was due to the fact judges listened to and rated each dimension independently befo re moving on to the next. Judges also underwent a training session, during which examples of the lowest and highest achievement levels were demonstrated for use as anchors. The improvisation test involved two performances: two choruses of a 12 -bar blues in F and an improvisation on Satin Doll. Three judges rated each improvisation product using seven point scales (low to high) for the following seven dimensions: a. t echnical facility b. rhythm/time feel c. m elodic/rhythmic devices d. s tyle
51 e. h armony f. e xpression g. c reativity (May, 2003) S cores ranged from 7 49 for each improvisation task Mean scores were lower for Satin Doll ( M = 26.15) improvisations than for blues ( M = 28.19), indicating greater difficulty on the former t ask A t test ( t = 2.45, df = 72, p < .02) demonstrated that the difference in difficulties between the two improvisation tasks was significant. Scores were lowest for the harmony dimension on the blues ( M = 3.70) and the style dimension on Satin Doll ( M = 3.60). Scores were highest for technical facility on the blues ( M = 4.36) and expression on Satin Doll ( M = 3.92). The improvisation rati ng syste m listed one scale used to assess each of the seven dimensions Each dimension was described with bullet point descriptors as criteria. For example, the creativity dimension was described as shows originality and freshness of ideas, and elaborates and d evelops ideas within style constraints (1998, Appendix G). Mays description of creativity emphasizes the style dimension and alludes to the importance of constraints, as described by Meyer (1989) and Poulter (2008). Mays (1998) s tyle and expression dime nsions were given independent ratings, yet included similar criterion descriptors Style criteria were as follows: t one quality enhances style u ses standard jazz articulation u ses special effects rhythmic and pitch patterns are appropriate to style (1998, Appendix G) Expressiveness criteria were as follows : c reates and maintains intensity s hapes ideas
52 u ses dramatic devices t one color enhances improvisation (1998, Appendix G) Pearson correla t ions among all dimensions on the IJIM blues task were high (range r = .71 to .96) and significant at the .001 level. Correlations for the Satin Doll task were yet stronger. This finding led May (2003) to consider improvisation to be a single construct. May came to the following conclusion: High correlations among all c riteria across both improvisation tasks and the high correlation between the total Blues score and total Satin Doll score (.83) suggested that jazz improvisation achievement might not be multidimensional. (p. 251) May used factor analysis to further explor e the single construct concept. A 10:1 subject -to variable ration was established, using the seven dimensions of improvisation for 73 participants. She proceeded to use oblique rotation, in which only one factor was found to meet the eigenvalue criteria of one. May (1998) explained that this factor, with an eigenvalue of 6.43 accounted for 92 percent of the variance in the composite improvisation tasks (p. 68). This finding is significant for the current study, in which improvisation was rated as a single construct consisting of multiple dimensions May (2003) further suggested that the multiplicity of subskills contributing to achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation should be developed simultaneously rather than in sequential fashion (p. 255). Im plications from these results may lead future jazz educators and researchers to approach improvisation in a holistic manner, rather than using building blocks to construct abilities independently. A one -way ANOVA was c alculated to compare mean subscore di fferences on each test and composite IJIM scores, by y ear in school and instrument Results yielded significance ( p < .02) for year in school on the IJIM, and by instrument on the MAI ( p < .03). No significance was
53 found for mean differences between year in school on the MJTA, MAS, and MAI, or between instrument on the MJTA, MAS, and IJIM. Upon completion of Mays four tests, participants answered a Subject Experience Survey, which called for background information including instrument, year in school, pia no experience, improvisation class experience, and self evaluation of improvisation ability. Participants were asked to rank themselves on a three-point scale (beginner, having moderate ability, or advanced). May (1998) found that the strongest predictor variable for instrumental jazz improvisation achievement was self -evaluation of improvisation, followed by aural imitation, jazz theory achievement, improvisation experience, and aural skills. May (2003) found that objective measurement of the expressive dimension in instrumental im provisation is possible, as well as that of the technical dimension. Her research is among the most thorough and conclusive in the area of jazz improvisation measurement. It serves as a model for all subsequent studies in terms o f jazz measurement, improvisation assessment, and statistical analysis. A prime consideration for teachers of improvisation concerns the ways in which students learn to develop melodic ideas. Practice of scales and patterns does not translate to student de velopment of melodic improvisation. Paulson (1985) developed an imitative instructional approach to improvising effective melodic statements in jazz solos. Paulsons approach centered on the hypothesis that generation of effective melodic ideas in jazz is positively influenced by the systematic utilization of imitation. Paulson labeled elements of melodic solos, including sound, rhythm, pitch, and dynamics. Paulson was simply concerned with developing a program of study for improving improvisation through the use of imitation. He concluded that subsequent studies would be needed to evaluate this program of study.
54 The preponderance of instructional jazz materials has resulted in detailed programs of instruction. Increasingly detailed programs of instruction have coincided with advancing sophistication of jazz music. However, researchers (Marcus, 2004) have noted that the trend toward more formalized methods for learning to play jazz has led students away from aural imitative approaches. The importance of aural skills is a recurring theme found throughout the literature (Berliner, 1994; Caramia et al., 2001; Laughlin, 2001; Marcus, 2004; May, 1998; Paulson, 1985; Poulter, 2008). May (1998) divided aural skills into two realms: Perceptual (ability to identify intervals, scales, etc.) and imitative (ability to imitate intervals, scales, etc.). Marcus (2004) conducted a qualitative analysis of the use and viability of transcription as a method for assimilating jazz style. Forty -one jazz faculty members from colle ges throughout the United States were interviewed. Open -ended questions regarding transcription we re posed and answers were audio recorded. For the sake of comparison, four music educators from schools for the blind were interviewed. Data from those educat ors reveal the importance of aural methods. It was concluded that current methods do not adequately utilize aural techniques. Marcus suggested development of a system for utilizing transcription. Coggiola (2004) explored aesthetic responses of college mus ic majors ( N = 128) with (n = 64) and without (n = 64) jazz ensemble experience. Student preference for four jazz selectio ns of varying melodic complexity was measured using a Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI). Complexity of selections was determined by a panel of five jazz experts who reached 100 % consensus agreement upon the rank order of complexity. Incidentally, the selection considered to be most conceptually advanced was Dr. Jekyll, recorded by the Miles Davis
55 sextet featuring Julian Cannonball Adderly, John Coltrane, Red Garland, Paul Chambers and Philly Joe Jones. Participants listened to each selection in its entirety, while turning the CRDI dial (range 0 to 256) to reflect their degree of aesthetic response Mean response s t o selections in order of least to most conceptual advancement of the non jazz group were 182, 187, 200, and 161 (reflecting lowest aesthetic response for the most conceptually advanced selection). Mean response s to selections of the group having jazz exp erience were 165, 202, 197, and 202 (reflecting highest aesthetic response for the second most and most conceptually advanced selections). Coggiola used an ANOVA to compare differences in aesthetic responses between the two groups. The most dramatic diffe rence ( p = .000) existed between groups for the selection of highest conceptual advancement. ANOVA results yielded significant differences due to stimuli (p = .001) and by group due to stimuli ( p = .001). Coggiola concluded that jazz ensemble experience is related to heightened aesthetic response when listening to jazz selections of high complexity. Decades earlier, Gordon (1965) elaborated that t here is reason to believe that the aesthetic expressiveinterpretive dimension of aptitude is important to crea tive and improvisation achievement (p. 50). Berliners (1994) t heoretical case study is a qualitative examination of the process of learning to improvise. He e xplored the relationships among composition and improvisation, pathways to understanding improvi sation (absorption, interpretation, and synthesis), and standard practices of improvisers throughout differing jazz genres. Berliner sought to de -mystify the art of improvisation by examining creative processes. For example, Berliner notes the necessity of spontaneous evaluation, which contributes to spontaneously creative products.
56 Berliner did not report a definitive set of findings resulting from the case study. Rather, the entire text itself constitutes an extremely comprehensive collection of findings consisting of commentaries from prominent jazz artists (including Red Rodney, Rufus Reid, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Max Roach, James Moody, Chuck Israels, and countless others), historical accounts, and musicological analyses. Analyses include transc riptions which are enc oded to re flect performance nuances. Berliners q ualitative findings pertain to a multitude of considerations for improvisation, including skills, relationships with language, relationships with composition, relationships with other a rts, the concept of group interaction, and the nature of evaluation involved with group interaction. Berliner (1994) provided the following statement, which appropriately describes the complex nature of jazz improvisation pursuits : An unwavering commitment to learning and creativity characterizes the inter related music specialties of jazz improvisers and their passionate pursuits. Jazz activities blend the composers imaginative exploration of musical ideas with the performers mastery of musical instrumen ts, the theorists penchant for analysis with the historians curiosity about the development of musical tradition, the educators concern for making musical language accessible to the non -specialist with the concern all share with passing it on. (p. 485) A review of literature pertaining to improvisation research uncovered several themes, among which were the following: 1. d evelopment and reliability of quantitative improvisation measu res 2. p erformance elements used in ratings assessments of improvisation ability 3. p redictive f actors of improvisation ability 4. a ural methods versus written methods Researchers have developed quantitative improvisation measures having a wide range of reliability outcomes. Most measures were administered by a panel of judges, who rated improvisation products using Likert scales. The most reliable ratings were administered by judges having (1) experience specific to the style of music being performed and (2) knowledge
57 of participant ability level s in the given age group. Training s essions for judges appears to enhance reliability of improvisation ratings. Measurement ratings examined in the literature were based upon performance element criteria, which had varying levels of specificity. Ratings criteria were typically divided into the broadest categories (i.e., the tonal, rhythmic and expressive dimensions ), and then were broken down into mo re specific performance factors (e.g., harmonic accuracy, or swing feel). Performance elements were labeled constructs (broad and abstract at tributes such as style ), dimensions, (more specific considerations, such as melodic devices) and factors, or criteria ( the most specific considerations for ratings such as articulation ). The organizational nature of r atings criteria used in previous studies provide d a model for the development of a jazz performance measure for the current study. Jazz i mprovisation ratings measures that include d the style construct contain criteria (e.g. rhythmic feel, articulation, and tone quality) which may be appropriate for comprehensive measurement of jazz performance. A ural methods for learning improvisation appear ed to be superior to any alternative approaches which wa s an important consideration for design and implementation of treatments used in the current study. Jazz Pedagogy Early jazz compositions were often unwritten. Consequently, musicians learned from each other aurally (Laughlin, 2001; Marcus, 2004). Berliner (1994) explained that one conventional way for young artists to share information is through informal sessions, a mixture of socializing, shoptalk, and demonstrations known as hanging out (p. 37). As the music has continued to increase in complexity, formal methods have become more abundant. A wealth of jazz education sources exist tod ay, including method texts (Baker, 1983; Bash & Kuzmich, 1989; Beach & Jarvis, 2002; Campbell, Casale, Coker, & Greene, 1970; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Haerle, 1980;
58 Haerle, 1989; Lawn, 1995; Reeves, 1989; Wilson, 2002), special volumes dedicated to jazz education and research ( Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, volumes 95/96; Caramia et al., 2001; Meadows, 2005; Poulter, 2008), and background play along series developed by Jamey Aebersold (for example, volume 54, Maiden Voyage: Fourteen Easy -to Play Jazz Tunes 1992) and others. Jazz method books frequently contain emphasis on nomenclature, chord progressions, and chord/scale relationships. Azzara (1993) noted pedagogical emphasis particular to patterns and scales. One such text is Ree vess (1989) Creative Jazz Improvisation Reevess method claims to be a creative approach, yet discussions of originality and melodic development are conspicuously absent. Rather, the text progresses from major scales to modes to harmonic progressions and song forms. A considerable portion of the text is comprised of transcribed solos. The method seems to be more product -oriented than process -oriented. Product -oriented approaches appear to be a trend among many of the jazz methods available. Berg (2002) developed a more current improvisation method titled Chop Monster The multi -volume method is designed for used both with individuals and when teaching improvisation in big band rehearsal. Berg addressed the creative aspect of melodic construction based upo n jazz language. Methods of melodic instruction are detailed, which include basic scales, chromatic tones, and harmonic language. While jazz language and improvisation are addressed, the text(s) do not include a chapter on style or interpretation. No sugge stions or methods are given for techniques regarding articulation. Babad (1999) proposed a blueprint for heightening the expressive component in jazz improvisation. Babads stated goal was to aid performers in progressing from practice to praxis (p. v). According to Babad, the four approaches to learning improvisation are:
59 a. m elodic embellishment b. c hordal/arpeggio method c. s cale/mode approach d. p attern method (p. v) An overview of each approach is given, supported by musical illustrations. Babad explained solo construction in terms of intensity, with specific suggestions for increasing and decreasing musical intensity. Articulation is not among the given suggestions. To help musicians generate musical ideas (i.e., melodicism), Babad listed communicative and creative devices (e.g., use of theme and variations when building a solo). Once again, articulation is not included. All suggestions appear to be contributed by the author and are not grounded in experimental research. Comprehensive methods for jazz ensemble performance (Bash & Kuzmich, 1989, Beach & Jarvis, 2002; Dunscomb & Hill, 2002; Lawn, 1995; Wilson, 2002) have become more readily available. Bash and Kuzmich (1989) authored a thorough method for jazz ensemble directors, complete with practical suggestions, technical information (from proper instrumental and sound equipment to techniques for string players), and a philosophical rationale for including jazz ense mbles in band programs. An Audition Evaluation Form is included containing the following criteria: a. t ime b. t one or blend c. a rticulation (attacks, releases and breathing to achieve proper jazz concept) (p. 31) d. range e. i ntonation f. s ight reading g. i mprovisation (1989) Beach and Jarvis (2002) collaborated on a jazz band handbook for high school and collegiate educators. Content is organized and presented in a manner that the text may be used in
60 jazz pedagogy classes. A chapter is devoted to phrasing, articulation, and dynamics. Topics range from swing interpretation to use and placement of accents to melodic contour and phrasing. Recordings of both negative and positive examples provide a demonstration of techniques. The articulation section consists of information regarding accents, note initiation, and duration, as well as ornaments/effects. No suggestions are presented for tongue -slur patterns. Transcription books constitute insightful resources on the musical vocabulary of professional jazz musicians. One of the most prominent transcription collections is the Charlie Parker Omnibook transcribed by Aebersold (1978). Though the Omnibook is univers ally used by saxophonists and other instrumentalists, not a single articulation is provided. The reader is left to determine articulation patterns with no guidance or suggestions. Some jazz texts, however, do address the creative aspect of spontaneous mel odic construction. In Jazz Improvisation (1983), David Baker thoroughly addressed melodic development. Baker discussed variation of melodic contour, tension and release, density, repetition, sequence, augmentation, diminution, truncation, and fragmentation among many other aspects of developing a melody. Included in the text is a chapter titled A Psychological Approach to Communicating Through an Improvised Solo (Baker, 1983, p. 113). This chapter deals with emotional response and musical meaning. Wilson (2002) designed a step-by-step method aimed at developing big band musicianship. This method addresses issues such as cutoffs, articulation, and running sectionals, as well as a thorough outline of chord/scale relationships for improvisation. Includ ed are two pages on the note initiation aspect of articulation specific to jazz. In addition, Wilson (2002) contributed 30 Bluesy Articulation Exercises (p. 69). A useful addition would include specific tonguing/slurring patterns in melodic contexts. Whi le the exercises challenge a player to initiate
61 notes in a variety of ways specific to jazz, no specifics are given on tongue -slur patterns. However, given the wealth of method materials available, a standardized practice of articulation with application to jazz melodies is needed Bakers (1983) Jazz Improvisation: A Comprehensive Method of Study for All Players is a well known method. Baker outlined chord-symbol interpretation, melodic practice/performance patterns, inflections (e.g., glissando and bending pitches), ear training, and song forms. The 132 page volume includes less than a page on articulation. Rather than addressing the topic in-depth, Baker recommended that the student draw on other sources for articulation patterns. Cokers (1970) Pattern s for Jazz is a widely used text in jazz fundamentals and improvisation courses. While his text provides many ways to interpret chord symbols, with countless patterns to be used over chords and progressions, not a single line is devoted to articulation. If players learn such patterns without the proper knowledge of how to execute them, they run the risk of sounding contrite and like amateurs, as opposed to sounding like seasoned jazz musicians. Bowman (1988) contributed a critical overview of d octoral resea rch on j azz pedagogy in an aforementioned volume of the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Studies range from 1972 to 1985. Though somewhat dated, this overview provides a start for those seeking foundations of jazz research. The earl iest study reviewed was conducted by Briscusco (1972), who explored relationships between musical aptitude and four jazz improvisation tasks. Those tasks included blues and a 32-measure song form (AABA), both approached with and without preparation. While the relationship between aptitude and the Tonal and Rhythm imagery subtests was not significant (Bowman provided no statistics), Musical Sensitivity subtest scores revealed a statistically significant relationship to improvisation
62 achievement. Another revi ew is contributed by Hores (1977), who compared efficacy between aural and theoretical methods. Bowman cited a lack of thorough, statistical analyses, as well as a number of design problems. Among the studies reviewed, common themes appeared that were crit ical for jazz research. These themes included the lack of a clear problem statement and the lack of substantiation for researcher claims. Briscusco (1972) and Hores (1977) are secondary sources, but Bowmans critical reviews constituted a necessary image of jazz research shortcomings during the 1970s and early 1980s. Other studies reviewed include Burnsed (1978) and Bash (1984 ), which are given closer attention in this literature review. Members of the Music Teachers National Association and the Internatio nal Association of Jazz Education collaborated in devising a Jazz Studies Guide (Caramia et al., 2001). The manual is intended to satisfy a need for a concise, thorough, unbiased approach to teaching jazz (2001, p. 3). Skills encompassing five levels of difficulty are divided into the following four categories: a. listening b. ear training c. playing/demonstrating d. performing (2001) Skills range from attendance of live performances to arpgeggiation of chord progressions. The manual is best suited as an outline for student achievement in improvisation. Lists of artists, song titles pertaining to particular skill components, and other resources are given, which include jazz education periodicals and internet sites. The term style is used only in the context of varie ties of jazz styles. Articulation is not mentioned and the manual lacks specific methodology. Poulter (2008) developed systematic methods for learning and teaching jazz improvisation in the school jazz ensemble. His text includes standards for selecting musical materials (big -band charts), as well as standards for evaluating improvisation. Poulter (2008) explained the
63 importance of the relationship between jazz style and improvisation: Improvisation has been both an essential aspect of professional perfor mance and a vehicle for learning jazz style (p. 9). Included is a comprehensive list of representative jazz improvisation resources, jazz theory manuals, jazz ensemble method texts, small group (combo) guides, and resources devoted to the rhythm section. Meadows (2006) compiled a comprehensive source dedicated exclusively to jazz scho larship. Though Meadows included annotations of DVDs, history texts, reference works, sources on jazz culture, methods, and jazz theses and dissertations, no journal articles are included. This source provides a current perspective on the state of jazz scholarship. Revised from its first edition (Meadows, 1995), the 2006 edition adds more than 800 new entries, yet only seven new dissertations are specific to jazz improvisation. Of those seven dissertations four deal with free jazz and not methodology. Among the many subheadings there is no subheading for jazz style or interpretation. Jazz Pedagogy Summary The current review of jazz pedagogy literature provides evidence that authors of jazz improvisation methods typically devote little, if any, attention to articulation. One exception is John McNeils (1999) The Art of Jazz Trumpet McNeil (1999) explained that swing the rhythmic content and feel of a line is totally dependent on accents, and accents depend on articulation patterns (p. 29). McNeil drew a comparison of swing era interpretation (in which eighth notes were typically played with a 1 2/8 feel) and modern jazz style (in which the eighths are more often played even ly ). McNeil provide d practical tips and exercises for practicing jazz articulation. Exercises include a variety of melodic shapes, which influence the way(s) in which lines may be articulated. For instance, melodic leaps are best facilitated by tonguing, while step wise melod ies can be tongued or slurred. Articulation exercises are written in multiple keys.
