PIANO-IMPROVISATION SKILLS OF MUSICIANS VERSUS NON-MUSICIANS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC THERAPY

by

Laurien G. Hakvoort

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

PIANO-IMPROVISATION SKILLS OF MUSICIANS VERSUS NON-MUSICIANS: IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC THERAPY

by Laurien G. Hakvoort

Department: Conservatory of Music Major: Music Therapy

University of the Pacific Stockton, California May 18, 1994

APPROVED BY:

Thesis Advisor: Dr. David E. Wolfe Committee Member: Professor Audree S. O'Connell Committee Member: Dr. Michael A. Allard Dean of the Graduate School: Professor Dr. David A. Fries

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My gratitude goes to Dr. David E. Wolfe for his patience and guidance during this thesis project. His efforts to correct my English and to clarify all of my difficult explanations made me more knowledgeable not only for this topic, but also concerning the English language. He has been, and will continue to be, an inspiration to me. Also I would like to thank Professor Audree S. O'Connell for her reading, comments and revising of this thesis, and especially her cheerful attitude when I had a difficult moment. I would like to thank Dr. Michael A. Allard for his comments on statistical issues and his patience when it took me time to understand some of the statistical analyses. I am also thankful to Clare J. Macfarlane, who shared her scholarship-award with me, so we both could study for our Masters Degree in music therapy at the University of the Pacific. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Ren Torenvlied for his many hours of discussion and comments about topics, subjects, and methods, and more importantly, to thank him for his help, encouragement and cheerfulness when I was uncertain, discouraged or excited.

iii

ABSTRACT PIANO IMPROVISATION SKILLS OF MUSICIANS VERSUS NON MUSICIANS: IMPLICATIANS FOR MUSIC THERAPY

The purpose of this study was to examine the improvisation skills of musicians and nonmusicians. Fifteen musicians and thirteen non-musicians completed a pre- and post-performance questionnaire and played a free improvisation on the piano. Three independent observers using the Music Improvisation Rating scale rated the free improvisations, and the responses on the questionnaires were tabulated. Results showed no difference between musicians and non-musicians for duration, expectation, self-reported interaction and satisfaction. There was, however, a statistically significant difference for judged interactions between the two groups. This may suggest that a client should not be excluded from music therapy because of lack of musical skills. The therapeutic and musical interactions, however, have to be handled and interpreted differently by the therapist. Working with musically skilled clients may require different interventions from working with musically naive clients.

Keywords: Musical Interaction, (Piano) Improvisation, Music Therapy, Interpretation differences, Quantitative Research, Music Improvisation Rating Scale

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................................3 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................................4 METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................11 Subjects ..................................................................................................................................11 Design ......................................................................................................................................12 Materials/equipment .................................................................................................................13 Procedures ..............................................................................................................................13 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................14 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A. Questionnaire A ...................................................................................................................28 B. Questionnaire B ...................................................................................................................30 C. Musical Improvisation Rating Scale ....................................................................................31 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................33 NOTES ...................................................................................................................................................36

LIST OF TABLES Tables 1. Major Instruments and Level of Study of Musicians ........................................................................11 2. Major and Level of Study of Non-musicians ....................................................................................12 3. Relevant Characteristics of Both Groups..........................................................................................12 4. Questionnaire Responses of Musicians.............................................................................................15 5. Questionnaire Responses of Non-musicians .....................................................................................16 6. Interaction and Time Scores for Musicians ......................................................................................17 7. Interaction and Time Scores for Non-musicians...............................................................................18 RESULTS SCORED WITH MANN-WHITNEY-U-TEST 8. Interaction (Rated) ............................................................................................................................19 9. Expectations of Possibilities .............................................................................................................19 10. Expectations of Sound .....................................................................................................................20 11. Enjoyment........................................................................................................................................20 12. Self-reported Interaction ..................................................................................................................21 13. Satisfaction.......................................................................................................................................21 14. Sound Rating....................................................................................................................................22 15. Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound of Musicians......................................22 16. Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound of Non-..............................................23 musicians

LITERATURE REVIEW Music therapy is a relatively young and growing profession with a developing empirical foundation. Because of its youth there exists a diversity of judgments and expectations regarding music therapy. One of the basic differences in the expectations of therapists and laymen concerns the indication or contra-indication of music therapy for clients with varying degrees of musical knowledge and skills. Music therapy is indicated (an appointed remedy for an illness (Kaufmann, 1985; Smeijsters 1992)) and a client is referred to music therapy when he or she needs a musical process to enforce a psychological process (Smeijsters, 1992), or a social, emotional, behavioral, or academic one. However, frequently a person's musical capability is used as an indicator for referral to music therapy, instead of considering whether a musical process could be the remedy of consideration. Clients are often referred to music therapy because they love music or enjoy playing a musical instrument, but these qualities say nothing about the indication of this specific treatment. These indications do not stem from thorough research, but from intuition or lack of knowledge. Research is necessary to answer the question: Is there a relationship between one's musical skills and one's suitability for music therapy? In order to determine whether musical skills play a role in the suitability for music therapy, it may be valuable to examine the words music and therapy in order to better understand how these two terms relate to one another. Music therapy is the use of music in a therapeutic setting, which implies that music is used to enhance psychological processes. Therapy includes concepts like interaction, exploration, growth, process, satisfaction and communication. This study will examine only the following concepts: interaction, satisfaction and expectation. Interaction is a "reciprocal (or mutual) influence. In social interaction the behavior of one [individual] acts as a stimulus for the behavior of another and visa versa." (Reber, 1985, p. 367). Interaction distinguishes therapy from self-help. As Rogers showed, building a therapeutic relationship is important (Ivey, Ivey & Morgan, 1993). The interaction within this relationship determines (according to psychodynamic theory) whether the client is able to grow. Satisfaction is the feeling that is gained from achieving goals or accomplishing tasks that one did not expect to accomplish. Learning to accomplish a goal for oneself in relationship with others can be very important in therapy; it can give the client a feeling of success (and therefore satisfaction) that may provide motivation for the client to continue trying and attempting new goals. Expectation is the anticipation of a particular 4

event. People will act or remain passive based on their expectations. There is the motivation to try new things even if the expected outcome is low. Music, the other important aspect of music therapy, can be handled in different ways and with different techniques in a therapeutic setting. The techniques most frequently used are: 1. listening to recorded music (e.g., as a prompt for discussion or for relaxation); 2. listening to live music (e.g., as a focus for discussion, relaxation or reaching understanding (emotional matching (Bruscia, 1988)); 3. singing along with recorded or live music (e.g., to create group cohesiveness, or to refresh memories); 4. dancing, painting, or acting to music (e.g., to give a single activity more impact (Moreno, 1991)); 5. improvising (e.g., to give form to more unconscious processes (Bruscia, 1987; Schalkwijk, 1984)). For a specific therapeutic use, improvisation clearly offers many opportunities for an active, personal involvement in a musical process. "In [improvisation] lies the possibility to hear in a dynamic way the individual as a whole self, as well as in a relationship with another person" (Aldridge, 1991, p. 64). It may also be a musical form where the most sophisticated musical skills are involved. If that is the case, it may be expected that there could exist a distinct difference in the ability to improvise between musicians and non-musicians. What is improvisation and in what context is it relevant for music therapy? There are many different definitions. Bruscia (1986) states that music improvisation is "the [unprepared] creation of expressive sound forms or music" (p. 11). This definition puts emphasis on the following aspects of improvisation: spontaneity/unpreparedness and expressiveness/creativity of the improviser. Furthermore, it does not matter whether the sounds do match (strict) criteria for being music. This definition is completely neutral with respect to being a musician or a non-musician. According to Campbell (1991) improvisation "is the spontaneous generation of melody and rhythm without specific preparation or premeditation. It is the musical response to unpredictable impulse or feeling" (p. 21). It apparently should include melody and rhythm, which already requires some musical background or understanding. The unpreparedness is combined with feelings and unpredictable impulse (such as other musicians) that emphasize the interaction with others or within a person. Flohr (1985) indicates in his definition that spontaneity is the important element of an improvisation: "Improvisation is a spontaneous invention and shaping of music. It is a creative art involving thinking and performing music simultaneously" (p. 79). The cognitive aspects here are combined with spontaneity and could be strongly influenced by expectations and satisfaction. 5

Pressing (1988) uses a very complicated formula to describe musical improvisation. The three main factors of his theory are: 1. the manner in which people improvise; 2. how they learn to improvise; and 3. the origin of novel, or new musical behavior. He does not describe any pros or cons for musicians or non-musicians, nor does he describe what is expected of an improvisation in musical terms. For him the unpreparedness, the (inter)action and the improvisational procedures are important. The New Grove Dictionary (Sadie, 1980) leaves skill necessities undetermined when it defines improvisation very generally as "the creation of a musical work, as it is being performed. It may involve the work' s immediate composition by its performers, or the elaboration or adjustment of an existing framework, or anything between" (p. 31). It could be inferred from these definitions that one does not need to be a musician, possessing musical skills or knowledge, in order to be involved in improvisation. On the other hand, Zentz (1992) states, that "improvisation is the art of skillfully combining the elements of music with refined technical proficiency" (p. 53). This is a completely different approach. It demands highly skilled improvisers. One cannot be satisfied until these high standards are met. In the same line, Rutkowski (1992) argues, that "improvising should never be considered as choosing random tones in random rhythms in some random forms. The skilled improviser has a plan and knows what his or her sounds will be" (p. 53). Here, cognitive aspect includes musical skills. Kalmar and Balasko (1987) see musical improvisation as a "structuring activity [that] implies rules one has to comply with" (p. 77). Rules may include all kinds of regulations, but rules imply also ' sanctions' , or at least interaction with others who state the rules. Farber (1991) states that: "One' s improvisatory imagination usually stays within one' s technical competency" (p. 32). What a person puts in an improvisation therefore depends not only on his technical skills. The improvisation as such will give him all the exploration possibilities he needs. Skills are not necessary. Reading these statements regarding musical improvisation, one can distill two main approaches: a. spontaneous, unskilled improvisation and; b. skilled, controlled improvisation. Again, a major difference is made between musicians and non-musicians. For the totally controlled improvisation one needs to be a musician, with an established feeling for beat and rhythm (Gray, 1983), and possess many other musical skills (Bash, 1991; Dobbins, 1988; Meadows, 1991; Rose 1985; Rutkowski 1992). These kinds of definitions may influence laypeople to perceive that involvement in