64 McNeil recommended adapting classical exercises (for example the Second Study in Herbert L. Clarkes (1984) Technical Studies) to work on accents and tongue/slur patterns. Coughlin (2005/2006) authored a twovolume beginning jazz clarinet method with specific consideration granted to articulation. In Volume I, Coughlin addressed rhythm and articulation. Volume II contains emphasis on syncopation and composition, with applic ations for jazz articulation in the form of melodies and etudes. The unique aspect of Coughlins work is that articulations are addressed both in exercises and supplemental etudes, which appear at the end of each volume. Coughlin (2005) asserted that artic ulation influences the swing feel, and that one articulation pattern in particular is fundamental for swing. There is a general articulation pattern in jazz when we have groups of eighth notes, we tongue the notes that are off the beat, and we slur into the notes that are on the beat (2005, p. 14). Goinss (2003) publication is intended for high school and college jazz band directors without the advantage of having taken a course in jazz pedagogy. The text is comprehensive, including a chapter on articulation. Goins (2003) suggested: Countless articles have been written in an attempt to clear the air about the what, how and why related to articulation. For some directors, every new article that is written only serves to create an even murkier picture conc erning what is the right way to do it. (p. 60) Explanations for the interpretive aspect of articulation are addressed through vocal syllables. For example, Goins (2003) noted that jazz bands performing with a strict articulation style would have the ricky tickeys (p. 61). Appropriate syllables are noted, giving the director a set of guidelines for particular rhythmic values (e.g., dat for staccato). Goins also addressed the relationship between articulation and technique: Students on all wind and bras s instruments need to develop good tonguing techniques in order to execute proper phrasing and articulation. The swing factor, or sense of time is directly related to how well one is able to articulate musical passages. (p. 63)
65 Others who have addressed specific articulation methods include Aebersold (2000) and Zen tz (n.d.). Aebersold contributed a two page guide with written suggestions and musical ex amples for practice. He suggested that practice of the given exercises, along with listening to recordings, will enhance individual musicianship. He d id however, explain that the articul ation must become second nature before style is improved. The articulation has to become AUTOMATIC before it will begin to sound natural (Aebersold, 2000, p. 1). Likewise, Co ughlin (2005) noted that initially, slurring and tonguing in this way may seem a bit awkward. However, if you practice it very slowly first, it will become natural (p. 14). Zentz (n.d.) provided suggestions for articulation style, but also typical patter ns of tonguing and slurring wi th relation to melodic contour. Articulation in Jazz Style Articulation is considered a primary factor in musical expression. Rose (1985) explained through the use of dynamics, phrasing, articulation, tone, and tension and release, the improviser is able to develop the emotive qualities of a solo (p. 47). Aebersold (2000) substantiated that articulation is a way in which musicians express themselves musically. Berliner (1994) explained the crucial relationship between articulation and melodic interpretation: They vary such subtleties as accentuation, vibrato, dynamics, rhythmic phrasing, and articulation or tonguing, striving to interpret the melody freshly, as if performing it for the first time (p. 67). Poulter (2008) as serted that articulation is inseparably connected with proper swing style (p. 30). Likewise, various song styles, including Latin jazz, blues, bossa nova, and jazz fusion, are largely contingent upon idiomatic articulation. The style or genre of a song affects components of the improvised section, including the articulation, harmonies, and subdivision of the beat (Poulter, 2008, p. 51).
66 Bash and Kuzmich (1989) cited a more subtle link between articulation and style and melodic interpretation, even when an alternate definition of articulation is implied: What makes the development of jazz so distinct from other kinds of music is its individual nature. Jazz requires not only an individual interpretation of melody, it demands spontaneous individual inventi on of new melodies, individual articulation of style and rhythm that exceeds notation, and individual interpretation of a total musical sound. (p. 4) McNeil (1999) also mentioned the connection between articulation and individuality. However, it is important to note here that the nature of freedom involved in articulation is different when playing in a large jazz ensemble. In the large jazz ensemble setting, players are expected to articulate uniformly, whereas in jazz combos, articulations may be more int erpretive. Bash and Kuzmich (1989) considered articulation a basic, fundamental concept of jazz musicianship. They claimed the lack of time efficiency involved with the rote method should lead jazz educators to method texts, which provide a faster and more thorough way to teach jazz basics (p. 42). The need for uniform articulation in jazz ensemble performance is well documented, yet jazz methods appear to be lacking in specific procedures for learning standard articulations. Articulation may be predefined (as when interpreting a melody in which the articulation patterns are specified) or highly variable, particularly in the context of improvisation. Goins (2003) noted that rules for articulation are dictated by musical context. According to Berliner (1994), variation of articulation increases and relieves rhythmic tension and dictates the nature of ones swing feel. Poulter (2008) considered articulation one of a few flexible parameters that improvisers must address (p. 12). While structural eleme nts of tunes (such as harmony, form and meter) are static or fixed, articulations may vary. The variable nature of articulation makes it a challenge to teach and learn uniformly. This variability is likely a reason that the issue of articulation patterns i s seldom addressed in jazz method texts.
67 However, forms of articulation are considered to be standard. Aebersold (2000) explained that some players enjoy using the standard swing style articulation very common to the Swing and Bebop eras (p. 1). Zentz (n.d.) provided an explanation of what that standard style is: In general, a stream of eighth notes will be played with an articulation pattern of slurring off an upbeat into a downbeat. This takes the stiffness out by taking the stress and weight off the downbeat (p.1). Aebersold (2000) also noted the penchant for modern players to lean toward more legato, relaxed forms of articulation. Poulter (2008) asserted that articulation (as well as swing feel and stylistic playing) must be learned by listening t o professionals and mimicking them. Goins (2003) felt that listening is the ideal way of developing the strongest sense of phrasing and articulation (p. 68). Articulation, however, is multi -dimensional and may be assimilated in more ways than by listenin g. The nature with which one initiates individual notes is a particular aspect of articulation that may best be learned by listening to professionals. Articulation patterns, as in the operational definition of articulation for this study, may well be lea rned through practice exercises. Those exercises may, in turn, translate into melodic and improvisatory performance. Few if any studies have been conducted regarding the interpretation of jazz melodies. Rohwer (2001) examined middle, high school, and coll ege wind musicians ( N = 90) perceptions of musical expression when performing a non jazz melody. She sought to discover expressive aspects that musicians varied when asked to play a melody expressively. Participants performed two renditions of a researche r-composed melody: one devoid of expression and one performance containing expressive elements. Rowher found that when playing expressively, experienced musicians varied the same factors as inexperienced musicians, but to different degrees. Elements of expression included
68 dynamics, timing, articulation, and tempo. Seventh graders varied articulation more than other expressive elements. This led Rowher to conclude that articulation is a good starting point for educators when teaching musical expression to less experienced musicians. Though no studies appear to have directly related articulation to jazz interpretation or improvisation, there is substantiation for teaching and assessing proper articulation. Bash (1991) related that there are numerous articulations that are particularly relevant to jazz performance that create a more meaningful performance in the context of the style (p. 47). Benward and Wildman (1977) asserted that anyone who has heard a non jazz player read a transcribed Charlie Parker s olo and then has compared that performance with the original recording knows the importance of articulation for idiomatic jazz performance (p. 63). Gudmundson (2006) explained the importance of unified articulation within sections of the jazz ensemble. Th e difficulty of attaining this ideal is evidenced by his assertion that quite often, articulations in standard, commercially available big band arrangements are not overly detailed, or can even be misleading (2006, p. 40). However, Gudmundson believes th at standardization of articulation leads to stylistic improvement. Droe, Geringer, Madsen, and MacLeod (2006) examined articulation style as an independent variable and its effect upon listeners perceptions of modulated tempo. Articulation style, however was limited to staccato and legato -style tonguing. No implications appeared for the effects of articulation on stylistic interpretation. Articulation has been linked with style in studies regarding improvisation (Bash, 1984; Berliner, 1994; Burnsed, 1978; Laughlin, 2001; May, 1998; Pfenninger, 1990; Tumlinson, 1991). A thorough review of literature, however, uncovers no experiments linking articulation to melodic interpretation. The nature of melodic development in improvisation is a related issue to
69 the current study. Sloboda (1985) purported: The essence of improvisation is in the melodic line (p. 143). Bingham (2007) and Poulter (2008) confirm ed the importance of learning to improvise via performance and embellishment of melodies If methodical articulation practice is demonstrated to improve stylistic interpretation for melodies, implications may arise for the effects of articulation on style in jazz improvisation as well. Table 2 1. Maduras dimensions of i mprovisation Tonal dimension Rhythm ic dimension Expressive dimension Correct notes Rhythmic feel Scat syllables Tonal language Rhythmic figures Vocal sound Variety Variety Sound variety Originality Originality Range variety Motivic development Motivic development Dynamic variety Unity Unity Intonation (Madura, 1996)
70 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND PROC EDURES This chapter consists of an outline of the methods and procedures that were used in the study. D escriptions of the jazz articulation survey, participants, data collection and analysis methods are included Jazz Articulation Survey A purposive sampling of 9 high school and 10 collegiate jazz music educators agreed to complete a survey on their views concerning articulation and stylistic expression. Purposive sampling was c hosen to obtain expert opinions on the importance of articulation and its relationship to stylistic interpretation. Survey participants were among the bestknown, widely published, and most active jazz performers, educators, and researchers. Findings from the survey further demonstrated the need to conduct research in the area of jazz interpretation. A 13 item survey (Appendix A) on the nature and importance of jazz articulation was completed by 19 jazz educators. Six of the respondents were primarily high school music educators, 10 were collegiate educators, and 3 have taught at both the high school and collegiate levels. High school educators had an average of 13.6 years of experience, while collegiate educators had an average of 14.7 years of experience. Survey participants were chosen for their level of experience and contributions in the field of jazz education. Fifteen of 19 participants listed a wind instrument as their primary instrument. Non -wind musicians played percussion (one), piano (one), and double bass (two). One of the bass players also played saxophone. Articulation survey questions were rated using a continuous scale from zero to five (zero meaning not at all or not at all important and five meaning very much or very important). When asked about the importance of articulation to ja zz style (Appendix A ), 18 of 19 participants (94.7 %) chose nu mber five, suggesting articulation was very important to jazz
71 style Fourteen (73.7%) of the respondents felt the importance of teaching specific articulation patterns (item 9) to be at a level four or five Twelve respondents (63.2%) felt that articulation could be effectively learned (item 10) out of context (i.e., through scales and patterns rather than melodie s and improvisations) Seventeen (8 4.2%) respondents added that articulation would best be taught both in and out of context (item 11). Responses on the Jazz Articulation Survey demonstrated strong agreement among educators that articulation was a crucial and teachable component of jazz st yle. When asked to list the five musical characteristics most important to stylistic interpretation in jazz, 18 of 19 respondents included articulation among their five. The only items showing a lack of agreement pertained to the amount of specificity rega rding articulation in high school and professional jazz arrangements (Appendix B). Thi s lack of agreement suggested that the degree to which written articulations are specified is highly variable. In other words, some jazz arrangements provide wr itten arti culations, but many do not. It appears appropriately evident that high school arrangements provide more written articulations, though there is little agreement as to how much. Survey results validate the need for articulation studies in jazz performance. Results were used in the development of research methods and procedures for the current study. The consensus regarding relationships between articulation and style led the researcher to develop specific articulation exercises (Appendix F) and to investigat e student abilities in jazz style performance. Pilot Study Prior to the current study, a pilot was conducted which contributed to the development of a jazz performance rating instrument. The rating instrument developed for the pilot (Appendix N ) was revis ed and expanded for the current study. In the pilot study, m iddle and high school
72 student (N = 34) improvisations were rated and analyzed according to technical, rhythmic, melodic, and stylistic characteristics. Ratings criteria were derived largely from s tudies performed by Burnsed (1978) and Pfenninger (1990). The purpose of the pilot was to examine selected character istics of student rhythmic and melodic improvi sations and to develop a reliable rating instrument for jazz improvisation. Prior to data col lection, middle school students ( n = 16) participated in two 30 -minute jazz improvisation clinics. High school students ( n = 18) participated in one 30 -minute clinic. Clinics took place during jazz ensemble rehearsals at each school. During the jazz clini cs, p articipants learned the sequence of I7, IV7 and V7 chords in a basic blues (Appendix L ). They played simple melodic patterns (e.g., scale degrees 1 23 5, or C D E G if in the key of C), the B -flat minor pentatonic scale, and rhythmic improvisations r anging from 2 to12 measures in length. A sample ( n = 8) of participant s performed four excerpts which were recorded for data analysis. Those excerpts included the following : 1. b-flat minor pentatonic scale 2. scale/technical exercise 3. 12 mea sure rhythmic improvisation 4. 12 measure melodic improvisation Recorded p er formance excerpts were analyze d by the researcher, and then rated by four doctoral music students. Written instructions were provided for each rater, but no prior training session took place. Ratings criteria included technical proficiency, rhythmic accuracy, melodic structure, and style. Rhythmic and melodic improvisati ons were accompanied by the Aebersold (1992) Volume 54 play along CD. Participants performed one chorus of blues impro visation. High school participants learned B -flat, E -flat, and F bebop scales. The scale was applied to a blues melody (Appendix L ) composed by the researcher and p erformed by the jazz ensemble.
73 The purpose of teaching the bebop scale was to provide studen ts with a framework for using chromatic passing tones. Data collection included recordings of four performances by each participant. As a measure of instrumental skill, each student performed the three bebop scales and the minor pentatonic scale. Each par ticipant also performed a 12 -measure rhythmic and 12-measure melodic improvisation. Reliability was calculated using Pearsons r product moment correlation coefficient Those correlations yielded low positive to moderately strong positive results (range r = .17 to .56). Reliability is increased when conducting a training session for judges in which ratings criteria are specified. May (1998) established high interjudge reliability after conducting a training session for judges. Another consideration for the modest reliability results found in the pilot was the fact that three of the four judges were not jazz educators. Educators with extensive jazz experience would likely provide more reliable ratings. These factors were accounted for in the design of the ma in study. The pilot study rating instrument was expanded and revised for the main study For example, technical p roficiency was assessed in the pilot u sing only a single Likert scale. Judges were provided with written terms such as time accuracy, pitch accuracy, consistency of tone, and articulation accuracy to be used as guidelines for the rating. In the current study, technical proficiency ratings consi sted of those four criteria, however, each criteria recei ved an independent rating. Ratings criteria for the current study also included quantitative guidelines for each numerical rating (Appendix C). The intention was to develop a more thorough and accurate rating index, which would in turn increase reliability and validity of the current study.
74 Approval (Appendix G) for this study was obtained through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Florida. Permission was granted to include minors as participants with parental consent and student assent. The IRB approved parental consent and st udent assent letters (Appendix I ) were distributed and collected prior to initiation of treatments. Upon obtaining IRB approval, the researcher solicited the approval of the school districts of Alachua and Palm B each counties (Appendix G), as well as permissions from the local administration at each high school. Participants Participants in the current study ( N = 33) were high school students ranging from 10th through 12th grade Participants were recruited f rom two high schools, one in northern Florida and the other in southern Florida. The north ern Florida school existed in a university communit y and the southern school existed in a metropolitan area. School populations were nearly identical in size, both having slightly more than 2,3 00 students. Each school employed approximately 100 faculty members. The relatively low number of participants was due to the fact high school jazz bands contain a limited number of wind players. Another factor was that high school bands typically maintain busy performance schedules, making it difficult to locate educators willing to grant instructional time toward such a study. Previous researchers have also contended with this issue. In the case of Laughlin (2001), Directors conse nted to one session per week for a total of four weeks. This was sufficient, in the opinion of the researcher, to gain significant data results (p. 36). The current study required four days of instructional time per week for a three-week period. One direc tor granted consent, contingent upon the treatment period not extending beyond the proposed amount of time. Schools were purposely selected based upon the size and quality of the band program. Criteria for quality band programs were as follows:
75 1. Each schools jazz band received superior ratings for at least five consecutive years at the district Music Performance Assessment. 2. Each schools jazz band rehearses a minimum of four class periods (approximately fifty minutes in a period) per week. 3. Each scho ols jazz band had been formally recognized for excellence by administrators in its school district. Samples were chosen purposefully for the following reasons: Jazz bands typically include 15 (or more) wind musicians, and students in high quality music p rograms are more likely to practice individually, which was a necessity for this study. High -caliber band students often take private lessons, enhancing their technical skill. In order to control for differences in instrumental ability, students performed a pretest scale exercise. That exercise consisted of the bebop scale using three different articulations (Figure 3 1). Students were rated for technical facility on a five -point scale for each of the three scale exercises. The two participant groups conta ined u nequal numbers The control group ( n = 18) consisted of six trumpet players, six trombonists, and six saxophonists. The experimental group (n = 15) consisted of six trumpet players, three trombonists, and six saxophonists. The unequal number of trombonists is due to current limitations of the experimental group band program. That program had two jazz bands causing a thin distribution of trombonists. Participants for the main study consisted solely of wind players due to the particular nature of articu lation (i.e. tongue -slur patterns) being examined. Members of both groups rhythm sections participated in treatments, but were not required to perform prete st and posttest tasks. T reatment involved performance of jazz mel odies and improvisations, allowing inclusion of rhythm section musicians as accompanists. Rhythm section players performed melodies and improvisations in addition to providing accompaniment. Keyboard and bass players performed scales and exercises along with wind musicians.
76 Percussionists performed scales and exercises on vibraphone. All music used during treatment included written parts for rhythm section players. A measurement instrumen t was developed and titled the Edmund Jazz Interpretation Profile (EJIP). The EJIP was administered usi ng a pretest/posttest research design. All students were first administered the EJIP in addition to the Musical Sensitivity portion of Gordons Musical Aptitude Profile (1965). The jazz interpretation profile (EJIP) included these four items: 1. bebop scale with varying articulations 2. Billies Bounce, a 12 -bar blues in the key of F 3. Mr. P.C., a C minor blues 4. t wo choruses of F blues improvisation The bebop scale was included to account for initial d ifferences in technical ability among par ticipants. The two melodies were chosen because both were 12-bar blues, varied in levels of difficulty, and varied in terms of melodic direction (Billies Bounce contains many melodic skips, and Mr. P.C. consists almost exclusively of stepwise motion.). Blues was chosen for the improvisation item because, as Poulter (2008) stated, the blues form is the most common and important form in jazz (p. 63). Blues also provides a logical point of departure for beginning improvisers. May (1998) explained that blues improvisation, which seems to be less difficult than other improvisation tasks utilized in jazz improvisation research, may be the most effective beginning point for improvisation instruction (p. 88). Sample student pretest and pos ttest improvisations (Appendix M) were transcribed by hand and transferred to Finale files. Each sample consists of one chorus for the participant. Samples were chosen from participants who exhibited the most improvement or those who demonstrated particular skill in impro visation. An informal analysis was conducted to examine differences between pretest and posttest improvisations and to seek tendencies among individuals. Those analyses are described in Chapter 5.
77 Copyright permissions were obtained for the use of the two blues melodies, as well as use of the Aebersold (1992) accompaniment track. Permission to use and record the accompaniment track was granted by a representat ive of Jamey Aebersold Jazz Permission to use Billies Bounce in print form was granted by Atla ntic Music Corporation, a division of Criterion Music Permission to use Mr. P.C. in print form was granted by Jowcol music. Prete st performances were recorded either before or after school depending upon student availability, and without interfering wi th instructional time. Posttest data were gathered before school or during jazz ensemble class outside the thirty -minute treatment period. All pretest performances were sight read. Sheet music used throughout the study was written using Finale 2003 and tra nsposed for each instrument. Prior to playing, participants were afforded 45 seconds to study each blues melody. Tempos were established by playing metronome clicks prior to each performance. Those tempos were as follows: (1) scales: q uarter note = 100 be ats per minute (2) Billies Bounce: q uarter note = 110 beats per minute and (3) Mr. P.C.: q uarter note = 130 beats per minute F blues improvisations were recorded with a rhythm section accompaniment track (Aebersold, 1992). Considering the fact that many participants lacked improvisation experience, all were given a written copy of the F minor pentatonic scale. Participants were instructed to improvise via the given pentatonic scale and/or using the ch ord changes (also provided) supplemented by their own knowledge of blues improvisation. The purpose of including Gordons MAP was two fold: (1) Participant scores for musical sensitivity were used as control variables to account for initial differences in aptitude and (2) Participant scores were used a s a measure of construct validity. May (1998) explained that performer characteristics, such as musical aptitude, creativity, cognitive style, and technical
78 ability may also account for differences in jazz achievement (p. 9). Multiple reasons existed for using only the Musical Sensitivity portion of the MAP. Gordon (1965) explained that ones musical success cannot go beyond his ability to interpret and express these factors in a musically sensitive manner (p. 11). Gordon (1965) was pluralistic when ref erring to musical aptitudes. He explained that the test affords analyses of specific functions of each aptitude. The collective music aptitudes of groups of students may be compared through the use of either school grade or mus ically select percentile nor ms provided with the MAP. Subtest, total test and composite test results may be used for that purpose. (p. 64) The Musical Sensitivity portion is a stand alone test and is the only portion which measures student preferences. The Rhythmic and Tonal portions measure aural discrimination. Rhythmic and tonal components were included in the researcher -designed profile. Control Group Treatment The scope and sequence of improvisation treatment (Appendix D) for both the experimental and control groups is based upon Poulters (2008) text. Poulters work was chosen because it is among the most current, is published by MENC and is specifically geared toward teaching improvisation in a jazz band context. Improvisation instructional treatment includes content from difficulty levels designated as grad es I, II and III (Table 3 1). Treatment was administered during a three week p eriod, involving four lessons per week, each lasting 30 minutes. Group A (control) students participated in improvisation class and jazz ensemble, but received no additional instruction. Experimental Group Treatment In addition to the model designed from Poulters (2008) sequence of instruction, articulation lessons were designed using Aebersolds (2000) and Don Zentzs (n.d.) methods as models. As with the improvisation instruction, articulati on lessons involved 12 h alf -hour sessions. Lessons were delivered over a three -week period (four lessons per week), and taught to
79 the entire group. Treatment was limited to three weeks due to circumstantial constraints (e.g., performance obligations and district and state level M usic Performance Assessments ) High school music educators were not able to consent to more than three weeks for this study. Articulation lessons (Appendix E) progressed from tongue -slur patterns applied to the mixolydian mode to tongue -slur patterns appli ed to jazz melodies. Students progressed through a battery of technical etudes involving tongue -slur patterns. Group B students were also encouraged to practice articulation melodies and etudes away from school. To provide struc ture, a practice log (Append ix F ) was given to each participant. The practice log was used as a checklist and returned to the researcher upon completion of the treatment period. Students were encouraged to practice for a total of almost three hours over a 14 day period (ranging from 10 to 20 minutes of practice during each given day). Each group underwent a posttest performance of the EJIP after three weeks. Students performed profile tasks individually. Individual scores were norm -referenced between Groups A and B. Experimental grou p pretest and posttest results on the EJIP were compared to determine the extent of improvement. Composite scores and scores from each section of the EJIP were analyzed and compared to determine the effect of instructional treatments upon interpretation an d overall performance ability. Reliability and Validity Judges scores on the EJIP were correlated with the purpose of establishing reliability. Two types of reliability tests were conducted: Pearsons r product -moment correlation coefficient and Cronbachs coefficient alpha. Correlations were calculated using judges scores from each subtest on the EJIP, as well as total test scores on both the pretest and posttest. Construct validity was investigated by comparing individuals EJIP pre test scores with t heir scores on the Musical Sensitivity portion of the MAP. Those corr elations included
80 composite sub test scores on the EJIP and M AP, as well as pretest totals. An e xplanation of how composite sub test scores were determined is provided in C hapter 4 Two me thods were used to establish content validity: (1) a thorough survey of existing literature on jazz impro visation measurement and (2) i nput from a panel of three collegiate jazz educators. The following improvisation measurement instruments were examined and used as models for content inclusion in the current stu dy: Bash, 1984; Briscuso, 1972; Burnsed and Price, 1984; Laughlin, 2004; May, 1998; Pfenninger, 1991; Schilling, 1987; Tumlinson, 1991. For example, Tumlinson (1991) found key terms regarding the construct of jazz style, which consisted of the following: a. rhythmic feel b. a rticulation c. s ound manipulation d. t one Three of the four terms were used in the current study as descriptors for the style measurement. Each of Tumlinso ns seven constructs of student performance was included for consideration. Laughlin used five of Tumlinsons seven constructs of jazz improvisation, omitting form and expressiveness, which may be closely related to style. The current study includes application of four of those constructs (excluding only individuality) Of Tumlinsons 33 jazz performance variables, 20 are included for consideration in the Jazz Interpretation Profile. Jazz educators participating in content validity assessment included the two judges involved in the study and a doctoral music educator with more than 20 years of experience in the field of jazz studies and jazz education. Judges added input on criteria that may be ambiguous or absent from the measure. Jazz educators completed a qu estionnaire (Appendix J ) regarding critical musical considerations when assessing jazz performance. They were asked to list
81 descriptors relative to aspects of jazz performance being assessed in the EJIP (e.g., technical proficiency and stylistic expression in melodic performance) Jazz educators also provided descriptors related to each performance selection on the EJIP. After revisions were made to the EJIP, jazz educators completed a C ontent Validit y Rating Index (Appendix K) They were asked to rate eac h of the three sections (scales, melodies and improvisation) of the EJIP o n a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highest). Results from the Content Validity Rating Index are presented in Chapter 4. Data Analysis Independent variables included in data analys is w ere musical instrument, jazz ensemble experience (expressed by the number of months in jazz band), articulation instruction and improvisation instruction. Dependent variables included student scores on the jazz interpretation profile and improvisation rat ings. S cores on the Musical Sensitivity section of the MAP were extraneous variables. A one -sample paired t test was used to examine the differences in the performance s of Group A and Group B. A one -w ay analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to compare the performance of participants by the number of months in jazz band and by instrument on t he jazz interpretation measure. One way ANOVAs and t tests were computed using Minitab15. A three -way linear model ANOVA was calculated to examine inter actions among three factors and EJIP scores. The three factors observed were: 1. EJIP subtests 2. d ifferences from the pretest to the posttest 3. g roup (A and B) The three -way ANOVA was computed using Statistical Analysis Software (Base SAS9). Residual and Residual versus normal percentiles plots were included in analyses to determine assumptions of normality within the data.
82 All data were recorded using a Zoom H4 stereo digital recorder. Each recorded performance was evaluated by a panel of three judges. In addition to the researcher, judges included two jazz educators. Both jazz educators had more than 10 years of experience judging high school jazz bands at dist rict Music Performance Assessment. All judges have extensive jazz performance backgrounds, as well as experience directing high school and college jazz bands. One judge was a 20-year veteran trombonist and active professional composer with pieces played th e The Airmen of Note and the Boston Pops. The other judge had over 35 years of collegiate jazz teaching experience played in the University of North Texas One o Clock band and was previously voted national Jazz Educator of the Year. Judges underwent a on e-hour, detailed training session in which examples of specific performance levels were demonstrated among the various criteria. During the training, judges listened to recorded examples of the highest and lowest levels for evaluative criteria. High and lo w performance examples provided the judges with anchors for determining the outermost levels of the rating scale. When employing multiple judges, standard practice dictates that they rate at least 20% of the sample. In the current study, rated samples for the two additional judges consisted of approximately 33% of the total sample. After the training session, each judge was given an envelope containing pretest and posttest recordings contained in a single CD. Judged samples were randomly selected and rando mly ordered to ensure fully-blind datasets. Using Randomizer.org, participant recordings were ordered with the inclusion of pretest and posttests, and control and experimental group members. Rating scales were linear and intervallic, rang ing from one (lowe st) to five. Criteria for assessing stylistic interpretation included articulation, swing feel, rhythmic flow, and characteristic nature of tone. Each criterion was defined for the judges. For example, Technical
83 Proficiency was defined by instrumental facility, overall accuracy, consistency of tone, and intonation. Judges were also gi ven numeric criteria (Figure 3 -2 ) for assigning scores on the melodic interpretation portions. A was described as totally lacking in the category. A 2 was given when participants performed with several blatant errors, at or near 50% accuracy. A 3 was given when a participant exhibited three or more blatant errors and was lacking overall consistency. A 4 was given when the performer played with two or fewer er rors for that given category. A 5 was given only to those without errors or with only one minor flaw. Blatant and minor errors were explained for the judges. A minor error was described as nearly undetectable, while a blatant error was considered t o be obvious, such as a missed pitch or rhythm. Judges were instructed to listen to each recording four times, each time assessing a particular performance dimension. Posttest questionnaires were administered to both the experimental and control group. Co ntrol group participants were asked about their views on jazz improvisation and the methodology in which they participated (Appendix H). The experimental group questionnaire (Appendix H ) was designed to ascertain participants views on articulation exercis es, stylistic interpretation, and the process they experienced. To encourage honest responses, questionnaires did not include participants names and were collected by the band directors. Responses provided insight on methods for delivery of instruction on improvisation, articulation, and stylistic expression.
84 Figure 3 1. The bebop s cale 1 = Totally lacking in the category 2 = Several blatant errors (at or near 50% accuracy) 3 = Three or more blatant errors. Lacking overall consistency 4 = Plays con sistently well. Two or fewer errors. 5 = Without errors, or only one minor flaw. Figure 3 2. Ratings descriptors on melody tests 1 and 2
85 A 1977 Jowcol Music B 1945 1975 Used with permission from the Atlantic Music Corp. All rights reserved Figure 3 -3. Selections for melodic interpretation without articulation A) 12 -bar Minor blues B) Standard twelve bar blues (concert F)
86 1977 Jowcol Music Figure 3 4. Minor blues with articulations
87 Figure 3 -5 Sample minor ii V I phrases
88 Table 3 -1 Jazz improvisation lesson c ontents Grade o ne Grade t wo (includes items in Grade o ne and) Grade t hree (includes items in Grades one, t wo and) Major (Ionian) scales/chords Changing modalities (major/mixolydian/minor) Minor tonic chords (C Dominant (Mixolydian) scales/chords Slow to moderate harmonic movement (basic blues) Half diminished chords Minor (Dorian) scales/chords Major ii V I Altered dominant chords Moderate tempi Standard 32 bar song form Minor i i V i Common time Moderate tempi Minor blues Time signatures Moderately fast tempi (Poulter 2008)
89 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter includes a thorough description of the Edmund Jazz Interpretation Profile (EJIP) measurement instrument used in data collection Also included are statistical analyses pertaining to the research questions from C hapter 1 Statistical measures included Pearsons r correlations and measures of Cronbachs alpha as determinants of interjudge reliability. One sample t-tests were calcula ted to examine pretest to posttest differences within groups. Two sample t-tests were calculated to examine mean differences on posttest results between the experimental group and the control group. A three -way linear fixed model ANOVA was calculated to examine interactions between three independent variables (subtest title, pretest/posttest scores, and group) and subtest scores on the EJIP. Themes investigated in data analyses included: a. t he extent of the effect articulation instruction has on interpretatio n of jazz melodies, technical facility, jazz improvisation ability, stylistic interpretation within improvisation, and overall jazz performance These issues were investigated via statistical analyses, including one -sample and two sample t tests and analyses of variance (ANOVA). b. t he extent of articulation instruction in high school jazz ensembles This issue was addressed via a survey of 19 high school and college jazz educators. c. relationships between improvisation instruction and articulation instruction and differences between their effects on interpretation of jazz melodies, technical facility, jazz improvisation ability, stylistic interpretation within improvisation, and overall jazz performance These issues were investigated via statistical analyses, i ncluding one -sample t tests, one -sample paired t tests, two -sample t tests and three-way linear model analyses of variance (ANOVA). d. c ommon attitudinal themes among high school jazz ensemble musicians regarding articulation instruction, improvisation instr uction, and stylistic interpretation Reliability and validity of the EJIP were assessed via standard research methods. These methods included: (1) calculat ion of correlation coefficients, (2) internal consistency methods,
90 (3) qualitative input from judges regarding important considerations for jazz performance assessment, and (4) quantitative assessments of each section of the EJIP. D ata were collected from 18 particip ants in the control (Group A) group and 15 participants in the experimental group (Group B). Data from the experimental group were subject to an attrition rate of 6.7 %. Scores from one experimental group participant were eliminated due to excessive absences, which compromised posttest results from that individual. The groups were unequal due to limitations of student participation in jazz band at the experimental group school. This group did not have a complete saxophone section, which typically consists of two altos, two tenors, and one baritone. The trombone section consisted of only three students. There was one more trumpet, trombone, and saxophone player in the control group than in a typical jazz ensemble (usually five in each section; this group had six per section). Data sets included Gordon Musical Sensi tivity scores, pre test and post test scores on the Edmund Jazz Interpretation Profile (EJIP) demographic information (Table 4 1), and a post treatment questionnaire In addition to judged scores generated by the researcher, two judges participated in the s tudy. Each judge scored pre tests and posttests for six students from the control and five students from the experimental group. This constituted one third of the total sample, which exceeds standar d practice, where 20% or more are rated when employing mult iple judges. Content Validity Content validity was establish ed via a questionnaire and an assessment completed by a panel of three jazz educat ors. A questionnaire (Appendix J ) was administered eliciting open end ed responses from panel members regarding cri tical musical considerations when assessing jazz performance. The questionnaire consisted of items referring to the following components and ratings criteria on the EJIP :
91 1. t he bebop scale used in the EJIP 2. t he melodies used in the EJIP 3. b lues improvisation 4. in strumental/technical proficiency 5. rhythmic/time feel 6. s tylistic expression in jazz Outcomes from this particular investigation of content validity were compared with previous criteria included on the EJIP and included to enhance content validity Terms and concepts from the responses were used t o develop descriptive criteria for each performance rating Twelve of the judges 15 responses (Table 4 -9 ) were included in section I of the EJIP (bebop scale patterns used to assess technical pro ficiency) Thirteen of 17 re sponses were included in section II (melodies) and 17 of 20 re sponses were included in section III (improvisation). After revising the EJIP, a C ontent V alidity Rating Index (Appendix K ) was completed by the same panel of judges. Judges found that the three sections of the EJIP were highly valid. On a scale from 1 to 10 (10 being highest), judges mean ratings on the validity of section I was 9.3. Judges also rated section III to adequat ely assess blues improvisation at a mean rating of 9.3 out of 10. Section II (melodies) was rated the lowest (8.3 out of 10). The Judges mean rating on the three parts combined was 8.97, for a total mean rating of 26.9 (out of 30) among the three judges. Construct Validity Scores on Edwin Gordons test of Musical Sensitivity (a portion of the MAP) were used to examine construct validity (Table 4 10). Using Pearsons r product -moment correlation coefficient, students scores on the test of Musical Sensitiv ity were correlated with pretest and posttest scores. Pretest scores were predicted to best relate to aptitude because participants were not able to prepare for the pretest, which was sight read. Posttest scores were correlated with Musical Sensitivity sco res to determine whether or not this prediction was true. Correlations yielded a range of r = -.21 to .36. Though most correlations were positive, they tended to be
92 moderately low, including several negative relationships. An explanation for these results is given in chapter 5. A correlation between Musical Sensitivity raw scores and pretest totals (r = .33) was also calculated This relationship was found to be nearly significant ( p = .06). Positive relationships were established between Musical Sensitivi ty sub test scores and subtest scores on the EJIP for phrasing and style, but not balance The strongest positive relationship ( r = .35) existed between pre test EJIP style scores and the style portion of the MAP. Correlations between MAP scores and those on the posttest were consistently weaker than those on the pretest. Descriptive Statistics Data were gathered using the Edmund Jazz Interpretation Profile (EJIP). The EJIP (Appendix C) consisted of four parts or subtests. Each subtest contained four criteri a (Table 4 -2). Criteria were rated using five point Likert scales. Descriptors were provided for each criterion rating on each subtest (Appendix C). For example, on the scale subtest, time accuracy was described as steadiness of the beat, and plays the proper tempo. On the melody and improvisation subtests, style/expression was given the descriptors articulation, swing style and characteristic tone (use of dramatic devices was added with the descriptors on the improvisation subtest). Judges wer e given a description of the rating levels for criteria ratings on the melody subtests ( Figure 3 2/ Appendix C) For example, a 1 was given to participants totally lacking in the category and a 5 was given to participants who performed without errors, or only one minor flaw. Criteria ratings with in each subtest were summed to form composite subtest scores. Composite subtest scores cons ist of the subtotal on each of four subtest s (scales, melody1 melody 2, and improvisation). For example, each participant receiv ed four scores on the scale sub test, consisting of time accuracy, pitch accuracy, consistency of tone and tonguing
93 accuracy. Each score was worth 1 to 5 points, for a possible total of 20 po ints on the composite scale sub test. Each participant earned four composite subscores per test, or eight composite subscores on the pre test and posttest combined. The total test amounted to 80 possible points. Pretest means and standard deviations were cal culated for total test scores and each of the four subtests (Table 4 3). The same calculations were made for the posttest (Table 4 3). Three of the four subtests (melody1, melody2, and improvisation) included a performance element labeled Style/Expressio n. Means and standard deviations for style criteria were calculated. The maximum possible style rating was 15. The scales subtest was intended strictly as a test of technical ability and did not include a style rating. Ratings for technical facility on th ose same subtests (melody1, melody2, and improvisation) were combined to form a technique performance element rat ing. T he maximum possible technique rating was also 15. G ain Scores Research sub -question 2 was: To what extent does methodical articulation pr actice enhance stylistic expression of melodies? The r esearch sub questions included inquiries regarding the effects of articulation practice on technical facility, improvisation ability and stylistic interpretation when improvising. To answer these sub -q uestions, gain scores were calculated for all participants on each section of the EJIP. Gain scores wer e calculated by subtracting pre test scores from those on the post test (Table 4-4 ). Means were calculated from those gains within each participant group. Me an gains included composite sub test and total gains, as well as style gains and technique gains. The control group exhibite d higher ability during the pre test, but the two groups were nearly equal during the posttest. Therefore, the experimental group demo nstrated higher gains. Mean pre test totals for the control and experimental groups were 51.50 and 49.57, respectively.