music therapy, especially in its improvisational form, requires the client to have highly developed musical skills. However, some authors combine spontaneity with musical skills as a continuous process of improvisation in music education (Farber 1991; Kratus 1991). Musicians certainly will be more advanced in musical skills. But how does that influence their therapeutic process, if indeed it does? It is important to know what the research or opinions are concerning musical skills regarding indication or contra-indication for music therapy. Concerning the applicability of music therapy for non-musically trained individuals, Senator Cohen asked: Is it necessary to have any prior musical background for a patient to be responsive to it? [Have they] either studied music in the past, [or] had their parents forced them to play the piano as they were growing up, as many of us were? Is there anything that goes back to prior experience? Can you have someone who has no experience other than perhaps listening to music as a teenager? Is anything required in the way of prior experience? (Special Committee on Aging, 1992, p. 20). The essence of this layperson' s questions is: Should you have (had) any musical experience before going to music therapy? It would seem that many clients who come to music therapy are afraid that they have limited capabilities or are incapable of being actively involved in music therapy because they have had no formal musical experience. In contrast, some music therapists prefer to work with non-musicians in music therapy. Two different reasons are given. First, musicians have a more analytical way of handling music (Hanser, 1990), and their musical processes are more consciously regulated (Schalkwijk, 1984). Therefore, musicians may not seem to be as open towards new musical experiences as non-musicians. Being receptive to new experiences is a precondition for successful therapy and has strong links with expectations. Secondly, musicians have stricter musical norms, which could present problems during a free-improvisation. They also seem to be too product oriented because of their traditional education, according to Aranosian (1982). The musical norms may very well restrict the analogy between the client' s personality and his musical expression (Smeijsters, 1991). Other music therapists state that it does not make much difference to them, whether they work with musicians or non-musicians. They believe that improvisation may be inappropriate for some clients. Music therapy can create different expectations. Summarizing the above, there would seem to be three general assumptions that contradict each other: 1. Clients need to be highly musically skilled before they can enter music therapy; 2. Clients should be musically naive to make them more sensitive 7

to new experiences in music therapy; and 3. the influences of having musical or non-musical experience on the therapeutic process are non-significant. Who is suited for music therapy: Musicians, non-musicians, or both? Davidson and Welsh (1988) found that "in music one can be both an expert and a novice at the same time, depending on whether the task is a (...) perception task or a production task" (p. 284). There does not seem to be any difference in music processing of timbre and rhythm for either group (Prior & Troup, 1988). For this study, musical improvisation is defined as: A structured use of rhythm, melody and other musical elements to shape, in interaction with oneself or others, an unprepared spontaneous expression. This section discusses this definition of improvisation in more detail. The first aspect important for improvisation is structure. Structuring is important in music therapy and in improvisation. Without structure the composition is chaotic and becomes boring or even frightening (Brom, 1984). Musical improvisation is possible within structural constraints, no matter what the general intellectual status is of a person (Hermelin, O' Co nnor, Lee & Treffert, 1989). "Where [one] introduces form and order in the creative act, a higher form of human articulation is promoted" (Aldridge, 1990, p. 195). It takes many trials before one finds his or her own way(s) of structuring and developing his or her own form. A formal structure means that a basic improvisation form is provided (Grabau & Visser, 1987), to assure a guide for the improvisers. Dalcroze suggests that two people play on the same piano. They communicate with musical phrases, one after the other. After a while the improvisers can change this form and start playing at the same moment, listening to one another. The only other task required is that they finish the improvisation together. The second aspect of improvising includes the musical elements: melody, rhythm, harmony, dynamics, clusters, timbre, duration, etc. Some of these aspects are always included in a musical improvisation. Because the more skilled an improviser is, and the more musical elements he will use and combine, there is a difference in improvisation between musicians and non-musicians. Farber (1991) stated that people can express themselves with the techniques they have and therefore musical elements seem to be a less important value in music therapy. It might be assumed that the elements will make a big difference between musicians and non-musicians. Fortunately the musical elements used are not as important in music therapy as form, the way people improvise, interact, and compose

(Schalkwijk, 1984). But it is interesting to see whether there is a difference in duration of an improvisation between musicians and non-musicians. The third aspect of improvisation is the interaction between improvisers. The way they interact and react to one another determines the freedom of the improvisation (and probably the duration too). Therefore the interaction might be an important indicator for improvisation. The fourth aspect is the spontaneous and unprepared expression of emotions. Expression is difficult to define and hard to measure. Not only because the subjects enter with different moods and personalities, but also because up to the present time there has been no clear description of how to measure expression. Webster' s Dictionary (1986) describes expression as that which "clearly shows or communicates an idea, mood or emotion forcefully or vividly, [those expressive] features of musical performance other than mechanical reproduction of the notes" (p. 803). Seashore (1938) defines expression "as a fundamental proposition [in which] we may say that the artistic expression of feelings in music consists in aesthetic deviation from the regular" (p. 9). According to Seashore, expression is measurable, but is an intertwining and combination of many different factors. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in improvising between musicians and non-musicians, and if so to draw some conclusions as to whether that difference is relevant to clients' referral to music therapy. This resear ch was limited to the levels of interaction during the improvisation and its duration. Expectations, enjoyment, and satisfaction concerning one' s own improvisation were compared to give a therapeutic foundation for the musical findings. Null hypothesis 1: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in judged musical interaction level. Alternative Hypothesis 1: There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in judged musical interaction level. Null hypothesis 2: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in the duration of the improvisation. Alternative hypothesis 2:

There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in the duration of the improvisation. Null hypothesis 3: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their expectations concerning the improvisation. Alternative hypothesis 3: There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their expectations concerning the improvisation. Null hypothesis 4: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their enjoyment of the improvisation. Alternative hypothesis 4: There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their enjoyment of the improvisation. Null hypothesis 5: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their satisfaction about the improvisation. Alternative hypothesis 5: There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in their satisfaction about the improvisation. Null hypothesis 6: There will be no statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in self-reported musical interaction level. Alternative Hypothesis 6: There will be a statistically significant difference between musicians and non-musicians in self-reported musical interaction level.

10

METHODOLOGY Subjects Twenty-eight students from a private university in Northern California participated in the study. Fifteen subjects were musicians. They included second semester freshmen through senior level students enrolled in a conservatory of music and none having formal training in musical improvisation. Subjects were selected on a voluntary basis from the university' s orchestra and choirs to assure instrumental variation (see Table 1). Thirteen other subjects had no musical experience or education. They had neither formal musical training nor experience playing the piano, keyboard, organ or synthesizer. These subjects were selected on campus and asked to cooperate on a voluntary basis (see Table 2). For a comparison of relevant characteristics of the musician and the non-musician groups, see Table 3.