94 Mean posttest totals for the control and experimental groups were 60.72 and 60.71, respectively This resulted in gain scores of 9.22 for the control group and 11.14 for the experimental group. Similarly, the experimental group demonstrated higher post test gains on composite style ratings. Control group pre test and posttest style means were 8.94 and 10.94, respectively (mean gain = 2.0). Experimental group pre test and posttest style means were 8.57 and 11.50, respectively (mean gain = 2.93). The correlation between individual participants total gain scores and mean style gains measured r = .85 demonstrating that style gains were consistent with total test gains. Reliability Judges total scores, as well as composite subtest scores from each section of the EJIP were correlated with the purpose of establishing reliability. Pearsons r correlat ion coefficients were calculated to provide a measure of reliability between pairs of judges. Cronbachs coefficient alpha was measured to account for variances in scoring for the three judges combined Judges scored a total of 11 participants (Group A n = 6, Group B n = 5) on both the pretest and posttest. This amounted to approximately 33% of the total sample. Judges combined (pre test and posttest) totals were correlated using the Pearson r product moment correlation coefficient (Table 4 -5 ). Pearson corr elations were calculated using both M icrosoft Excel2007 and Minitab15. Significance of the correlations is expressed in p values. Judge 2 and judge 3 rated a total of 11 participants on both the pre test and posttest (resul ting in a total of 22 test scores) Therefore, each judge awarded eight composite subtest scores for each participant, for a total of 88 subtest scores. The correlation between judge 1 and judge 2 on combined pre test and posttest total scores ( n = 22) was r = .76. Scores from judge 2 and j udge 3 demonstrated a coefficient of r = .89. Scores between judge 1 and judge 3 were r = .82. Each relationship was found to be significant at p = .000.
95 Judges composite subtest score ( n = 44) correlations for the pretest (T able 4 6) ranged from r = .54 to .95. Significance levels ranged from p = .000 to .083. All subtest correlations on the pretest were significant with the exception of the improvisation dimension, as rated by judge 1 and judge 3. Correlations on the improvisation subtest ( n = 22) were among the lowest (range r = .39 to .69). When eliminating improvisation ratings, which may be deemed the most subjective component involved with jazz assessment, correlations were higher. The combined subtest correlation ( n = 66) between judge 1 and judge 2 (without improvisation ratings) was r = .81. Combined subtest correlations between judge 1 and judge 3 were r = .80, and for judge 2 and judge three, r = .87. Correlations from the posttest ratings (Table 4 -7 ) were lower in comparison with th ose on the pretest (range r = .33 to 85). Six of 12 post test sub score correlations were found to be significant (range p = .000 to .322). In comparison, 11 of 12 pretest subscore correlations were significant. Judges rated both pretest and posttest samples fully blind. Data samples from each group, as well as pre tests and posttests, were combined and rated in random order. Because each data sheet was encoded, judges were not aware of differences between pre test and posttest recordings. As in the pretest, im provisation ratings were among the weakest relationships. In addition to Pearsons r correlations, inter judge reliability was calculated using Cronbachs coefficient alpha (Table 4 -8 ). Previous researchers (Azzara, 1993; Laughlin, 2001; May, 1998; Tumlinson, 1991) have used Cronbachs alpha as a measure of internal consistency among judges for tests having multiple parts. Boyle and Radocy (1987) explained that interjudge reliability can be expressed by using coefficient alpha, with each judge considered a n item and the sums o f scores considered the sources of overall variance (1987, p. 256). Because alpha scores include scores from all three judges and the EJIP contains multiple parts, alpha scores
96 may provide a more acute measure of interjudge reliability. Cronbachs alpha was calculated for scores among the th ree judges for the pretest and post test using three sets of scores: a. t otal scores from the three judges (consisting of each participants pretest and posttest totals combined, n = 33) b. a ll pretest and posttest composite subtests (44 composite subtests for each judge, n = 132) c. i ndependent subtests for both the pretest and posttest ( n = 33) The range of reliability scores was r = .71 to .95. According to Hinton, it is conventional to view an alpha of .70 or greater as indicating a reliable scale (2004, p. 303). Measures of Cronbachs coefficient alpha reflect a higher degree of reliability than those resulting from Pearsons r correlations. Notably, similar patterns exist between reliab ility established by using Pearsons r and that of Cronbachs alpha. Those similarities include: a. L owest reliability scores are found on the posttest for melody2 and improvisation. b. H ighest reliability scores resulted from pre test composite scores. Analyses Research sub -question 5 was: Do students who practice articulation studies improve overall jazz performance ability to a greater extent than those who do not engage in such pra ctice? A number of statistical measures were used to answer this query Those included one sample t tests, two sample t tests and analyses of vari ance Means, gain scores and confidence intervals on melodic elements are found in Table 4 11. Mean scores on the melodic elements of the EJIP were calculated to examine the effect s of improvisation instruction and articulation instruction on melodic interpretation (research sub question 2) Means and pretest to posttest gains within each group reflect differences between experimental and control groups. The experimental group demonstrated greater mean gains on composite subtest scores for the two melodies combined, and melodic style.
97 Though the experimental group improved to a greater degree, both groups showed significant improvement. One -sample paired t -tests (Table 4 12) were c alculated to examine significance levels of pre test to posttest differences made by each group in the areas of style, melodic performance, improvisation and total gains. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements from the pre test to posttest in all categories. A one-way ANOVA was used to examine pretest to posttest differences for each group in the melodic style category. That result was significant ( p = .02) for the experimental group, but not significant ( p = .21) for the control group. Two -sampl e t -tests (Table 4 13) were calculated to examine mean differences between the experimental and control group s for a number of posttest categories, including gain scores. Results indicate differences between the groups, though none of the differences were found to be significant at the .05 level. T he measure s for style gains (reported p = .06 / rounded up from p = .55) and melodic style gains ( p = .09) were near significance. A three -way l inear fixed effects model ANOVA was comp uted to examine interactions among three factors: (1) EJIP subtests (2) pretest versus posttest performance, and (3) group and EJIP scores. Each factor was an independent variable in the form of nominal data In the ANOVA calculation s subtest referred to each individual subtest title (e.g. scales subtest), hence the application of nominal data (as opposed to subtest scores). Likewise, pretest or posttest referred to the different instances in which the test was taken. Group referred to Groups A and B. The ANOVA model was designed in this manner because subtest criteria were not homogenous The ANOVA model was computed using Statistical Analysis Software (Base SAS9). The statistical model used least square means in estimation of effects because the gr oups contained
98 unequal numbers of participants. A Tukey-Kramer adjustment for multiple comparisons was employed to examine interactions among multiple independent variables. The model contained a total of 256 observations (32 participant scores on four subtests = 128 observations/doubled to account for both pretest and posttests = 256). Results from the three -way ANOVA (Table 4 14) suggested significance ( p < .0001) for interactions between EJIP subtests and EJIP total scores without accounting for differe nces from the pretest to the posttest. Significance ( p < .0001) was found between pretest and posttest results for the total sample ( pretest M = 12.63, posttest M = 15.16). Group differences without consideration to pretest to posttest differentiation were not significant ( p = .3184). When pretest to posttest differences were included as a factor, interactions between Group A and Group B EJIP scores were not significant ( p = .24). When pretest to posttest differences were included as a factor, interactions between EJIP subtests and total scores was found to be significant ( p = .0016). Differences between Group A and Group B (Table 415) pretest scores were not significant ( p = .4149). Results suggested little to no difference ( p = .9993) between the groups on posttest results. Two plots were created to check assumptions of normality for data used in the three -way ANOVA analyses: A r esidual plot (Figure 4 1) and a residual versus normal percentiles plot (Figure 4 2). The plots are included because they demonstrate that analyses from the three -way ANOVA provided dependable results. Results on the residual plots suggest that conclusions drawn from the data are accurate. The residual plot demonstrates overall balance with respect to t he central line, meeting the assumption of normality. The residual versus normal percentiles plot demonstrates a linear pattern, with minimal amounts of tailing at both ends, which also suggests that data met the assumption of normality. A General Linear M odel ANOVA (Table 4 16) was
99 calculated to determine the overall performance of the statistical model. Results ( p < .0001) from the General Linear Model ANOVA reveal that the model was significantly effective. Relationships among Posttest Results and Indepe ndent Variables A one way ANOVA (Table 4 17) was measured to examine the effects of independent variables (instrument, jazz ensemble experience and grade level), MAP style subscores and MAP total raw scores on jazz performance. Dependent variables include d posttest style, post test scales, styl e gains, overall gains and post test totals. The relationship betwee n total gain scores and musical sensitivity (p = .03 ) was the only finding of significance. The comparison between total gains and students grade lev el neared significance ( p = .06 ). Post -treatment Questionnaires Data from post treatment questionnaires were collected and analyzed to elicit students views on improvisation and articulation instruction. Student responses aided the researcher in answering r esearch sub -q uestion 6: What were the students attitudes regarding jazz improvisation instruction and jazz articulation instruction? Questionnaire items were written to elicit open -ended responses. Qu estionnaires (Appendix H ) contained identical content with the exception of the following items found only within the experimental group questionnaire: a. Do you feel the articulation exercises benefitted you mus ically? If yes, in what way(s)? b. What would you change about this appr oach to teaching jazz style? ( e.g., More call and response playing, more melodic embellishment, less focus on scales) c. In terms of style, what do you think about when playing jazz on your instrument, as opposed t o playing other musical genres? Item b above was similar for both groups, but the control groups item referred to jazz improvisation and t he experimental groups item was specific to jazz style Because rhythm section players participated in the treatment at both schools, their responses were consi dered in analyses.
100 In addition to 18 wind players six members of the rhythm section completed questionnaires in the control group. A total of 18 responses were collected from the experimental group, including six rhythm section players. Two trumpet playe rs from the experimental group were ab sent the final day of treatment when the questionnaire was administered. Responses were analyzed using triangulation a process in which the researcher recorded all responses from each group, and then narrowed those down to consist of common themes and points of interest. Response sets from both groups were then compared, indicating a number of common themes and points of interest between the two groups. All 24 members of the control group ( Group A) responded positively when asked if the improvisation instruction benefitted them musically Sixteen of the 18 experimental group (Group B) participants responded positively on the same question. T he two negative responses came from rhythm section players, who played a lesser role in the study. When asked how the improvisation lessons benefitted them a number of students (A = 6, B = 2) responded that they felt more comfortable or confident whe n improvising. Several (A = 3, B = 5) mentioned musical benefits of scale study a nd learn ing about chord changes (A = 3, B = 7). A few students (A = 1 B = 2) mentioned the benefit of learning new musical ideas or licks and ideas. One observation of interest from an experimental group participant was that the instruction led to the perception of improvisation as simplicity rather than madness. When asked if and how articulation exercises benefitted them musically, 17 of 18 experimental group participants responded positively. The lone negative response was from a percussionist who did not participate in articulation exercises. Four participants felt the exercises improved their ability to swing. Three felt the exercises improved their improvisation ability. Three also responded that the exercises helped them learn to blow through phrases (When
101 playing jazz phrases, students were taught the importance of using legato articulation, which contributes to a smooth and flowing manner of playing.) Two students reported that their playing felt more natural or smooth. Two students fel t the exercises led to improved jazz style. When asked about the most effective portion(s) of instruction, control and experimental group participants responded with fewer common themes. Some responses, however, demonstrated agreement among the two groups. This outcome was predictable, considering content differences between the two forms of treatment. While five control group participants acknowledged that written assignments were most effective, no students from the experimental group felt the same. Of th ose five, two respondents stated: a. I was able to visualize what I wanted to play. b. I could actually see what we were trying to do. Nine members of the experimental group replied that articulation instruction was the most effective aspect of their experi ence. Several (A = 7, B = 5) mentioned the effectiveness of learning scales and modes. Others (A = 7, B = 3) commented on the effectiveness of class improvisation experience and practice. A number of respondents (A = 3, B = 1) noted the be nefit of going down the line, an activity in which each player was required to solo. Two of those listed the importance of listening and one stated, I liked listening to others for ideas. Five experimental group participants noted the effectiveness of ear training via call and response playing. Four participants from each group cited benefits from learning about chords. When asked what they would change about the methods of instruction, students listed a variety of responses. Six control group participants mentioned t he need for more melodic embellishment, yet none of the experimental group members felt the same. Some (A = 5, B = 2) stated the need for more solo experience during class. Four control group members desired more
102 instances of going down the line. Likewis e, four control group members reflected the need for more call and response playing. Two from each group noted the need for a longer treatment period with more time for practice. Two from each group wanted less emphasis on scales, but some (A = 4, B = 1) desired more variety in the scales studied. Two experimental participants reflected the need for more articulation practice, and one felt a need for less. In a particularly poignant response, one participant called for more emphasis on cool riffs to add to my jazz vernacular. This response is especially noteworthy, considering previously mentioned relationships between language and jazz improvisation. Students were asked to describe their thoughts when improvising over an F blues. Those responses suggest that improvisation instruction was influential for students when facing the blues task. Several (A = 6, B = 2) respondents found improvisation to be easier and that they were more competent due to the instruction (though the question was not directly rel ated to instructional treatment). A large number (A = 10, B = 12) of respondents thought about chord and/or scale tones. Some (A = 1, B = 6) mentioned thinking about chord changes (e.g., hitting chord tones consisting of the third and seventh from the I chord to the IV chord, or A/E -flat to B flat/A -flat, which consist of half -step relationships). This is an interesting point considering the fact that control group students experienced slightly more in-depth improvisation instruction. Five control group par ticipants stated their desire to make an interesting, cool, or awesome solo. Three members of the control group cited use of the blues scale and two of those mentioned using the blues scale in relation to the melody and chords. One experimental group participant explained the importance of going beyond the blues scale. Other responses of interest included:
103 a. Forget everything and just blow. b. Just let go. c. Im trying to hear the changes. This final response was important, given the necessity for listening when playing jazz. The fact that only one participant mentioned he was listening provides an impetus for including more ear training and listening experiences with instructional improvisa tion methodology. Finally, members of the experimental group were asked to explain their thoughts on jazz style and unique musical characteristics involved with playing jazz. Half the group referenced rhythm or time. Six members implied jazz is more laid back or relaxed. Four members wrote that they thought about how to swing. One felt that jazz is less technical, and another stated in terms of style, that it is important to play what you want. The following comments were additional thoughts of i nterest: a. One student wished to develop an individual personal style. b. One student stated Its more about expressing how you feel. c. One student claimed, It depends on the style of jazz really. The motive for administering post -treatment questionnaires was pragmatic One cannot underestimate the importance of student perspectives when developing a methodological course of instruction. Student responses were generally positive, yet provided crucial pieces of information to be considered for jazz pedagogue s and those intending to conduct similar research studies regarding jazz improvisation and/or style.
104 EJP Statistical Analysis Model yhat Figure 4 1. Residual plot of EJIP data used in three -way linear ANOVA EJP Statistical Analysis Model Normal Percentiles Figure 4 2. Residual vs. normal percentiles plot uals -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 9 1011121314151617 0.1 1 5 10 25 50 75 90 95 99 99.9 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 Residuals Residuals
105 Table 4 1. Demographics ( N = 32) Demographic Group A ( n = 18) Group B ( n = 14) Grade level ( n ) Grade 10 2 3 Grade 11 7 6 Grade 12 9 5 Jazz experience a M 9.00 11 .50 Median 10.00 16 .00 SD 6.83 7.52 Instrument Alto saxophone 3 3 Tenor saxophone 2 2 Baritone saxophone 1 1 Trombone 6 3 Trumpet 6 5 a Expressed by mean number of months in jazz ensemble Table 4 2. EJIP subtests and criteria scoring ranges Subtest Subtest criteria Criterion score range Subtest score range Scales Time accuracy 1-5a 420 Pitch accuracy Consistency of tone Tonguing accuracy Melody1 Technical proficiency 1-5b 420 Pitch accuracy Rhythm/time feel Style/expression Melody2 Technical proficiency 1-5 420 Pitch accuracy Rhythm/time feel Style/expression Improvisation Rhythmic accuracy 1-5 420 Technical proficiency Melodic structure Style a For a description of criteria, see Appendix C. b Melody subtests included descriptions for each of the levels (F igure 3 -2).