Table 1 Major Instruments and Levels of Study of Musicians

Instrument 1 Bassoon 1 Cello 1 Clarinet 2 Flutes 2 French Horns 4 Piano 1 Violin 3 Voice

Study Level 1 Freshman 3 Sophomores 6 Juniors 5 Seniors

11

Table 2 Majors and Levels of study of Non-Musicians

Major 2 American literature 1 History/ Black studies 1 Engineering 1 Psychology 1 Spanish 2 Regional/ International

Study Level 1 Freshman

1 Biology 1 Communication 2 Counseling 1 Education

1 Sophomore 2 Juniors 5 Seniors 4 Graduates

Table 3 Relevant Characteristics of Both Groups

Musicians N= 15 Sex Male Female Age Mean Range Musical experience Mean Range Mean times of improvisation Design 5 10 33% 67%

Non-musicians N= 13 5 8 38% 62%

21.7 years 19 - 31 years

22.8 years 19 - 26 years

10.4 years 3 - 16 years

0.87 times

The two groups, musicians and non-musicians (independent variable) were compared under the same treatment. The dependent variables under study were: 1. expectations before the improvisation; 2. interaction during the musical improvisation; 3. duration (in minutes/seconds) of the improvisation; and 4. degree of satisfaction and enjoyment following the improvisation. A post-test

12

only design was used to assess the video taped piano-improvisations of the subjects. The design can be illustrated as:

X1 X1

O1 O1

Each subject completed a questionnaire before and after the improvisation. Materials/equipment Two different questionnaires (see Appendix A and B) were designed for this study. One was administered to the subjects before the improvisation and the other was given to them following the improvisation. To play an introduction tape, especially developed for this experiment, a video-recorder and monitor were available. A classroom of 7 by 15 meters was used. There was a Yamaha grand piano in the room and a piano-stool. A video-camera was used to record the sound of the improvisation and the hands of the instructor and the subject. Procedures Each subject was seen individually for approximately fifteen minutes. Each had to complete Questionnaire A before any other instructions were given. Next they viewed a five-minute videotape, which explained the musical form that would be practiced during the free piano improvisation. After viewing this tape, questions concerning the procedure were answered by the instructor. Then the video camera was started. The piano-improvisation was a free improvisation. There were no rules, except that both (the subject and the instructor) would play the piano and that they would observe certain musical structures. The formal structures were developed by Dalcroze (Farber, 1991) and adapted for this study by the researcher. The instructor started with one tone. As soon as its sound ended, the subject had to play one tone. When this tone had faded away, the researcher played a different tone, etc. During this process the subject could change the improvisation by, for example, playing more tones, other rhythms, interrupting the note of the instructor. As soon as that happened, the improvisation was free, with the restriction of the experimenter and subject finishing the improvisation together. When the composition was finished, the video camera was stopped and Questionnaire B was completed. Then the experiment was complete. 13

RESULTS The video tapings were analyzed by three independent judges/observers and scored on the Music Improvisation Rating (MIR) for interaction levels (Pavlicevic & Trevarthen, 1989)(see Appendix C). Interaction was measured by the way in which the instructor musically influenced the subject and the manner in which the subject musically reacted. The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The judged interactions were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney-U-test resulting in a statistically significant difference (p = .002) between musicians and non-musicians (see Table 8). Therefore Null hypothesis 1 was rejected. Combining the figures of both groups, a Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient revealed a high correlation between years of musical training and the level of interaction (r = .71; critical r = .448, p = .01). Within the musician' s group there was no correlation between years of musical experience and the interaction level (r = .07, p > .05). Three independent observers judged the interactions with an average reliability of 62% among the three of them (see Tables 6 and 7 for more details). The duration of each subject' s improvisation was timed (see column 6 of Tables 6 and 7), and was analyzed using a t-test for independent measures. The t-test revealed no differences in duration of the improvisations for musicians and non-musicians (t = .307, df = 26; p > .05), therefore this result failed to reject Null hypothesis 2. In addition, the responses to Questionnaires A and B (see Tables 4 and 5) were compared using the Mann-Whitney-U statistics. The results revealed no statistically significant differences in expectations, enjoyment, satisfaction and self-reported interactions. Therefore Null hypothesis 3, 4, 5 and 6 failed to be rejected (see Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). A comparison of the expected and obtained performance sound rating yielded a statistically significant difference for both groups (see Tables 15 and 16). Musicians thought their improvisation sounded better than expected (U = 45.5; critical U = 56, p = .02), just like the non-musicians (U = 24; critical U = 26 for p = .002). There was, however, no difference for the final sound rating for musicians versus non-musicians (see Table 14).

14

Table 4 Questionnaire Responses of Musicians Subject 1. F 2. F 3. F 4. F 5. F 6. M 7. F 8. F 9. F 10. M 11. F 12. M 13. M 14. F 15. M Impr1 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Pos2 1 4 4 6 2 3 5 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 4 Sou3 1 3 3 2 3 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 1 1 4 Enj4 6 4 5 3 4 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 4 5 6 Inte5 3 5 5 5 3 3 5 1 6 6 4 5 3 3 5 Sou6 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 Sati7 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 6 6 5 6 2 1 4

M = Male F = Female

15

Table 5 Questionnaire Responses of Non-musicians

Subject 1. M 2. M 3. M 4. M 5. F 6. F 7. F 8. F 9. F 10. F 11. M 12. F 13 .F

15

Impr8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pos9 3 5 1 4 1 2 2 1 4 1 2 2 1

Sou10 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1

Enj11 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6

Int12 2 2 3 4 6 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 6

Sou13 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5

Sati14 4 4 3 4 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 4 6

M = Male F = Female

16

Table 6 Interaction and Time Scores for Musicians Subject 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Rater 1 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 6 6 6 7 6 4 7 Rater 2 7 7 7 6 6 2 6 5 7 6 7 7 6 2 7 Rater 3 7 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 7 6 2 7 Final 7 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 7 6 6 7 6 2 7 Duration 2' 44" 2' 50" 2' 42" 3' 32" 3' 09" 3' 16" 3' 32" 6' 00" 3' 23" 3' 35" 3' 14" 2' 09" 2' 15" 2' 46" 2' 12"

Mean time = 3' 10" Mean score = 5.9 Reliability of 53% between rater 1 and 2. Reliability of 73% between rater 1 and 3 and between rater 2 and 3.