106 Table 4 3. M eans and standard deviations on the EJIP Test component Group A ( n = 18) Group B ( n = 14) Pretest M ( SD ) Posttest M( SD ) Pretest M ( SD ) Posttest M ( SD ) Subtests Scales 14.61(2.09) 15.72(1.99) 14.13(1.55) 16.20(1.08) Melody1 11.00(2.33) 14.50(1.47) 9.73(1.87) 13.67(1.99) Melody2 13.22(2.07) 16.00(1.68) 12.40(1.50) 15.40(1.24) Improvisation 12.67(2.09 14.33(1.64) 13.27(1.16) 14.90(1.33) Total test 51.50(7.11) 60.56(1.50) 49.57(4.88) 60.71(3.95) Performance elements Style/expression 8.94(1.47) 10.94(1.26) 8.57(1.16) 11.50(0.76) Technique 9.78(1.56) 11.56(1.15) 8.79(0.97) 11.00(0.96) Table 4-4 Mean gains on subtests, total test and performance element scores Test component Group A( n = 18) Group B( n = 14) Subtests Scales 1.11 2.14 Melody1 3.50 4.00 Melody2 2.78 3.14 Improvisation 1.67 1.86 Total test 9.06 11.14 Performance elements Style/expression 2.00 2.93 Technique 1.78 2.21
107 Table 4 -5 Reliability coefficients for pretest / posttest combined Judge(J) Judge(J) Test component J1 J2 Subtests Scales J2 .82*** __ J3 .79*** .80*** Melody1 J2 .71*** __ J3 .89*** .79*** Melody2 J2 .79*** __ J3 .75*** .79*** Improvisation J2 .39 __ J3 .45* .69*** Total test J2 .76*** __ J3 .82*** .89*** Performance elements Style/expression J2 .66** __ J3 .76*** .79*** Technique J2 .65** __ J3 .63** .58** p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Table 4 -6. P re test reliability coefficients Pretest component J1 J2 Subtests Scales J2 .79** __ J3 .89*** .78** Melody1 J2 .68* __ J3 .76** .88*** Melody2 J2 .92*** __ J3 .78** .82** Improvisation J2 .76** J3 .54 .74** Total test J2 .95*** __ J3 .90*** .94*** Performance elements Style/expression J2 .85** __ J3 .78** .79** Technique J2 .72* __ J3 .62* .72* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
108 Table 4 -7. Posttest reliability coefficients Posttest component J1 J2 Subtests Scales J2 .85** __ J3 .73* .83** Melody1 J2 .53 __ J3 .72* .88** Melody2 J2 .42 __ J3 .51 .57* Improvisation J2 .33 __ J3 .47 .66* Total test J2 .60 __ J3 .80** .83** Performance elements Style/expression J2 .45 __ J3 .83** .75** Technique J2 .56 __ J3 .58 .41 p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Table 4 -8. Coefficient Test component Pretest Posttest Scales .89 .90 Melody1 .90 .83 Melody2 .90 .71 Improvisation .84 .71 Test total .95 .84
109 Table 4 9. Content validity: suggested EJIP criteria Test component J1 J2 J3 I Scales Note accuracy Pitch accuracy Note accuracy Time Rhythm style Articulation Articulations Stylistic articulation Time Pitch accuracy Tone throughout Tempo Mature sound Phrasing Intonation II Melodies Note accuracy Key center accuracy Accuracy Swing feel Jazz phrasing using historical inflections Articulation weight Time, time, time Jazz rhythms Phrasing Inflections Tone throughout Time Good horizontal (diatonic) intonation Articulation smoothness Tempo Timing staying in the pocket of the groove Understanding of blues form III Improvisation Time, time, time Key accuracy/center Style Note choice Blues, mixture of scales Creativity Swing feel Energy/conviction Making the changes Inflections, shaping the line Historical inflections Articulation Creativity Understanding blues form Phrasing Rhythmic development Technical ability in use of tone Time Instrumentally idiomatic licks Musicality in phrasing/dynamics
110 Table 4 10. Pearsons r correlation s: MAP musical s ensitivity and EJIP scores ( n = 11) Music Sensitivity Subtest Raw score Percentile rank Phrasing Style Balance EJIP Pretest Style .24 .25 .26 .35* .21 Melody1 .28 .26 .27 .37* .17 Melody2 .22 .25 .28 .28 .21 Improvisation .25 .28 .17 .26 .07 Pretest total .33 .36 .29 .37* .05 EJIP Posttest Style .05 .11 .09 .03 .06 Melody1 .22 .25 .01 .52** .08 Melody2 .14 .18 .12 .10 .08 Improvisation .03 .03 .09 .08 .11 Posttest total .21 .23 .13 .26 .01 p < .05 ** p < .01 Table 4 11. One sample t test of melody component scores ( N = 32) Melody component Group A( n = 18) Group B( n = 14) M ( CI ) M ( CI ) Pretest melodies 24.22(22.14 26.30) 22.29(20.48 24.09) Posttest melodies 30.5(29.17 31.84) 29.43(27.97 30.89) Melodic gain 6.28(4.59 7.97) 7.14(6.47 8.67) Pretest melodic style 5.89(5.33 6.45) 5.43(4.84 6.02) Posttest melodic style 7.5(7.01 7.99 7.64(7.36 7.93) Melodic style gain 1.61(1.10 2.13) 2.21(1.70 2.73) Table 4 12. One -sample paired t tests for mean gains within groups EJIP component Group A( n = 18) Group B( n = 14) p T p T Style gains .000 5.53 .000 11.95 Melodic gains .000 7.85 .000 11.07 Melodic style gains .000 6.59 .000 9.28 Improvisation gains .016 2.66 .001 4.08 Total gains .000 5.48 .000 11.82
111 Tab le 4 13. Two-Sample t tests for mean pretest to posttest differences between groups (N = 32) EJIP component p T Style gains .06 2.00 Melodic gains .2 1 1.28 Melodic style gains 09 1.73 Improvisation gains .82 0.23 Total gains .31 1.04 Posttest I mprovisation .18 1.39 Posttest style .16 1.45 Table 4 14. Three -way fi xed effects ANOVA: IVs/scores ( N = 32) DV (Scores a ) Source (IV) DF F MS SS p EJIP section 3 130.19 90.17 270.50 < .0001 Pretest/posttest 1 130.19 401.60 401.60 < .0001 Group 1 1.00 3.08 3.08 .3184 Section*pre/post 3 5.24 16.16 48.49 .0016 Group*pre/post 1 1.39 4.29 4.29 .2395 Section group 3 2.36 7.29 21.87 .0718 a Scores refers to individual subtest scores on the pretest and posttest for the entire sample. *Interactions examined among two IVs and EJIP scores (e.g., group, pre/post differences, and scores) Table 4 15. Three -way fi xed effects ANOVA: g roup/pretest/posttest ( N = 32) Group A posttest Group B pretest Group B posttest ( n = 18 ) ( n = 14) p values Group A pretest < .0001 .4149 < .0001 Group A posttest __ < .0001 .9993 Group B pretest __ __ < .0001 Table 4 16. GLMa ANOVA to examine performance of the three-way fixed ANOVA model Source DF F MS SS p Model 15 16.09 49.64 744.58 < .0001 a General Linear Model
112 Table 4 17. ANOVA for effects of instrument, grade, experience, and MAP scores ( N = 32) Source DF F MS SS p Instrument Posttest style 4 1.54 1.71 6.85 .22 Style gain 4 .72 1.38 5.53 .59 Total gain 4 .89 28.8 115.3 .49 Posttest scales 4 1.45 3.81 15.22 .24 Posttest total 4 1.37 27.2 108.7 .27 Grade level Posttest style 2 .16 .20 .39 .86 Style gain 2 2.23 3.85 7.70 .13 Total gain 2 3.04 86.00 172.00 .06 Posttest scales 2 1.30 3.54 7.08 .29 Posttest total 2 .19 4.10 8.30 .83 Experience Posttest style 7 1.85 .38 2.63 .12 Style gain 7 1.43 2.43 16.99 .24 Total gain 7 1.06 33.4 233.7 .42 Posttest scales 7 1.29 3.35 23.48 .30 Posttest total 7 1.36 26.2 183.7 .27 Musical Sensitivity Style Posttest style 10 .90 1.11 11.07 .55 Style gain 10 .93 1.77 17.74 .53 Total gain 10 .76 26.4 264.00 .66 Posttest scales 10 .34 1.20 12.01 .96 Posttest total 10 .45 11.5 114.70 .90 Musical Sensitivity Raw Sc ore Posttest style .58 .88 14.04 .86 Style gain 16 1.14 1.98 31.72 .40 Total gain 16 2.73 46.2 739.30 .03 Posttest scales 16 1.00 2.77 44.29 .50 Posttest total 16 .36 11.1 177.90 .98
113 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCL USIONS This study was an investigation of the effects of articulation practice on jazz performance for high school wind musicians. The relationship between articulation and stylistic interpretation was a critical issue for consideration Connections between articulation and a number of jazz performance components were examined. Those components included particular aspects of jazz performance, such as technical facility, melod ic interpretation, improvisation ability and stylistic interpretation. In this chapter research questions are addressed with explanations of how the findings contributed to answering those questions. The chapter concludes with a brief reflective discussi on concerning jazz style, methodology, and assessment. An underlying purpose of this study was to develop a systematic methodology for assi milation of jazz style. The considerable link between articulation and jazz style led to development of a method in which wind musicians could learn to increase the fluidity of their sound. Results from the study demonstrate that articul ation practice leads to improvement of overall jazz performance, as well as specific aspects of jazz performance. Caution must be exercised in any attempt to generalize results of this study to the overall population due to the stu dys relatively small sample size and duration of treatment. Data Collection Statistical power of analysis was assessed using GPower software. The power of analysis from this population size resulted in a measure of .28. The i deal power of analysis measure is .80 or greater. In order to achieve .80 this study would necessit ate 128 participants. In this study, however, sample size was l imited du e to availability. Demanding performance and rehearsal schedules of high school band programs made it difficult to obtain permission to work with student research participants. Additionally, the rigid schedules of both band programs involved
114 in the study r esulted in very short tre atment stages (a total of 12 instructional hours with each group). Convenience sampling was used to overcome difficulties associated with obtaining permissions to conduct research using high school student participants This form o f sampling also enabled the researcher to admi nister treatment to jazz ensembles in two separate schools Each school was chosen based upon levels of excellence achieved by the jazz band program. Many steps were taken to obtain research permission to work with high school participants in two Florida school districts. One districts research advisory board required a research proposal consisting of a research rationale, thorough description of statistical design and methodology, literature review and explanation of research variables with statistical measures of effect size. If the pr oposal, which amounted to more than 20 pages, was lacking in any aspect, the researcher would have been denied permission. Pretest and posttest data were collected from the two groups. Eig hteen participants from a north central Florida high school were recruited for the control group. Fifteen participants from a south east Florida high school were recruited for the experimental group. Each group underwent a three-week treatment period involving jazz improvisation instruction. In addition to improvisation instruction, experimental group participants received methodical instruction on jazz articulation. Materials for the articulation treatment included scale patterns, arpeggios, sa mple jazz phrases, and applications of articulation patterns to jazz melodies. All data were gathered during jazz ensemble classes, during the school day, or immediately after school on each high schools campus. One consideration was the time of day each jazz ensemble met. While both schools rehearsals took place in the morning, one band met at zero hour, which occurs before the regular school day (in this case, treatment took place from 7:50
115 a.m. until 8:20 a.m.). The other band was administered treatment from 10:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. Both treatment periods took place during the fall semester. The control group s (Group A) treatment window took place from September 29 to October 16 and the experimental groups (Group B) treatment occurred from Nove mber 3 to November 20. The difference in treatment periods could have resulted in student maturation, considering the latter group (experimental) began treatment five weeks later than the initial group. There was, however, only a two -week window between the end of control group treatment and the onset of the experimental group treatment. Students in each group were eager to participate and experience jazz instruction. The fact that students would typically spend most of their rehearsal time performing ense mble pieces made improvisation instruction somewhat of a challenge for both the researcher and the participants. The challenge was due to the individual nature of improvising. Every student was engaged in the performance of scales, arpeggios, melodies, and improvisations, yet it became evident that improvisation instruction for high school students would best take place in smaller doses (10 to 15 minutes at a time). Findings Results from both forms of instruction were positive, evidenced by the fact that participants in both groups improved jazz performance skills. Mean scores from the pretest to the posttest indicated that both groups improved in all areas measured, which included composite scores for subtests, performance element style scores, composite technique scores and combined melody scores. It is notable that on average, students receiving articulation instruction improved more in terms of technique, melodic performance, stylistic expression, improvisation and overall jazz performance. That improvement was expressed by gain scores, which were calculated by
116 subtracting pretest scores from posttest scores. Two -sample t test results did not yield significance (p for the experimental groups performance gains, yet gain score differences occurred between the experimental and control groups. Research sub -question 1 involved the importance of articulation in jazz performance A panel of jazz experts was surveyed, providing detailed validation for this type of study. Research sub -q uestion 2 involved the extent to which articulation instruction enhanced stylistic expression of melodies. The experimental group was found to have improved m ean composite style scores by + 2.93 and the control group by +2.0. Mean gain scores for the two melodies com bined also demonstrated more improvement for the experimental group (experimental = + 7.14, control = + 6.28). Pearson r correlations suggested that s tyle score gains were an accurate representation of students overall improvement. Correlations between part icipants total gains and style gains measured r = .85. Research sub -q uestion 3 involved the impact of articulation studies on technical facility. In the s tudy, a collection of bebop scales was used as a measure of instrumental technical ability. Post test results on the scale subtest revealed that the experimental group improved by +2.14 and the control group improved by + 1.11. Composite scores for technique were calculated by adding scores for technical facility on the two melody subtests and the improvis ation subtest. Experimental group students improved mean composite technique ratings by +2.21 and control group students improved by +1.78. Again, differences were not found to be significant at the .05 level yet differences existed between groups. The e xtent of improvement on improvisation, resulting from articulation studies, was addressed in research sub -q uestion 4 Improvisation is a primary component of jazz performance, and it provides a significant means for demonstrating musical creativity (not ex clusively in jazz
117 but also in styles apart from jazz). The critical link between improvisation and jazz performance made improvisation a necessary and key factor in the study. The experimental group again made more improvement on c omposite improvisation sc ores (experimental = 1.86, control = 1.67), but the difference was minimal. The subjective nature of creativity and difficulty when assessing creative products likely contributed to the lowest reliability coefficients, low mean gain scores, and lack of significance when considering improvisation scores a dependent variable in this study. Perhaps most telling was the overall effect of articulation studies on the experimental group. Upon recording pretests of participants in the experimental group, concern ar ose that individual ability levels were lower than anticipated. While both band programs are known for excellence and both fit the criteria for inclusion in the study, students from the control group exhibited stronger musicianship skills, particularly dur ing the pretest phase. The researcher was concerned that experimental group students lacked the capacity for improvement necessary to demonstrate benefits from articulation instruction. Those students, however, made greater total gains from pretest to post test (experimental = +11.14, control = +9.06 ). The initial difference of mean pretest scores was + 1.93 in favor of the control group. After receiving treatment, the experimental group not only closed that gap, but earned a higher mean total (by + 15). It is conceivable that those results were due to a ceiling effect for the control group. However, posttest mean scores revealed that room still existed for improvement in both groups. The highest individual posttest scores among control and experimental group individuals were 67 and 66, respectively, whereas the highest possible score was 80. Results from Pearsons r correlations and Cronbachs alpha demonstrate scores on the EJIP were reliable. Lowest degrees of reliability resulted from improvis ation score s (combined
118 pretest and post test range r = .39 to .69). Reliability differences exis ted between the pre test and the posttest. P osttest results demonstrated lower coefficients, parti cularly for melody2 (range r = .42 to .57) and improvisation (range r = .33 to .66). Judges scores on those particular subtests revealed wide ranges between highest and lowest composite scores for some participants. In two cases, ranges for improvisation scores were as much as nine points on a twenty point test. Those ranges con tributed to and likely accounted for lower reliability numbers. Improvisation is perhaps the most subjective component of jazz performance for assessment. When considering reliability without improvisation scores judges reliability measures ranged from r = .80 to .87. Coefficient alpha was calculated to provide a more accurate reflection of interjudge reliability, accounting for differences among all three judges scores simultaneously All alpha scores were above .70, reflecting a reliable measure. Once again, the lowest reliability scores were found on the posttest for melody2 and improvisation (both measuring .71). According to a panel of three jazz educators, content on the EJIP was considerably valid. Jazz educators considered criteria to be an effective represent ation of the content being measured. Open ended responses regarding important considerations for jazz assessment demonstrated a high degree of agreement from judge to test. The rating index completed by each of the judges also demonstrated a greement both from judge -to -judge and from judge -to -test. Scores on Gordons Musical Sensitivity portion of the MAP were intended as a measure of construct validity. Correlation coefficients between MAP scores and those on the EJIP did not reflect a high degree of agreement. However, positive relationships were established between MAP scores and pretest composite subtest scores. Pretest totals from the EJIP correlated with MAP raw scores at r = .33. A higher correlation (r = .35) was found between EJIP pre test composite style scores and the style portion of the MAP In fact, style scores on the MAP
119 showed significant relationships ( p = < .05) with three measures from the EJIP pretest (style, melody1 and pretest total). Some findings from the EJIP/MAP corre lations were of particular interest. Correlations for both pret est and posttest scores with each section of the MAP maintained narrow ranges, reflecting a high degree of consistency (e.g., the range when correlating MAP raw scores with EJIP total pretest scores was r = .22 to .33). Positive relationships were found between MAP style scores and total scores on the EJIP (which includes ratings for stylistic performance). Posttest corre lations were consistently lower than those on the pretest. Higher pretest correlations may indicate a degree of construct validity for the EJIP, considering the MAP is an aptitude test. When correlating MAP scores with gain scores on the EJIP, those correl ations were found to be negative (they were calculated, but not reported in Chapter 4). The negative relation ship between gain and the MAP was no surprise considering gain scores are more closely related to performance achievement, which occurred due to instruction (as opposed to aptitude, which is innate). Because students sight read material on the pretest, they relied upon innate abilities, as opposed to individual achievement, which would result from practice and knowledge of the test. However, it is i mportant to note that the EJIP is not an aptitude test. It called for participants instrumental performance, whereas the MAP required participants to listen and make preferential choices regarding short musical excerpts. Some relationships were establishe d between musical sensitivity and EJIP scores, yet the two tests were intended to measure separate constructs. The extent of improvement of overall jazz performance, resulting from articulation studies, was addressed in research sub -question 5. T tests an d ANOVAs were measured to examine differences bet ween the two treatment forms The first measures were used to determine
120 treatment effects for each group. Two -sample t -tests revealed significant differences within groups from pre test to posttest. Gain scor es within groups indicate d that both treatments had a significant effect on participants. When t -tests were run to examine mean pretest and posttest differences between the two groups, those results were not significant, with the exception of gain scores o n the st yle portion. Articulation practice produced greater style gains (experimental = +2.93, control = + 2.00), melodic style gains (experimental = + 2.21, control = +1.61), and overall melodic gains (experimental = + 7.14, control = +6.28). The lack of si gnificant pretest to posttest differences between groups does not allow for rejection of the null hypothesis, though differences between the two groups on style gains approached significance A central premise for this study was the close relationship betw een articulation and style and that practice of articulation exercises could enhance ones stylistic capabilities. In this regard, articulation exercises had a significant effect on stylistic interpretation in jazz performance. A three -way linear fixed model ANOVA provided data regarding interactions among three independent variables (subtest, pretest or posttest, and group) and subtest scores on the EJIP. Results from the ANOVA reveal a significant ( p < .0001) interaction between subtest (scales, melody 1, melody2, and improvisation) and subtest scores. This result suggests significant differences among participant scores on the subtests. Means from the subtests revealed that overall, participants scored highest ( M = 15.15) on the scales subtest and lowes t ( M = 12.30) on melody1. This was expected, due to the relative difficulty level involved with playing melody1. Improvisation ( M = 13.82) and melody2 ( M = 14.31) ranked second and third, respectively, in terms of difficulty. When pretest or posttest was included as a factor along with subtests,
121 results ( p = .0016), suggested that participants made significant improvements from the pretest to the posttest. Results regarding differences between the groups were similar to resu lts from the two sample t tests. No significant differences were found. However, statistics from the three -way ANOVA suggest differences between the groups and that those differences became less significant for posttest scores D ifferences were more likely to be found between the two groups on the pretest (p = .4149) than on the posttest ( p = .9993). These values imply that there was much less difference (or virtually no difference) between the two groups at the posttest and that the experimental group was catching up. This result was among the most compelling, but also provided the most statistically sound evidence for the claim that articulation exercises enhance jazz performance. Research sub -q uestion 6 pertained to students attitudes regarding the treatment in which they part icipated. This subject was investigated by collecting and encoding student responses on written questionnaires administered at the end of each treatment stage. Nearly all responded that the treatment provided musical benefits. Som e c oncern existed about the Hawthorne effect influencing positive responses. Students may not have wanted to portray themselves in a negative light. To avoid this, responses remained anonymous and were collected by the band director at each school before b eing collected by the researcher. Themes emerged from the questionnaires which merited special attention. A vast majority of participants in the experimental group felt articulation instruction was beneficial. Several felt it was the most beneficial aspec t of the treatment. This sentiment shed some light on the nature of the articulation instruction, considering the fact that m ost students simply want to play jazz band tunes, as opposed to learning and practicing scales and exercises. The sequential nature of
122 instruction may have contributed to students positive views on both improvisation and articulation instruction. Several students referred to a gain in confidence as a result of improvisation instruction. The task of improvisation can be daunting, esp ecially for those lacking experience. To spontaneously function within the musical realms of melody, harmony, rhythm and form necessitates making and executing choices without time to plan. As a result of instruction, many participants found improvisation to be much less intimidating. Some students wrote that they wished they were put on the spot more often during rehearsals. This indicates that given prope r instruction, students can develop a desire to confront the task of improvisation, even when requir ed to create musical products before their peers. Sample Improvisations Seven sample choruses (a chorus consists of one repetition of the 12 -measure form) of blues improvisation were transcribed for analysis ( Appendix M). Two participants from the experimental group were chosen for analysis, based on the amount and nature of improvement from the pretest to the posttest. Pretest and posttest improvisations from one participant from the control group were chosen for the same reason. The seventh improvisation, a posttest product from the control group, was chosen because that participant garnered the highest rating (17 out of 20). A trombonist from the experimental group made a four -point improvement (pretest improvisation = 12, posttest = 16). The posttest improvisation was performed more accurately, confidently, and with fewer intonation problems than the pretest improvisation. The most telling improvement, however, was demonstrated in the participants ability to delineate tonality. In the pretest improvisation, the trombonist appears to be playing in the key of B -flat over an F blues. The solo begins with the notes B -flat and A -flat, which could indicate the root and seventh of B -
123 flat7. The solo also ends with two B -flat qu arter notes (emphasizing the fourth scale degree over a seventh is forbidden in jazz performance). In the posttest, the trombonist clearly outlines the key of F in the first measure. Even more impressive is the fact this participant made the change from F7 to B -flat7 from the fourth to the fifth measure. Making those changes was a key aspect in improvisation instruction because the thirds and sevenths of those two chords are a half -step apart. When students are taught to utilize the blues scale exclusively they miss out on the opportunity to make those changes. It must be noted that during this study, students were presented with the F minor pentatonic scale when improvising. That scale was provided because many students had little or no experience improvising at the onset of the treatment stages. Treatment did, however, involve study of chord tones and changes in the blues and other forms. Students were also given a set of chord changes to read when improvising. However, in the estimate of the researcher, few, if any, students possessed the ability to properly read and delineate those changes. Given a more extensive treatment period, students would likely demonstrate much more success reading chord changes and delineating harmony. Pretest and posttest sol os from an alto saxophonist in the experimental group were chosen because the player played with fewer clams (clam being a pitch that is missed in a manner that causes an obvious sounding error) in the posttest. This soloist was also chosen because the chord change from the fourth to the fifth measure was demonstrated accurately. This player improved three points from pretest to posttest. The posttest solo ends strongly with a mixture of triplets and syncopation, ending solidly on the tonic pitch. A tr ombonist from the control group demonstrated the greatest pretest to posttest gains, improving from 9 to 14 points. The pretest solo was wrought with rhythmic accuracy problems.
124 In fact, the solo could not be transcribed accurately because many of the rhyt hms were simply in the cracks. Several clams appear in the pretest solo, but the posttest is played with a much greater degree of rhythmic accuracy. Though this trombonist relied on the tonic pitch extensively, the posttest solo made much more musical se nse. The act of simplifying pitch and rhythmic choices when improvising often contributes to greater success. The highest rated solo among all participants was played by a tenor saxophonist on the posttest. This musician used a number of appropriate pitches outside the minor pentatonic scale and exhibited perhaps the greatest penchant for jazz inflection. Those in flections included bent tones, turns, and falls (pitches that descend rapidly, sounding as if they are falling from high to low). The tenor player made nice use of blue notes, both beginning and ending the solo using the flatted seventh scale degree in a b luesy, melodic manner. Perhaps the most mature aspect of this solo was the variety of melodic shape, alternating between steps and skips, both ascending and descending. Inflection and melodic shape were incorporated along with note choices that contribute to a melodically interesting solo. Theoretical Implications Results reported in this study infer certain theoretical and methodological implications for jazz educatio n and research. One of the unique and appealing characteristics of jazz performance is it s inimitable musical style. Jazz is considered by some to be mysterious or even sexy. This is likely due to the spontaneity of the music, but also unique style characteristics exhibited in jazz performances. For instance, instrumental timbres of jazz music ians often differ from those of their counterparts in classical music. Jazz trumpet players may strive to achieve a fluffy or airy tone, while classical trumpet players most often seek to maintain the clarity or purity of their tone. Jazz wind musicians also employ a number of instrumental effects or inflections, such as growls and pitch bends, which are less common in other performance styles. These differences
125 sometimes lead to the belief that jazz music (and jazz musicians) is rebellious. The rebelliou s nature of the music may, in fact, contribute to the paradigm (for some) that jazz cannot be taught methodically. It also leads to the thought (again, for some) that jazz must always be an individual endeavor, independent of commonality Though a wide var iety of jazz genres, performance approaches, and methods for study exist, common musical components appear that are closely linked with style. One of those components is articulation. Jazz pedagogues have continually emphasized the importance of proper articulation, but what exactly does that mean? How do we know if one is articulating properly? Furthermore, is proper articulation a function of instrumental technique or is it exclusively related to stylistic ability? Many feel that the only way to learn proper articulation is through assimilation. One respondent on the jazz articulation survey conducted within the course of this study felt very strongly that the only way to learn jazz style was through listening. The importance of listening to professiona l jazz musicians ( or professionals of any musical genre for that matter ) cannot be underestimated. Listening must be included in any program of musical instruction. The methodologies for both experimental and control groups included listening as an importa nt instructional constituent However, supplemental methods for enhancing the stylistic capa bilities of student musicians exist. Student improvement resulting from this study demonstrates the possibilities of enhancing students musical expression by incor porating patterned learning and providing rules for interpretation. Issues A number of issues must be considered which may have influenced results of the study. After experiencing articulation instruction, participants exhibited increased improvement in j azz performance. When ttest comparisons were calculated, differences in achievement between the
126 two groups were not found to be significant. Given an extended treatment period (perhaps 10 weeks), results would likely be more dramatic demonstrating a grea ter degree of statistical significance. Treatments were not administered simultaneously. Duplication of this study might be more effective through use of random selection. Students within the same school could be recruited and then randomly assigned to tw o groups. Homogeneity of the groups would be more likely through such a method. Additionally, simultaneous administration of treatment could take place. If two or more schools were selected, they could be chosen within the same district, but would need to contain students of similar ability levels. Another suggestion would be to include college students as participants, which could increase sample size. Increasing the sample size would also enhance the statistical power of analysis for such a study. Another consideration for studies related to musical style is the extent and nature of listening that occurs. A more thorough study may utilize a structured approach in planning and administering listening activities. Listening could be used as an independent variable to examine the extent of its importance as related to performance of musical style. In the current study, performance of one scale with three variations of articulation was used as a measure of technical ability. This measure was intended to account for initial differences between two g roups. A more thorough measure for technique would provide a more accurate measure of technical ability. That measure could include a variety of scales, arpeggios and technical etudes. Any study on musical performance involving multiple instruments must take instrument into account as an independent variable. Instrument could potentially pose a threat to internal validity of results (e.g. saxophonists all show more improvement and there are an unbalanced
127 number of saxophonists in the sample). ANOVA results (Table 4 17) revealed that instrument did not have significant effects for posttest style, style gains, total gains, or posttest totals. These findings led to the conclusion that instrument did not pose a threat to in ternal validity. Implications for Music Education Results from this study suggest that articulation exercises enhance jazz performance ability. Methods and materials from this study may constitute the germination of a comprehensive methodology on jazz style for wind musicians. Through the review of literature, no method texts were found to exclusively contribute to acquisition of stylistic ability. Several authors provided suggestions, but many suggestions (such as declarations on the importance of list ening) were of a general variety. Very few sources offer specific exercises involving articulation patterns. Considering the corroboration of researched methods and the sequential nature of instruction used in this study, production of a jazz style methodology could prove a significant contribution to existing jazz pedagogy literature. Conclusions Results from this study suggest the following conclusions: 1. Though considered a primary element of musical style, articulation is an under addressed skill in jazz education. 2. Methodical articulation practice enhances stylistic expression in both melodies and improvisations. The extent of stylistic enhancement may depend upon the amount of time devoted to instruction. 3. Practice of articulation exercises results in inc reased technical ability when performing scales, melodies, and improvisations. Again, the extent of those increases may depend upon the amount of time devoted to instruction. 4. Assessment of jazz improvisation ability is subjective. Further research is needed to determine the effects of articulation exercises on improvisation ability and stylistic performance when improvising.
128 5. Students engaging in articulation practice exhibited greater improvement in overall jazz performance ability than those who did not e ngage in such practice. 6. Students can develop positive attitudes when engaging in improvisation and articulation instruction. Students possess a number of common views and attitudes when engaging in these types of instruction. Jazz style can be taught and learned. T-test results ( p = .06) of mean differences between experimental and control groups for style gains were among the most telling statistical results from this study. Students may acquire skill in even the most subjecti ve aspects of musical performance. An added benefit could result from transference of stylistic methodology to other musical genres and ensembles. If educators are indeed able to define interpretation rules student musicians could learn to play more expressively. String players could learn to articulate and phrase more fluidly. Band musicians could attain similar skill increases. The primary differences among musical genres lie in their unique stylistic characteristics. Studies such as this one may aid i n determining effective ways of discerning and developing those characteristics. Proper insight must be maintained when using technical studies or exercises to teach the expressive component of music. Any such course of study should be accompanied by repr esentative structured listening experiences. The synthesis of technical practice and structured listening may contribute to enhancement of not only stylistic abilities, but also overall musical abilities. Researchers in the area of jazz style and interpret ation should give special attention to a number of considerations. One consideration is the plausible idea that the link between musical articulation and style is analogous to that of linguistics. In language, we not only use the term articulate, but also the concept of accent. Linguistic accents occur in the form of regional styles of speech, and in the form of syllabic emphasis. In music, articulation and accent are nearly synonymous. The definition of articulation given for this study involves tongue -s lur
129 patterns, which influence the strength and placement of accents. Future studies on jazz style could include theories from linguistics or even mirror studies in linguistics. An additional consideration for future research pertains to the development of style and expression through ear training exercises. Researchers have examined the relative merits among aural based and theory based approaches to learning improvisation. The relationship between aural based approaches and stylistic interpretation could bear further implications for methods pertaining to style acquisition. Meyers (1989) theory of musical style, syntax, and stylistic constraints provided a theoretical rationale for this study. Participants involved in this study improved performance as a result of practicing articulation patterns. Results from this study support Meyers theory that style involves the replication of patterning (p. 3). Practice of articulation exercises exclusively could be considered an atomistic approach to learning jaz z style. As Poulter (2008) surmised, students learn effectively when the cognitive load is reduced. Practice of articulation exercises can and should include applications of those exercises to both melodies and improvisations. Practice of scales and exerc ises in the course of improvisation study is sometimes a subject of controversy. The body of literature on jazz improvisation contains many method texts filled with content related to chord/scale relationships, but lacking in stylistic considerations. Rece nt methods appear to be more inclusive, containing rhythmic and melodic approaches to improvisation. No matter the approach, development of musical expression and creativity may be a structured process. Csikszentmihalyi (1996), one of the worlds foremost authorities on creativity, supports the supposition that musicians engaging in creative acts must first learn tradition and technique. Individualism may occur after exploring the limits of tradition and technique.
130 Discussion Results from this study indicat e that musical style and expression are skill related. Results also indicate that that the contexts related to performance of jazz s tyle are grounded in activity. Ultimately, it is the process of learning and acquiring skill that influences results. During the treatment stages of this study, high school musicians underwent instructional processes which cultivated their appreciation of jazz s tyle and improvisation, resulting in great enjoyment for the researcher. Participants in this study developed skill th rough discipline and the employment of styl istic constraints. Consequently, participants jazz appreciation and individual performance ability were enhanced Scienti fic examination of jazz performance (or any musical performance) presents a unique set of challenges particularly when concerned with the expressive domain. Researchers frequently become consumed with the goal of achieving a particu lar level of significance (i.e., p = .05 ) necessary in establishing legitimacy. Yet, in t his study the researcher was concerned with more than seeking a part icular level of significance. This study was about seeking truth and establishing consequential relationships. It was also about examining the process of learning to play authentic jazz style. Such a cla i m l eads one to question wha t constitutes authentic jazz style. Is authenticity or quality, for that matter, not subjective? Fortunately they are The subjective nature of music is one of its characteristics that make it so wonderful and mysterious. It is the opinion of this researcher that music is not created with the purpose of being objective. Each individual has unique ways in which to interact with, process, and evaluate music. Music education researchers can and should investigate effe ctive ways of communicating knowledge, so the music we value and cherish is passed on to future generations The goals of music educators and music education researchers should include discovery and invention of methods by which others can actively enjoy l earning about and making music.
131 APPENDIX A JAZZ ARTICULATION SURVEY Dear Educator, Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input benefits a research project that will serve to inform the field of jazz education in the matters of arti culation and stylistic interpretation. For the purpose of this survey, please consider the following definition for articulation: Patterns of tonguing and slurring for wind instrumentalists. 1. Which level do you currently teach? a. College b. High School 2. How many years have you taught at that level? 3. Please list the instrument(s) you play. 4. To what extent do you feel articulations are specified in wind parts of high school level jazz band arrangements? 0 1 2 3 4 5 none very little little moderat e much very much 5. To what extent do you feel articulations are specified in professional jazz band arrangements? 0 1 2 3 4 5 none very little little moderate much very much 6. To what extent are you able to address articulation patterns during jazz band rehearsal? 0 1 2 3 4 5 none very little little moderate much very much 7. How important do you feel articulation is for jazz style? 0 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very important 8. How important do you feel articulation is for technical fac ility? 0 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very important 9. How important do you feel it is for jazz educators to teach specific articulation patterns?
132 0 1 2 3 4 5 not at all very important 10. To what extent can articulation patterns be learned out of context (i.e. through patterns and technical studies, as opposed to band charts)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 none very little little moderate much very much 11. How can articulation patterns be taught most effectively? a. Out of context (patterned study) b. In context (in the context of jazz (arrangements) c. Both in and out of context d. They cannot be taught effectively 12. Please list any texts or method books you consider to be useful for learning idiomatic jazz articulation. If you are not aware of any, please leave this item unanswered. 13. Please list five characteristics (include articulation if you consider it among y our top five) you feel are most closely related to stylistic interpretation in jazz performance. a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________
133 APPENDIX B JAZZ ARTICULATION SUR VEY RESPONSES To what extent do you feel articulations are specified in wind parts of high school level jazz band arrangements? Extent of articulation specificity vl very little, l little, mod moderate, vm very much To what extent do you feel articulations are specified in professional jazz band arrangements? Extent of articulation specificity vl very little, l little, mod moderate, vm very much 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 none v l l modmuch v m # of respondents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 none v l l modmuch v m # of respondents
134 APPENDIX C EDMUND JAZZ INTERPRETATION PROFILE (EJIP) Jazz Interpretation Profile Participant: _____ Part I: Scales Listen to CD track 1 Please listen to all three variations on the bebop scale. Rate the overall scale performance for the following categories (1 = lowest and 5 = highest) : Scale performance ratings *Note: Each performer was given metronome clicks (quarter note=100) prior to playing. Each scale includes a repeat. Time accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 steadiness of the beat plays the proper tempo Pitch accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Plays notes without clams (NOT intonation) Consistency of tone /intonation 1 2 3 4 5 (not tone quality, which may be affected by the recording quality) Tonguing accu racy (articulation) 1 2 3 4 5
135 Part II: Melodies Listen to CD track 2 Please rate the following melodic performance in the following categories on a scale of one to five (1 = lowest and five = highest) Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. Melody1 performance ratings *Note: Each performer was given metronome clicks (quarter note=116) prior to playing. Performers consistently miss concert E -natural on the and-of-four in measure seven. A courtesy accidental should have been included, but was not. Technical proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 Instrumental facility Overall accuracy Consistency of tone/intonation Pitch accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Plays notes without clams (NOT intonation) Rhythm / time feel 1 2 3 4 5 Steadiness of beat Swing style Style / expression 1 2 3 4 5 Articulation Swing style Characteristic tone *When judging style, consider your other ratings. If you have trouble deciding, the style rating should fit somewhere in -between your lowest and highest ratings. 1 = Totally lacking in the category 2 = Several blatant errors (at or near 50% accuracy) 3 = Three or more blatant errors. Lacking overall consistency 4 = Plays consistently well. Two or fewer errors. 5 = Without errors, or only one minor flaw.
136 Melody2 performance ratings Listen to CD track 3. Please rate the following melodic performance in the following categories on a scale of one to five (1 being lowest and five being highest) Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. Melody2 performance ratings *Note: Each performer was given metronome clicks (quarter note=130) prior to playing. Please disregard those who tag the last eighth note on the repeat. It was not appropriately marked 1st x only. Technical proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 Instrumental facility Overall accuracy Consistency of tone/intonation Pitch accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Plays notes without clams (NOT intonation) Rhythm /time feel 1 2 3 4 5 Steadiness of beat Swing style Style / expression 1 2 3 4 5 Articulation Swing style Characteristic tone *When judging style, consider your other ratings. If you have trouble deciding, the style rating should fit somewhere in -between your lowest and highest ratings. 1 = Totally lacking in the category 2 = Several blatant errors (at or near 50% accuracy) 3 = Three or more blatant errors. Lacking overall consistency 4 = Plays consistently well. Two or fewer errors. 5 = Without errors, or only one minor flaw.