Numbering of levels of judged interaction. 1 = No contact 2 = One-sided contact 3 = Reverse contact 4 = Tenuous responsive contact 5 = Established responsive contact 6 = Tenuous mutual contact 7 = Established mutual contact

17

Table 7 Interaction and Time Scores for Non-Musicians

Subject 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Rater 1 4 3 2 6 4 2 4 5 6 4 4 6 4

Rater 2 4 3 5 4 4 4 1 5 2 5 4 2 5

Rater 3 4 3 2 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 5

Final 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 6 5

Duration 2' 44" 1' 52" 2' 30" 3' 31" 2"34" 3' 03" 2' 28" 3' 30" 2' 23" 2' 28" 2' 50" 6' 18" 3' 24"

Mean time = 3' 03" Mean score = 3.6 Reliability of 38% between rater 1 and 2. Reliability of 79% between rater 1 and 3. Reliability of 54% between rater 2 and 3.

Numbering of levels of judged interaction. 1 = No contact 2 = One-sided contact 3 = Reverse contact 4 = Tenuous responsive contact 5 = Established responsive contact 6 = Tenuous mutual contact 7 = Established mutual contact

18

RESULTS SCORED WITH MANN-WHITNEY-U-TEST

Table 8 Interaction (Rated)

Musicians Score 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rank 1.5 13.5 20 26.5 R1 = 294.5 Mean = 5.9 U = 195 + 120 - 294.5 = 20.5 U = 195 + 91 - 119.5 = 166.5 Critical U = 32 if p = .002 Reject Null Hypothesis 1. X 2 8 4
1

Non-Musicians Total 1.5 27 160 106 Score 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rank 1.5 3 8.5 13.5 20 R2 = 119.5 Mean = 3.6 X 1 1 8 2 1 Total 1.5 3 68 27 20 1

Table 9 Expectations of Possibilities (1 = definitely impossible; 6 = definitely possible)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 5 13 17.5 22 26.5 28 R1 = 241 Mean = 2.9 U = 315 - 241 = 74 U = 286 - 164 = 122 Critical U = 54 Fail to reject Null hypothesis 3.
1

Non-Musicians X 4 3 1 5 1 1 Total 20 39 17.5 110 26.5 28 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 5 13 17.5 22 26.5 R2 = 164 Mean = 2.2 X 5 4 1 2 1 Total 25 52 17.5 44 26.5 -

X is the number of present rankings. 19

Table 10 Expectations of Sound (1 = horrible; 6 = always very good)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 5 11.5 19.5 27 R1 = 234.5 Mean = 2.4 U = 315 - 234.5 = 80.5 U = 286 - 171.5 = 114.5 Critical U = 54 Fail to reject Null hypothesis 3. X 5 1 6 3 25

Non-Musicians Total 11.5 117 81 Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 5 11.5 19.5 R2 = 171.5 Mean = 2.2 X 4 3 6 Total 20 34.5 117 -

Table 11 Enjoyment (1 = not at all; 6 = very much)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 1 4 9 20 R1 = 214 Mean = 5.3 U = 315 - 214 = 101 U = 286 - 222 = 64 Critical U = 54 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis 4. X 1 4 3 7 1 16 27 140

Non-Musicians Total Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 R2 = 222 Mean = 5.7 Rank 4 9 20 X 1 2 10 Total 4 18 200

20

Table 12 Self-reported Interaction (1 = never; 6 = always)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 1 9.5 16 21.5 26.5 R1 = 246.5 Mean = 4.1 U = 315 - 246.5 = 68.5 U = 286 - 159.5 = 126.5 Critical U = 54 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis 6. X 1 5 1 6 2 1 -

Non-Musicians Total Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 3.5 9.5 16 26.5 R2 = 159.5 Mean = 3.4 X 4 3 4 2 Total 14 28.5 64 53

47.5 16 129 53

Table 13 Satisfaction (1 = not at all satisfied; 6 = very satisfied)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 1 2 3.5 11 20 25.5 R1 = 209 Mean = 4.2 U = 315 - 209 = 106 U = 286 - 197 = 89 Critical U = 54 Fail to reject Null hypothesis 5. X 1 1 1 6 3 3 1 2 3.5 66 60

Non-Musicians Total Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 R2 = 197 Mean = 4.5 Rank 3.5 11 20 25.5 X 1 7 2 3 Total 3.5 77 40 76.5

76.5

21

Table 14 Sound Rating (1 = horrible; 6= always very good)

Musicians Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 1.5 7 19 27.5 R1 = 204 Mean = 3.5 U = 315 - 204 = 111 U = 286 - 202 = 84 Critical U = 54 X 1 6 7 1 1.5 42 133

Non-Musicians Total Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 R2 = 202 Mean = 3.1 Rank 1.5 7 19 27.5 X 1 3 8 1 Total 1.5 21 152 27.5 -

27.5 -

No statistically significant difference for sound rating between musicians and non-musicians.