137 Part III: Improvisation Listen to CD track 4 Please rate the performance of the blues improvisation on a scale of one to five in each of t he four categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. *Note: Participants played two choruses of F blues with Jamey Aebersold volume #54. Please do not judge participants based on the quality of the recording. Rhythmic Accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat subdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Technical Proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 Rhythmic complexity Instrumental facility Melodic range Melodic Structure 1 2 3 4 5 Variation of melodic shapes (steps/skips, etc.) Note accuracy/choices Use /development of motifs Establishes beginnings and endings of phrases Style 1 2 3 4 5 Tone quality Articulation Swing feel Use of dramatic devices Thank you very much for your participation! Yours truly, David Edmund
138 APPENDIX D JAZZ IMPROVISATION L ESSONS Day 1: Aptitude Administer Musical Sensitivity portion of Gordons Musical Aptitude Profile Day 2: Melodic embellishment in the blues Read the lead sheet for Nows the Time, a twelve -bar blues in F. Explain and demonstrate melodic embellishment. Engage students in one -bar call and response phrases. Employ three volunteers to embellish the melody over four of the twelve measures. Rhythmic improvisation on the tonic pitch: Each participant takes a turn. Play the Mixolydian mode beginning with three pitches: F, B -flat andC (I, IV and V of a basic blues) Day 3: Review/arpeggiate chords Review melody to Nows the Time and the Mixolydian mode. Demonstrate blues improvisation using the Mixolydian mode. Read Buchholz Blues and learn Mixolydian scales in B -flat, E -flat and F. Perform arpeggios consisting of 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th scale degrees using call and response Play arpeggios in the context of the blues progression Day 4: Pentatonic improvisation Review melody to Buchholz Blues and three mixolydian modes. Play 1 -2-35 (pentatonic fragment) over each chord in succession. Demonstr ate improvisation using major pentatonic scales. Read Billies Bounce. Sing the rhythm, play chord roots. Read Mr. P.C. Listen to recordings of Billies Bounce and Mr. P.C. Day 5: Blues review
139 Review the mixolydian mode beginning on F, B -flat and C. Review Buchholz Blues and learn the bebop scale for each of the three chords. Demonstrate improvisation using the bebop scale. Employ three soloists, one for each four -measure phrase. Review 1 -2-35 for each chord. Day 6: Bebop scale review and the ii V I progression Review the three bebop scales learned. Engage students in call and response phrases using the bebop scale in the blues form. Divide students into three groups: Group 1 plays chord roots; Group 2 plays a simple bass line; Group 3 plays a background phrase with a given rhythm. Groups rotate while each individual solos. ii V I in B -flat major: Start the B -flat major scale on the proper scale degree. Arpeggiate each chord 1 -3-5-7-5-31. Transpose to the key of F. Play the arpeggios and a sample ii V I phrase. Day 7: Dorian mode review and the iii IV -ii -V progression Play C, F and G dorian modes, as related to the corresponding major scale. Review the sample ii V I phrase in F. Play chords roots up to measure nine. Substitute the ii V phrase for measures nine and ten. Jamey Aeberso ld Maiden Voyage: iii IV -ii -V patterns 1 5. Focus on dorian only: Canteloupe Island o Listen first, pl ay the tune. Play arpeggios (1 -3-5-7-5-31, then 1 -3-5-7-9-7-5-31). Day 8: iii -VI -ii -V review and the minor pentatonic scale Review iii IV -ii -V patterns, add numbers 6 and 7.
140 Play Cantaloupe Island o Perform call and response over each chord, using the 1st five pitches of each scale only. Introduce f minor pentatonic. Relate to A -flat major pentatonic. o Learn by call and response : 1 -31 | 1 -3-4-31 | etc. Play Cantaloupe Island with soloists. Four -measure minor pentatonic composition. o Rules: Beg in on 1st or 5th scale degree. End on 1. Must provide a name for your composition. Do not include rhythms of shorter duration than triplets. Day 9: Share minor pentatonic compositions Play my f minor phrase. Listen to all others, with rhythm section repe ating f minor (ala Cantaloupe Island) Write beneath that composition: Gmin7b5 | C7b9 | Fmin7 o Play 1 -51 in G minor. Now flat the fifth. o Play C mixolydian scale. Then play it with b9. o Scale choices: A -flat major | F harmonic minor Play the sample (maj or) ii V I phrase Play chord roots, until the ninth bar. Add the sample phrase in measures nine to eleven. Write a major ii V I phrase in F (Gmin7 | C7 | F7 | F7). Day 10: ii V I review: Major and minor Play student ii V compositions. Model mine. Introduce sam ple minor ii V in F o Play the harmonic minor scales included with the sample.
141 o Transpose the phrase to C and play in the context of Mr. P.C. o Note that rhythm change bar nine to Dmin7b5 Begin F blues composition. Note the importance of chord tones (3rds and 7ths). o Listen Nows the Time F7 | Bb7 | F7 | F7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | F7 | Amin7 D7 | Gmin7 | C7 | F7 D7 | Gmin7 C7 || Day 11: Posttest/melody review Begin posttest recordings. These take place during day 11, 12 and one extra day during rehearsal. Review blues compositions: Nows the Time, Buchholz Blues, and Cantaloupe Island Day 12: Posttest/written questionnaire Round two of posttest recordings. Administer the written questionnaire.
142 APPENDIX E JAZZ ARTICULATION LE SSONS Day 1: Aptitude Administer Musical Sensitivity portion of Gordons Musical Aptitude Profile Day 2: Melodic embellishment in the blues Read the lead sheet for Nows the Time, a twelve -bar blues in F. Explain a nd demonstrate melodic embellishment. Engage students in one -bar call and response phrases. Employ three volunteers to embellish the melody over four of the twelve measures. Rhythmic improvisation on the tonic pitch: Each participant takes a turn. Play the Mixolydian mode beginning with three pitches: F, B -flat andC (I, IV and V of a basic blues) Day 3: Review / arpeggiate chords Review melody to Nows the Time and the Mixolydian mode. Demonstrate blues improvisation using the Mixolydian mode. Read Buchholz Blues and learn Mixolydian scales in B -flat, E -flat and F. Perform arpeggios consisting of 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th scale degrees using call and response. Play arpeggios in the context of the blues progression Day 4: Pentatonic improvisation Review melody to Buchholz Blues and three mixolydian modes. Play 1 -2-35 (pentatonic fragment) over each chord in succession. Demonstrate improvisation using major pentatonic scales. Read Billies Bounce. Sing the rhythm, and then play chord roots. Read Mr. P.C. Listen to recordings of Billies Bounce and Mr. P.C. Day 5: Blues review
143 Review the mixolydian mode beginning on F, B -flat and C. Review Buchholz Blues and learn the bebop scale for each of the three chords. Demonstrate improvisation usi ng the bebop scale. Employ three soloists, one for each four -measure phrase. Review 1 -2-35 for each chord. Day 6: Bebop scale review and the ii V I progression Review the three bebop scales learned. Engage students in call and response phrases us ing the bebop scale in the blues form. Divide students into three groups: Group 1 plays chord roots; Group 2 plays a simple bass line; Group 3 plays a background phrase with a given rhythm. Groups rotate while each individual solos. ii V I in B -flat major: Start the B -flat major scale on the proper scale degree. Arpeggiate each chord 1 -3-5-7-5-31. Transpose to the key of F. Play the arpeggios and a sample ii V I phrase. Day 7: Dorian mode review and the iii IV -ii -V progression Play C, F and G dorian modes, as related to the corresponding major scale. Review the sample ii V I phrase in F. Play chords roots up to measure nine. Substitute the ii V phrase for measures nine and ten. Jamey Aebersold(cite) Maiden Voyage: iii IV ii -V patterns 1 5. Focus on dorian only: Canteloupe Island o Listen first, play the tune. Play arpeggios (1 -3-5-7-5-31, then 1 -3-5-7-9-7-5-31). Day 8: iii -VI -ii -V review and the minor pentatonic scale Review iii IV -ii -V patterns, add numbers 6 and 7.
144 Play Cantaloupe Island o Perform call and response over each chord, using the 1st five pitches of each scale only. Introduce f minor pentatonic. Relate to A -flat major pentatonic. o Learn by call and response : 1 -31 | 1 -3-4-31 | etc. Play Cantaloupe Island with soloists. Four -measure minor pentatonic composition. o Rules: Begin on 1st or 5th scale degree. End on 1. Must provide a name for your composition. Do not include rhythms of shorter duration than triplets. Day 9: Share minor pentatonic composition s Play my f minor phrase. Listen to all others, with rhythm section repeating f minor (ala Cantaloupe Island) Write beneath that composition: Gmin7b5 | C7b9 | Fmin7 o Play 1 -51 in G minor. Now flat the fifth. o Play C mixolydian scale. Then play it with b9. o Scale choices: A -flat major | F harmonic minor Play the sample (major) ii V I phrase. Play chord roots, until the ninth bar. Add the sample phrase in measures nine to eleven. Write a major ii V I phrase in F (Gmin7 | C7 | F7 | F7). Day 10: i i V I review: Major and minor Play student ii V compositions. Model mine. Introduce sa mple minor ii V in F. o Play the harmonic minor scales included with the sample.
145 o Transpose the phrase to C and play in the context of Mr. P.C. o Note that rhythm change bar nine to Dmin7b5 Begin F blues composition. Note the importance of chord tones (3rds and 7ths). o Listen Nows the Time F7 | Bb7 | F7 | F7 | Bb7 | Bb7 | F7 | Amin7 D7 | Gmin7 | C7 | F7 D7 | Gmin7 C7 || Day 11: Posttest /melody review Begin posttest recordings. These take place during day 11, 12 and one extra day during rehearsal. Review blues compositions: Nows the Time, Buchholz Blues and Cantaloupe Island Day 12: Posttest/written questionnaire Round two of posttest recordings. Administer the written questionnaire.
146 APPENDIX F ARTICULATION EXERCIS ES /PRACTICE SCHEDULE
151 JAZZ ARTICULATION PRACTICE SCHEDULE Date Practice Items Time Checkbox Wed Nov 5 #1,2,3,4 10:00 #5,6,7,8 #26,27,28,29 Th Nov 6 #3,4,7,11 15:00 #13,14,15,16 #26,27,28,29 Fri Nov 7 #3,7,11 10:00 #20,21,22 #26,27,28,29 Sun Nov9 #1,2,5,6 15:00 #9,10,13,14,15,16 #20,21,22 #30,31,32,33 Mon Nov 10 #13,14,15,16 15:00 #20,21,22 #30,31,32,33 Tues Nov1 1 #30,31,32,33 10:00 #37,23,24,25 #34,35,36 Wed Nov 12 #23,24,25 10:00 #34,35,36,37 #30,31,32,33 Thurs Nov 13 #1,2,3,4 15:00 #5,6,7,8 #23,24,25,26 Sun Nov 16 #9,10,11,12,13 15:00 #14,15,16,20 #21,22,26,27 #28,29 Mon Nov 17 #17,18,19,20,21 20:00 #22,23,24,25,26 #28,29,34,35,36 #37,38,39,40,41
152 PRACTICE SCHEDLUE (continued) Tues Nov 18 All Exercises 20:00 Wed Nov 19 All Excercises 15:00 When practicing, play each repeated exercise at least 3x.
153 APPENDIX G RESEARCH APPROVALS
158 APPENDIX H POST TREATMENT QUESTIONNA IRES Jazz Improvisation Questionnaire Please do not write your name on this paper. 1. Circle your instrument: A. Saxophone B. Trombone C. Trumpet D. Rhythm 2. Do you feel these improvisation lessons have benefitted you musically? If yes, in what way(s)? 4. What was the most effective part of the instruction? 5. What would you ch ange about this approach to teaching jazz improvisation? (Ex. More call and response playing, more melodic embellishment, less focus on scales) 6. After having this experience, what do you think about when improvising over an F blues?
159 Jazz Style and Improvisation Questionnaire Please do not write your name on this paper. 1. Circle your instrument: A. Saxophone B. Trombone C. Trumpet D. Rhythm 2. Do you feel these improvisation lessons have benefitted you musically? If yes, in what way(s)? 3. Do you feel the articulation exercises benefitted you musically? If yes, in what way(s)? 4. What was the most effective part of the instruction? 5. What would you change about this approach to teaching jazz style? (Ex. More call and respo nse playing, more melodic embellishment, less focus on scales) 6. After having this experience, what do you think about when improvising over an F blues? 7. In terms of style, what do you think about when playing jazz on your instrument, as opposed to playing other musical genres?
160 APPENDIX I PARENT CONSENT/STUDE NT ASSENT LETTERS David Edmund University of Florida School of Music 101 Music Building Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 3920223 x395 Email: email@example.com Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s), I am a Ph.D. candidate in music education at the University of Florida. Before coming to Gainesville to work on this degree, I taught for nine years in the Hillsborough County Public Schools. I am conducting a research study on jazz style and improvisation under the supervision of Dr. Timothy Brophy. The purpose of my study is to examine selected musical aspects of high school student jazz performance. Results of the study may help music educators in the development of jazz instructional methods. My study is supported by the University of Florida School of Music. With your permission, I would like to ask your chil d to volunteer for this research. The study will involve twelve to sixteen visits to your childs school. During those visits, I will be conducting jazz clinics and working individually with select students. All work toward this study will take place during jazz band class. Students will not miss any additional class time. Students selected to participate in the study will participate in an initial profile of musical preference. They will also perform a scale, two melodies and a blues improvisation on th eir instrument. Each performance will be audiorecorded for analysis. Student recordings will be identified by number. Only my supervising professor, two jazz educators and myself will have access to the audio recordings. There will be a post research in terview, which will also be recorded (audio, not video). Each participant will be asked a few simple questions about their thought processes in performing the melodies and improvisation. Though there will be no monetary compensation for participating, the study will be educationally beneficial for all involved. Because this is a jazz study involving instruction, the research will not interfere with the current jazz band curriculum. Rather, it will compliment the current curriculum and will include at least two of the current selections being rehearsed this term. Each participant will receive instruction on musical creativity at no cost. The only risk or discomfort to your child might be cau sed by shyness at being recorded or performing individually. Participants identities will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. To ensure confidentiality, your childs assigned identification number will be used in place of his/her name. Information obtained from this study will remain strictly confidential. All recordings will be
161 destroyed at the end of the study. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect the students grades or placement in any programs. Participati on in this study is completely voluntary. Participation or non -participation will have no effect on your childs grade or status in the music program. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child's participation at any time without consequence. In order for your child to be considered for participation in this project, this consent form must be completed and returned to the childs music teacher no later than September 30th. Your child will also need to complete an assent form. Pleas e return the forms marked Mr. Edmunds copy. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to contact me at the e -mail or phone number listed above. You may also contact my supervising professor, Dr. Timothy Brophy at firstname.lastname@example.org or his office phone (352)2733193. For questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the University of Florida IRB at 352 3920433. Musically Yours, David Edmund Parental Consent Date:__________________ I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily give my consent for my child, _______________________, to participate in David Edmunds study of jazz performance. Students Date of Birth:________________ Parents Sig nature: ___________________________________
162 David Edmund University of Florida School of Music 101 Music Building Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 8711470 Email: email@example.com Dear Student, My name is Mr. Edmund and I am a jazz trumpet player. I am conducting a research study on jazz style and improvisation. I want to discover some of the special ways that students like you learn to play jazz. During the next few weeks I will be visiting your school to work with you on learning to play jazz. Your parents have granted their permission for me to work with you. Some of you will be selected to participate in this research study. If you are chosen, I am going to ask you to do the following: 1. Take an ititial test of musical preference. This is not a test of your ability. It is simply a test of your stylistic musical preference. 2. Perform a scale in three variations on your instrument. 3. Perform two written jazz melodies. 4. Perform a blues improvisation based upon one of the two melodies. 5. Answer a few questions about playing jazz style on your instrument. Each performance will be audio recorded. Each session will take place during your jazz band class. You will not miss any additional class time. Pa rticipation in this study is strictly voluntary. Participation or non participation will have no effect on your grades or status in the music program. If at any time, you choose not to participate, you may stop without any questions. Please indicate below if you are interested or not. Thank you very much. I look forward to meeting you and hearing your band perform! Yours truly, David Edmund Would you like to participate in this jazz research study? ______Yes ______No _______________________________________ Please print first and last name
163 APPENDIX J CONTENT VALIDITY DES CRIPTORS FOR A PANEL OF JAZZ EDUCATORS Dear Jazz Educator, I wish to sincerely thank you for participating in my study on jazz articulation, style a nd improvisation. In order to help establish validity of the ratings profile being used, I need your input on jazz assessment. Your input will occur in two forms: 1. Open responses regarding particular aspects of jazz performance (this document) 2. Your ratings of the measurement profile being used in the project (document #2) For the following pages, please include only your highest -priority musical aspects to be considered. Do not list more than the number of aspects requested. Please read and respond to the following questions: 1. Please list five musical aspects you would consider when assessing a student performance of the bebop scale shown below (ex. consistency of tempo, pitch/articulation accuracy). a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________ 2. Please list five (or more) musical aspects you would consider when assessing a student performance of the blues melodies shown below. a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________
164 f. ________________________________________ g. ________________________________________ 3. Please list five or more musical aspects you would consider when assessing a high sch ool student performance of F blues improvisation (two choruses only). a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________ f. ________________________________________ g. ________________________________________
165 4. When assessing instrumental technical proficiency for wind musicians, what are some of the musical aspects you would consider? (thre e to five responses please) a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________ 5. When assessing rhythm ic/time feel for student jazz wind musicians, what are some of the musical aspects you would consider? (three to five responses please) a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________ 6. When assessing stylistic expression for student jazz wind musicians, what are some of the musical aspects you would consider? (five responses please) a. ________________________________________ b. ________________________________________ c. ________________________________________ d. ________________________________________ e. ________________________________________
166 APPENDIX K CONTENT VALIDITY RATING INDEX OF THE JA ZZ INTERPRETATION PR OFILE Jazz Educator Assessment of the Edmund Jazz Interpretation Profile ANSWER ONLY THE 1 ST QUESTION AT THE TOP OF EACH PAGE (on a 10 point scale). Please rate the validity of the following ratings asse ssment for Part I. (i.e. How accurately does it measure student scale performance in terms of technique ?). 1 = lowest / 10 = highest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Part I: Scales Please listen to all three variations on the bebop scale. Rate the overall scale performance for the categories listed below: Scale performance ratings *Note: Each performer was given metronome clicks (quarter note=100) prior to playing. Each scale is repeated, though the repeat is not shown. Your rating pertains to the cumulative performance of all three scales. ( 1 = lowest and 5 = highest): Time accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 steadiness of the beat plays the proper tempo Pitch accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Plays notes without clams (NOT intonation) Consistency of tone /intonation 1 2 3 4 5 (not tone quality, which may be affected by the recording quality) Tonguing accuracy (articulation) 1 2 3 4 5
167 Please rate the validity of the following ratings assessment for Part II. ( i.e. How accurately does it measure student melodic performance?). 1 = lowest / 10 = highest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Part II: Melodies Listen to CD track 2 Please rate the following melodic performance in the categories listed below. (1 = lowest and five = highest) Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. Melody1 performance ratings : Billies Bounce *Note: Each performer was given metronome clicks (quarter note=116) prior to playing. Performers consistently miss concert E -natural on the and-of-four in measure seven. A courtesy accidental should have been included, but was not. Technical proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 Instrumental facility Overall accuracy Consistency of tone/intonation Pitch accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Plays notes without clams (NOT intonation) Rhythm / time feel 1 2 3 4 5 Steadiness of beat Swing style Style / expression 1 2 3 4 5 Articulation Swing style Characteristic tone *When judging style, consider your other ratings. If you have trouble deciding, the style rating should fit somewhere in -between your lowest and highest ratings. 1 = Totally lacking in the category 2 = Several blatant errors (at or near 50% accuracy) 3 = Three or more blatant errors. Lacking overall consistency 4 = Plays consistently well. Two or fewer errors. 5 = Without errors, or only one minor flaw.
168 Please rate the validity of the following ratings assessment for Part II I ( i .e. Does it accurately measure student improvisation performance?). 1 = lowest / 10 = highest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Part III: Improvisation Listen to CD track 4 Please rate the performance of the blues improvisation on a scale of one to five in each of t he four categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. *Note: Participants played two choruses of F blues with Jamey Aebersold volume #54. Please do not judge participants based on the quality of the recording. The accompaniment volume is not consistent for each participant. Rhythmic Accuracy 1 2 3 4 5 Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat subdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Technical Proficiency 1 2 3 4 5 Rhythmic complexity Instrumental facility Melodic range Melodic Structure 1 2 3 4 5 Variation of melodic shapes (steps/skip s, etc.) Note accuracy/choices Use /development of motifs Establishes beginnings and endings of phrases Style 1 2 3 4 5 Tone quality Articulation Swing feel Use of dramatic devices Thank you very much for your participation! Yours truly, David Edmund
169 APPENDIX L BASIC BLUES, COMPO SED BY THE RESEARCHE R AND USED TO DEMONS TRATE MELODIC APPLICATIONS OF THE BEBOP SCALE
170 APPENDIX M TRANSCRIBED IMPROVIS ATION SAMPLES
174 APPENDIX N JAZZ IMPROVISATION R ATING INSTRUMENT USE D IN THE PILOT David Edmund Improvisation Rating Instrument Dear colleague, Thank you for your participation. Please rate the following recorded performances using the rating scales listed below. There are two participants and a total of eight recorded excerpts (four each). Recorded excerpts include the following: Middle School Participant (tracks 1 4) 1. minor pentatonic scale 2. melodic pattern (1 -2-35 over a simple twelve bar blues progression) 3. rhythmic improvisation (playing one pitch, with octaves, rhythmically) 4. minor pentatonic improvisation High School Participant (tracks 5 8) 1. minor pentatonic scale 2. bebop scales (B -flat, E -flat, F) by memory 3. rhythmic improvisation 4. minor pentatonic improvisation You will rate the first two excerpts of each participant for technical proficiency only. Improvised excerpts will be rated in multiple categories. When determining scores for each category (ex. Rhythmic Accuracy), there are a number of considerations listed below that category. Each consideration does not receive a particular point value They are there for your own clarification of what to listen for. Please consider that the first participant is a middle school musician and should be rated in that con text. Participants are not competing against each other. Rather, the purpose of the examination is to determine how selected characteristics differentiate at the middle and high school levels. Thank you very much for your time!
175 Middle School Participant: Listen to CD track 1. Please rate the performance of the minor pentatonic scale on a scale of one to five P lease consider the following aspects of technical proficiency: Technical Proficiency Time accuracy (steadiness of the beat) Pitch accuracy Consistency of tone (not tone quality, which may be affected by the recording quality) Tonguing (articulation) accuracy Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 Listen to CD track 2. Please rate the performance of the scale patterns on a scale of one to five While determinin g your score, please consider the same aspects as track 1. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 Listen to CD track 3. Please rate the performance of the rhythmic improvisation on a scale of one to five in each of the two categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. 1. Rhythmic Accuracy Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat subdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 2. Style Expression Swing feel Use of repetition Feels the beginning and end of four measure phrases Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Listen to CD track 4. Please rate the performance of the minor pentatonic improvisation on a scale of one to five in each of the four categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. 2. Rhythmic Accuracy Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat subdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Rating 1 2 3 4 5 2. Style Expression Swing feel Use of repetition Feels the beginning and end of four measure phrases Rating 1 2 3 4 5
176 3. Melodic Structure Variation of melodic shapes (steps/skips, etc.) Note accuracy Use /development of motifs Rating 1 2 3 4 5 4. Technical Proficiency Rhythmic complexity Instrumental facility Melodic range Rating 1 2 3 4 5 High School Participant: Listen to CD track 5. Please rate the performance of the minor pentatonic scale from one to five While determining your score, please consider the following aspects of technical proficiency: Technical Proficiency Time accuracy (steadiness of the beat) Pitch accuracy Consistency of tone (not tone quality, which may be affected by the recording quality) Tonguing (articulation) accuracy Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 Listen to CD track 6 Please rate the performance of the scale patterns on a scale of one to five While determining your score, please consider the same aspects as track 1. Participants performed scales by memory. Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 Listen to CD track 7 Please rate the performance of the rhythmic im provisation on a scale of one to five in each of the two categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. 3. Rhythmic Accuracy Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat subdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Rating: 1 2 3 4 5 2. Style Expression Swing feel Use of repetition Feels the beginning and end of four measure phrases Rating 1 2 3 4 5
177 Listen to CD track 8 Please rate the performance of the minor pentatonic improvisation on a scale of one to five in each of the four categories. Aspects to be considered are listed below each category. 4. Rhythmic Accuracy Steadiness of beat Rhythmic feel Steadiness of beat su bdivisions (eighth notes, etc.) Rating 1 2 3 4 5 2. Style Expression Swing feel Use of repetition Feels the beginning and end of four measure phrases Rating 1 2 3 4 5 3. Melodic Structure Variation of melodic shapes (steps/skips, etc.) Note accuracy Use /development of motifs Rating 1 2 3 4 5 4. Technical Proficiency Rhythmic complexity Instrumental facility Melodic range Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Thank you very much for your participation! Yours truly, David Edmund
178 LIST OF REFERENCES Aebersold, J. (1978). Charlie Parker omnibook Hollywood, CA: Atlantic Music. Aebersold, J. (1992 ). Maiden voyage: Fourteen easy -to -play jazz tunes, Volume 54. New Albany, IN: Jamey Aebersol Jazz, Inc. Aebersold, J. (2000). Articulations: How to better express yourself. Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.aebersold.com/FQ/27_articulations.pdf Azzara, C. (1993). Audiationbased improvisation techniques and elementary instrumental students music achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(4), 328342. Babad, B. (1999). Jazz under construction: Blueprints for building interesting and expressive solos Masters Thesis, California State University, Long Beach. Ret rieved December 31, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=734303641&s id=1& Fmt=2&clientI=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Baker, D. (1983). Jazz improvisation: A comprehensive method of study for all players. Bloomington, IN: Frangipani Press. Bash, L. (1983). The effectiveness of three instructional methods on the acquisition of j azz improvisation skills Doctoral Dissertation, University of New York, Buffalo. Retrieved January 3rd, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did= 748542461&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VN ame=PQD&TS=1238033014&clientId=20179 Bash, L. (1984). The relationships among musical aptitude, m usical achievement, psychosocial maturity, sex, age, preliminary improvisation performances and the acquisition of improvisation performance skill. In Jazz research papers, Manhattan, KS: NAJE Publications, pp. 612. Bash L. (1991). Improving improvisat ion: Watch for the flags. Music Educators Journal 78(2), 4448. Bash, L., & Kuzmich, J. (1989). Complete guide to instrumental instruction. Los Angeles: Alfred Publishing Co., Inc. Beach, D., &Jarvis, J. (2002). The jazz educators handbook Delevan, NY: Kendor Music, Inc. Benward, B., & Wildman, J. (1977). Jazz improvisation in theory and practice Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Berg, S. (2002). Teaching resources Three excerpts: Chopmonster. Jazz Education Journal 35(1), 4345. Retrieved December 8, 2008 from: http://iimp.chadwyck.com/journals/ displayItemFromId.do?ItemID=JID07309791&QueryType=journa ls&DurUrl=Yes#issue30
179 Berliner, P. (1994). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bessom, M., Forcucci, S., & Tatarunis, A. (1980). Teaching music in todays secondary schools New York: Holt, Rinehart an d Winston. Bowman, W. (1988). Doctoral research in jazz improvisation pedagogy: An overview. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 4776. Boyle, J. D., & Radocy, R. E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences New Y ork: Schirmer Books. Briscuco, J. (1972). A study of ability in spontaneous and prepared jazz improvisation among students who possess different levels of musical aptitude. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Retrieved July 14th, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl. edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=760719041&SrchMode= 2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VT ype=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1237684196&clientId=20179 Brophy, T. (1998). The melodic improvisations of children ages six through twelve: A developmental Perspective Doctoral dissertation, Univer sity of Kentucky, Lexington. Bro phy, T. (2005). A Longitudinal study of selected characteristics of childrens melodic improvisations. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(2), 120133. Burnsed, C. V. (1978). The development and evaluation of an introductory jazz improvisation seque nce for intermediate band students Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables. Retrieved February 15th, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ pqdweb?index=2&did=755930511&SrchMode=2&sid =1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType =PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1238020649&clientId=20179 Burnsed, V., & Price, H. (1984). Improvisation and evaluation. In Jazz research p apers Manhattan, KS: NAJE Publications. pp. 3542. Byo, S. J. (1999). Classroom teachers' and m usic specialists' perceived ability to implement the National Standards for Music Education. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(2), 111123. Campbell, G., Casale, J., Coker, J., & Greene, J. (1970). Patterns for jazz. Lebanon, IN: Studio Publicatio ns Recordings. Caramia, T., Collins, A., Dunscomb, M., Finkel, M., Roth, D., Salmon, J., et al. (2001). Jazz studies guide Cincinnati, OH: Music Teachers National Association, Inc. & Manhattan, KS: International Association of Jazz Education. Chappell, J. (2007). General music: Using jazz to teach improvisation. Teaching Music 15(3), 48. Clarke, H. L. (1984). Technical studies for the cornet NewYork: Carl Fischer, Inc.
180 Coggiola, J. (2004). The effect of conceptual advancement in jazz music selections and jazz experience on musicians aesthetic response. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(1), 2942. Coker, J. (1970). Patterns for j azz. Lebanon, IN: Studio PR, Inc. Collier, J. (1993). Jazz: The American theme song. New York: Oxford University Press. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations. (1994). National standards for arts education: What every young American should know and be able to do in the arts. Reston, VA: MENC, The National Association for Music Education. Cou ghlin, K. (2005). Beginning jazz clarinet studies volume I USA: SkyLeap music. Coughlin, K. (2006). Beginning jazz clarinet studies volume II USA: SkyLeap music. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Cutietta, R. & Stauffer, S. (2005). Listening Reconsidered. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music e ducation (pp. 123141). New York: Oxford University Press. Dobbins, B. (1988). Jazz and academia: Street music in the ivory tower. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 3041. Droe, K., Geringer, J., Madsen, C., & MacLeod, R. (2006). The effect of articulation style on perception of modulated tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 324336. Dunscomb, R., & Hill, W. (2002). Jazz pedagogy: The jazz educators handbook and resource guide Miami: Warner Brothers Publications. Edwards, B., Griffin, F., & OMeally, R. (2004). Introductory notes. In B. Edwards, F. Griffin, & R. OMeally (Eds.) Uptown conversation: The new jazz studies (pp. 16). New York: Columbia University Press. Elliott, D. (1983). Descriptive, philosophical and practical bases for jazz education: A Canadian perspective Doctoral dissertation, Cleveland, OH, Case Western R eserve University. Elliott, D. (1986). Jazz education as aesthetic education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 20(1), 4153. Elliott, D. (1995). Music matters: a new philosophy of music education. New York: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, L. (2004). Putting it together: Integrating jazz education in the elementary general music classroom. Music Educators Journal 90(3), 2833.
181 Fischer, L. (2003). A typical masters jazz program in the United States [Electronic version]. Jazz Education Journal article 133. Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.iaje.org /article.asp?ArticleID=133 Gabbard, K. (1995). Introduction: The jazz canon and its consequences. In Gabbard (Ed.) Jazz among the discourses (pp. 128). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Garber, F. (1995). Fabulating jazz. In K. Gabbard (Ed.), Representing jazz (pp. 70103). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Gleason, R. (Producer). (1995). Jazz casual: Instrumen tals volume I [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles: Jazz Casual Productions, Inc and Rhino Home Videos. Goins, W. E. (2003). The jazz band directors handbook: A guide to success Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press. Gordon, E. (1965). Musical a ptitude profile m anual Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Gordon, E. (1986). Manual for the primary measures of music audiation and the intermediate measures of music a udiation. Chicago: G.I.A. Publications. Gould, C., & Keaton, K. (2000). The essential role of improvisa tion in musical performance. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58(2), 143148. Gudmundson, J. (2006). It aint what y ou say, but the way you say it: Jazz articulation for horns in the big band [Electronic version] Teaching Music 14(3), 3842. Ha erle, D. (1980). The jazz language: A theory text for jazz composition and improvisation. Miami: Warner Bros. Publication. Haerle, D. (1989). The jazz sound: A guide to tune analysis and chord/scale choices for improvisation Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard. Hazell, E., Porter, L., & Ullman, M. (1993). Jazz: From its origins to the present Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hinton, P. R. (2004). Statistics explained. New York: Routledge. Hores, R. (1977). A comparative study of visual and aural -oriented approaches to jazz improvisation with implications for instruction. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. Horowitz, R. (1995). The development of a rating scale for jazz guitar improvisation performance Doctoral dissertation, Columbia Un iversity Teachers College, New York. Humphreys, J., May, W., & Nelson, D. (2002). Research on music ensembles. In R. Colwell (Ed.), New handbook of research on music teaching and learning, (pp. 651668). New York: Schirmer Books.
182 Johnson -Laird, P. (1988). Reasoning, imagining and creating. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 95(1), 7187. Koopman, C. (2005). The nature of music and musical works. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music e ducation, (pp. 7997). New Yo rk: Oxford University Press. Laughlin, J. E. (2001). The use of notated and aural exercises as pedagogical procedures intended to develop harmonic accuracy among beginning jazz improvisers. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton. Retriev ed December 10, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?RQT=512&querySyntax=PQ &searchInter face=1&SrchMode=2&TS=1228939641&moreOptState=OPEN&clientId=20179 Lawn, R. (1995). The ja zz ensemble directors manual: A handbook of practical methods and materials for the educator. Oskaloosa, IA: C. L. Barnhouse Company. Lehman, P. (1999, S eptember 23 26). How can the skills called for in the national standards best be taught? Vision 2020: The Housewright Symposium on the future of music e ducation. Retrieved October 12, 2006 from: http://www.menc.org/publication/vision2020/pdfs.html Madura, P. (1996). Relationships among vocal jazz improvisation achievement, jazz theory knowledge, imitative ability, musical experience, creativity and gender. J ournal of Research in Music Education 44(3), 252267. Marcus, A. (2004). The role of transcription in jazz improvisation: Examining the aural imitative approach in jazz pedagogy Doctoral Dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, IN. Retrieved December 22, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ pqdweb?did=765363681&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Mark, M. (1987). The acceptanc e of jazz in the music education curriculum: A model for interpreting a historical process. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 92, 1522. Mark, M. (1996). Contemporary music education. Belmont, CA: Schirmer. May, L. (1998). Relation ships among jazz theory achievement, jazz aural skills, aural imitation, and achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. Unpublished doctoral dissert ation, Indiana University, Bloomington. May, L. (2003). Factors and abilities influencing achievement in instrumental jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(3), 245258. Meadows, E. (1995). Jazz research and performance materials: A select annotated bibliography New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Meadows, E. (2006). Jazz scholarsh ip and pedagogy: A research and information guide New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
183 Meyer, L. (1989). Style and music: Theory, history and ideology Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. McDaniel, W. (1974) Differences in music achie vement, musical experience, and background between jazz -improvising musicians and non-improvising musicians at the freshman and sophomore college levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. McNeil, J. (1999). The Art of jazz trumpet Brooklyn: Gerard & Sarzin Publishing Co. McKeage, K. (2004). Gender and participation in high school and college instrumental jazz ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52(4), 343356. McPherson, G. (1993). Evaluating improvisationa l ability of high school instrumentalists. Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music Education 119, 1120. Milkowski, B. (2001). The evolution of jazz education. Jazz Education Guide Silver Springs, MD: Jazz Times, Inc. Partchey, K. (1973). The effe cts of feedback, models and repetition on the ability to improvise Melodies Doctoral dissertation, Penn St ate University, College Station Retrieved July 15th, 2008 from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=1&did=759170901 &SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD &TS=1237690551&clientId=20179 Paulson, J.C. (1985). The development of an imitative instructional approach to Improvising effective melodic statements in jazz solos Unpublished d octoral dissert ation, Universit y of Washington, Seattle Pfenninger. (1990). The development and validation of three r ating s cales for the o bjective measurement of jazz i mprovisation a chievement Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA Retrieved October 17th, 2007 f rom: http://proquest.umi .com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?index=3&did=744331101&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VI nst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1238033970&clientId=20179 Poulter, Z. (2008). Teaching improvisation in your jazz ensemble: A complete guide for music educators Reston, VA: MENC. Pressing, J. (1987). The microand macrostructural design of improvised music. Music Perception 5 (2), 133172. Reeves, S. (1989). Creative j azz i mprovisation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Regelski, T. (2005). Curriculum: Implications of aestheti c versus paraxial philosophies. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial m usic e ducation, (pp. 7997). New York: Oxford University Press. Reimer, B. (2004). Reconceiving the standards and the school music program. Music Educators Journal 91(11) 3337.
184 Rose, R. (1985). Eight elements of jazz improvisation. Music Educators Journal 71(9), 647. Rowher D. (2001). Instrumental music students cognitive and performance understanding of musical expression. Journal of Band Research, 37( 1), 1728. Sawyer, R. (1999). Improvised conversations: Music, collaboration, and development. P sychology of Music 27, 192205. Sawyer, K. (2000). The Essential Role of Improvisation in Musical Performance. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58(2), 149161. Schilli ng, R. (1987). The feasibility of objective diagnostic measurement of jazz improvisation achievement. In Jazz research p apers 7 160169. Manhattan, KS: NAJE Publications. Sloboda, J. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, B. (1986). Jazz: Americas classical music. Black Perspectives in Music, 14( 1), 2125. Tumlinson, C. (1991). Theoretical constructs of jazz improvisation performance Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton. Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://proquest.umi.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/pqdweb?did=745680411&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId =20179&RQT=309&VName=PQD Watkins, J.G. & Farnum, S.W. (1954). The Watkins Farnum performance scale Winona, MN: Hal Leonard. Webster, P. (1987). Conceptual bases for creative thinking in music. In Draper, T., Peery, I., & Peery, J. (Eds.), Music and child deve lopment (pp. 158176) New York: Springer Verlag. Webster, P. (1990). Creativity as creative thinking. Music Educators Journal 76(9), 2228. Wehr -Flowers, E. (2006). Differences between male and female students confidence, anxiety, and attitude toward learning jazz improvisation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(4), 337349. Whyton, T. (2006). Birth of the school: Discursive methodo logies in jazz education. Music Education Research, 8 (1), 6581. Wilson, S. (2002). The j azz d irectors t ool k it Efraim, UT: Jazz -studies.com. Zentz, D. (n.d.). Swing style interpretation. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://www.zentz .org/swing.html
185 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH David Edmund earned his bachelor s degree in music education at the University of Florida. He earned his masters degree in music education with jazz studies emphasis a t the University o f North Texas At North Texas, Edmund performed, toured and recorded with the renowned One o Clock Lab Band. Prior to pursuing his Ph.D., Edmund taught elementary music i n Ruskin, Florida At Ruskin, Edmund was elected 2001 Teacher of the Year. He initia ted an after school elementar y band program, which became a part of the core curriculum, me eting during the regular school day. Edmund was awarded a Presidential Fellowship to pursue the Ph.D. in music education at the University of Florida. As a teaching assistant, he earned a university -wide Graduate Student Teaching Award. He is an in -demand lecturer in the areas of jazz history and jazz improvisation. His research emphasis is in musical style, popular music genres and tonal musical language. Edmund has presented research at the Uni versity of Florida School of Linguistics, The University of North Texas 2007 Graduate Student Research Symposium, and the spring 2008 College Music Society regional conference at Louisiana State University He has performed as a freelance trumpet player and taught privately throughout the state of Florida for more than thirteen years.