Table 15 Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound from Musicians

Musicians before Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 3 6.5 12.5 23 R1 = 155.5 U = 345 - 299.5 = 45.5 Critical U = 56 for p = .02 X 5 1 6 3 Total 15 6.5 75 69 -

Musicians after Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rank 6.5 12.5 23 29.5 R2 = 299.5 X 1 4 8 2 Total 6.5 50 184 59 -

There is a statistically significant difference between the expected and obtained performance.

22

Table 16 Comparison of Expected and Obtained Performance Sound from Non-Musicians

Non-Musicians before Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 R1 = 115 U = 260 - 236 = 24 Critical U = 26 for p = .002 Rank 2.5 7 14 X 4 3 6 Total 10 21 84 -

Non-Musicians after Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 R2 = 236 Rank 7 14 22.5 X 2 3 8 Total 14 42 180 -

There is a statistically significant difference between the expected and obtained performance.

23

DISCUSSION Based on the results of this study, improvising in music seems to be a highly enjoyable activity for musicians as well as non-musicians. Most participants in the project indicated moderate satisfaction with the musical experience, possibly an indication of a desire for more personal growth and experimentation in this particular kind of musical process. Making personal changes is easier if the learning or changing process is enjoyable. The pleasure one receives from being involved in improvisation is a valuable aspect of music and can be very useful in a therapeutic setting. The rating of expectations, satisfaction and enjoyment did not differ among musicians versus non-musicians. This might indicate that both musicians and non-musicians are suitable for music therapy. Statistically significant differences between musicians and non-musicians appear in levels of interaction. The correlation between years of musical training and the level of interaction was high. This finding is similar to that reported by Pavlicevic and Trevarthen (1989). The level of interaction among musicians with the instructor was rated high on the level of mutual contact (in which the instructor and the subject musically influence one another). There was, however, no correlation between the years of musical training and the level of interaction within the musician' s group. Just the existence of musical skills alone seems to be the positive condition to reach a higher musical interaction in an improvisation. It might be that only a few music lessons or music therapy sessions equalize the interaction pattern between musically naive and musically skilled clients. The level of interaction of non-musicians with the instructor was rated moderate on the level of tenuous responsive contact (where the musical interventions of the researcher only evoke limited and unsustained responses in the subject' s improvisation). Non -musicians seldom seemed able to take their own musical initiatives. The question of whether this is an indication or a contra-indication is difficult to answer. But this difference has certain specific consequences for the music therapist when working with a musician or a layperson. This interaction has to be interpreted differently, for a non-musician is playing his own improvisation in a less defined manner than a musician, and this performance might be a reaction to the therapist. The results of the self-reported interaction showed no significant differences between musicians and non-musicians. The perceived interaction was different from the observed interaction. The subjects might have been asked to give a rationale for their particular score following each 24

improvisation, in an effort to better understand the factors that may have influenced their rating. Was it the musical sound, personal concepts of a perfect performance, or the determinations of the experimenter' s pian o skills? It may seem that the possibility for musical growth within a musical relationship (improvisation) is not as great for musicians compared to non-musicians. If so, this may appear to limit the strength of the therapeutic intervention of the relationship between therapist and musician. On the other hand, if this musical relationship is easily established, the therapist/improviser can start more quickly and with less effort with the processing of other aspects of therapy (e.g. exploration of emotions, social behavior, rationales). Denying a person' s involvement in improvisational music therapy should not be determined solely by whether a person possesses musical skills. However, the therapist should be aware of the existence of musical skills because of their influencing character in the therapeutic interaction. Contraindications for music therapy will still depend largely on personal and theoretical values, such as: 1. Clients indicated with certain psychological, emotional, social, physical or behavioral problems (compare e.g. Reinhardt, Rohrborn & Schwabe, 1986) 2. Clients indicated with problems linked to certain musical qualities, such as people with communication, arranging, shaping, expression, time, or tempo problems (Fockema Andrea & van der Sterren, 1978), or people who need activity therapies, where final products or tangible objects are absent (in comparison with, for example, art therapy where there is a final product), or a therapy with regressive, surrounding sounds (Schwartz, 1990). 3. Contra-indications for certain psychological states (such as clients with acute psychoses (Schalkwijk, 1984)). Before medical insurance companies will reimburse music therapists for their professional services, there must be specific therapeutic reasons for referral -- specific objectives, goals and treatment plans. Music therapists concentrate on providing change-oriented, musical experiences. Musical skills seems to be important for only certain parts of improvisational therapy and even then a music therapist can rearrange the activity to assure a success-oriented start for both musicians and non-musicians. Most of the subjects in this study played more musically than expected. This kind of musical success can be highly motivating to people engaged in music therapy. It was noted throughout the study, that many of the subjects expressed a desire to participate in additional improvisations with the researcher.

25

The researcher did not attempt to analyze the outcomes according to gender. It was difficult to find males who were both performance majors and lacking in improvisational experiences. In future studies it may prove interesting to examine the differences in improvisational skills between men and women. Since all the subjects who participated in this study were volunteers, it may also be interesting to examine those less willing to participate (e.g. college students enrolled in a course in which participation in such a project is required) and how they would perform under similar experimental conditions. Their possible reluctance, like unwillingness of some clients to involve themselves in therapy, may interfere with their performance. As a result of the low reliability figures obtained for the interaction ratings, more discrete observation categories and more time devoted to observing and recording these categories may be helpful in planning future studies. One of the major biases reported by the raters occurred upon viewing the improvisation video tapings. They were able to recognize whether they were judging a musician or a non-musician by the hand position of the subjects. Once the rater observed this, the musicians tended to receive a higher rating (the percentage of correct answers for musician versus nonmusician was 79% for rater 1 and 86% for rater 2). The reverse process, assigning lower ratings to the non-musicians could also have taken place. The use of an audiotape rather than videotape might control for this factor. However, using only an audiotape would make it difficult to discriminate the improvisation and intervention efforts of each improviser (researcher versus subject). Reliability may also be increased among the judges by providing more practice and discussion of the important aspects of the rating procedure. For example, sometimes a 6 (tenuous mutual contact) and a 2 (one-sided contact) were assigned by the raters for the same improvisation, because it was not clear whether a subject was not able to respond or whether he or she played out of personal initiative. Also, higher reliability may have been achieved if a specified amount of time was observed using interval recording (e.g. two minutes of observation, divided into 10 seconds to observe and 10 seconds to record the scores). One of the problems that arose during the scoring was the great variance in interaction level during the improvisation, which made it sometimes difficult to decide whether a subject should get a 1 (no contact) for his interaction in the beginning or a 6 (tenuous mutual contact) like his intervening role in the improvisation at the end.

26

Another uncontrolled variable may have resulted from the experimenter' s improvisations. For example, some subjects stopped after a short period of time, yet the instructor continued to play in an effort to encourage the subjects toward further improvisation. These initiatives by the experimenter may have influenced the actual duration of the improvisation performed by the subject. The two exceptions of six minutes and six minutes and 18 seconds were complete initiatives of the subjects. The instructor also seemed inconsistent with her inventions across performances. For some subjects, the musical interventions performed by the experimenter were more challenging than with other subjects. For future research it might be interesting to examine the musical content and expressiveness of improvisation efforts of musicians and non-musicians. Another intriguing area of research might deal with the role interaction plays in therapy, in general, and in music therapy specifically. Other fascinating ideas for research could involve the examination of improvisation with: 1. different populations (mentally challenged, psychologically challenged (Pavlicevic & Trevarthen, 1989); physically challenged); 2. children of different ages (Flohr 1981, 1985; Hassler & Feil, 1986; Kalmar & Balasko, 1987; Thaut, 1988) to clients of older ages; and 3. different musical skills (improvisation skills versus no improvisation skills; piano major versus other performance majors). The use of other instruments, other musical improvisation forms, or more continuous sessions for each subject may provide additional insight into the way in which improvisational music therapy influences people. There is a strong need for additional research in indication and contra-indication for (improvisational) music therapy in order to establish a coherent research base.

27

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire A "Musical Improvisation is the unprepared creation of expressive sound forms or music" (Bruscia, 1986). # (M) ______ F/M Age _____

Please read carefully and fill in or mark the appropriate answers.

1. What is your major? ___________________________________________

2. What year are you in? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior or Graduate.

3. What kind(s) of music do you like to listen to and/or play? (Check as many as you like). Baroque ________ Renaissance ____ Classic ________ Romantic _______ Impressionistic Expressionistic Modern Classical_ Folk music _____ Blues __________ Jazz ___________ Rock & Roll ____ Rock ___________ Hard Rock ______ Heavy Metal ____ Hip Hop ________ House __________ New Age ________ Pop ____________ Alternative ____ Ethnic__________ Gospel _________ Country & Western Rap ____________ Musical ________

Others (please explain):________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

4. Have you had any (formal) musical training? No _____ Yes _____ If so, how many years of musical training have you had? ______ What is your major instrument? ___________ What other instruments do you play or have you played? ____________________

5. Have you ever participated in a musical improvisation? No ____ Yes____ If so, approximately about how many times? _________ What kind of improvisation(s)? Jazz ___ Cadenza ___ Free ___ Blues ___ Others (please explain) ____________________________ 28

6. Do you think you are capable of playing an unrehearsed piano-improvisation with someone else? Please circle only one number. 1. Definitely impossible 2. Almost impossible 3. Somewhat impossible 4. Possible 5. Very possible 6. Definitely possible

7. How do you think this improvisation will sound? Please circle only one number. 1. Horrible 2. Mostly horrible 3. Not always horrible 4. Mostly good 5. Mostly very good 6. Always very good

29

APPENDIX B Questionnaire B # (M) ______ Please circle only the appropriate number.

1. How did you enjoy the improvisation? 1. Not at all 2. Hardly 3. Somewhat 4. Moderately 5. Pretty much 6. Very much

2. Did you have the feeling that you could play together with the other pianist? 1. Never 2. Seldom 3. Sometimes 4. Often 5. Most of the time 6. Always

3. How do you think the improvisation sounded? 1. Horrible 2. Most of the time horrible 3. Rather horrible 4. Rather good 5. Most of the time very good 6. Always very good

4. How satisfied are you with the overall performance of this improvisation? 1. Not at all satisfied 2. Hardly satisfied 3. Somewhat satisfied 4. Moderately satisfied 5. Pretty satisfied 6. Very satisfied

30

APPENDIX C MUSIC IMPROVISATION RATING SCALE This rating scale that the researcher adapted from Pavlicevic and Trevarthen (1989) and adjusted to seven levels relating to the musical Gestalt therapy theory (Southworth, 1983), was used by the independent judges/observers to rate the improvisation interaction. Level 1, no contact Subject' s musical utterances are irregular and unpredictable. The pulse is erratic, the bea t is not established, and rhythmic patterns are absent or unformed. Researcher is not able to match or meet subject' s musical utterances and there is no shared musical pulse between the two. Level 2, one-sided contact Researcher is able to match subject's musical statement either by mirroring subject' s rhythmic patterns if these are formed, or by reproducing the pulse in the music of the subject, so that the two players have a common beat. But the subject' s performance shows no response to alterations of the researcher. Level 3, reverse contact The subject tries to match all the musical alterations and interventions the researcher is using. Subject plays most of the time in the same rhythmic patterns, musical lines and harmonic connotation. Level 4, tenuous responsive contact When the researcher intervenes musically, subject' s response shows some alteration in response to researcher' s performance. This response is limited or unsustained.

Level 5, established responsive contact Subject' s responses to the researcher' s interventions are more sustained and musically less limited. The musical interventions and initiatives still depends very much on researcher. Level 6, tenuous mutual contact The beginnings of an interchange sound; subject may begin to initiate musical changes. Subject becomes musically assertive and does not imitate everything the researcher does. Level 7, established mutual contact

31

Subject and researcher share mutual musical partnership, the musical initiatives and modeling. Improvisation shows a flexible use of musical components. Researcher and subject are musically independent within a highly dynamic, interactive musical context.

32

REFERENCES Aldridge, D., Brandt, G., & Wohler, D. (1990). Perspective towards a common language among the creative art therapists. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 17, 189-195. Aldridge, D. (1991). Physiological change, communication and the playing of improvised music: Some proposal for research. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 18, 59-64. Aranosian, C.M. (1981-82). Musical creativity: The stream of consciousness in composition, improvisation, and education. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 1(1), 6788. Bash, L. (1991). Improvising improvisation; watch for the flags. Music Educator Journal 78(2), 44-48. Brom, M.M. (1984). Over de kreatieve proces theorie en haar toepassings mogelijkheden [On the creative process theory and its applicability]. Amersfoort: Middeloo. Bruscia, K.E. (1986). The practical side of Improvisational Music Therapy. Music Therapy Perspective, 6, 11-15. Bruscia, K.E. (1987). Improvisational models of music therapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Bruscia, K.E. (1988). A survey of treatment procedures in Improvisational Music Therapy. Psychology of Music, 16, 10-24. Campbell, P.S. (1991). Unveiling the mysteries of musical spontaneity. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 21-24. Davidson, L., & Welsh, P. (1988). From collections to structure: The developmental path of tonal thinking. In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generative processes in music; The psychology of performance, improvisation and composition (pp. 260-285). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dobbins, B. (1988). Jazz and academia: Street music in the ivory tower. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 96, 30-41. Farber, A. (1991). Speaking the musical language. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 30-34.

33

Flohr, J.W. (1981). Short-term music instruction and young children' s developmental music aptitude. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(3), 219-223. Flohr, J.W. (1985). Young children' s improvisation: Emerging creative thoughts. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 10(2), 79-86. Fockema Andrea, L., & van der Sterren, H. (1978). Creatieve therapie [creative therapy]. Raalte: St. Fransicushof. Grabau, E., & Visser, H. (1987). Creatieve therapie; spelen met mogelijkheden [Creative therapy; playing with possibilities]. Deventer: Stafleu Van Loghum Slaterus. Gray, J. (1983). "Cooking" lessons for rhythmic skills: Jazz piano. Music Educators Journal, 69(9), 50-51. Hanser, S.B. (1990). A music therapy strategy for depressed older adults in the community. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 9(3), 283-298. Hassler, M., & Feil, A. (1986). A study of the relationship of composition/ improvisation to selected personal variables: Differences in the relationship to selected variables: An experimental study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 87, 26-34. Hermelin, B., O' Connor, N., Lee, S., & Treffert, D. (1989). Intelligence an musical improvisation. Psychological Medicine, 19, 447-457. Ivey, A.E., Ivey, H., & Simek-Morgan, L. (1993). Counseling and psychotherapy; a multicultural perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kalmar, M., & Balasko, G. (1987). "Musical mother tongue" and creativity in preschool children' s melody improvisation.Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 91, 77-86. Kaufmann, G.V. (1985). Rezeptive Einzelmusiktherapie in der ambulanten Psychotherapie-Konzeption [Individual, receptive music therapy in the ambulant psychotherapy-concept]. Psychiatrie Neurologie und Medizinische Psychologie, 37(6), 347352. Kratus, J. (1991). Growing with improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 35-40.

34

Meadows, E.S. (1991). Improvising Jazz; a beginners guide. Music Educators Journal, 78(4), 41-44. Moreno, J.J. (1991). Musical psychodrama in Naples. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 18, 331-339. Pavlicevic, M., & Trevarthen, C. (1989). A musical assessment of psychiatric states in adults. Psychopathology, 22, 325-334. Pressing, J. (1988). Improvisation: Methods and models. In J.A. Sloboda (Ed.), Generativeprocesses in music; The psychology of performance, improvisation and composition (pp. 129-178). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Prior, M., & Troup, G.A. (1988). Processing of timbre and rhythm in musicians and non-musicians. Cortex, 24, 451-456. Reber, A.S. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. London; Penguin Books. Reinhardt, A., Rohrborn, H., & Schwabe, C. (1986). Regulative Musiktherapie (RMT) bei depressiven Erkrankungen - Ein Beitrag zur Psychotherapie-entwicklung in der Psychiatrie [ Regulating music therapy (RMT) for depressed diseases - An edition for psychotherapy-development in psychiatry]. Psychiatrie, Neurologie und Medizinische Psychologie, 38(9), 547-553. Rose, R. (1985). Eight elements of jazz improvisation. Music Educators Journal, 71(9), 46- 47. Rutkowski, J. (1992). Idea bank: Spontaneous composition. Music Educators Journal, 78(8), 53. Sadie, S. (1980). The new Grove dictionary of music and musicians (vol. 9). Washington, DC: Grove' s Dictionaries of Music Inc. Schalkwijk, F.W. (1984). Grondslagen van muziektherapie [Basic principles of music therapy]. Nijmegen, Dekker & van de Vegt. Schwartz, P., & Witteveen, E. (1990). Indikatie voor kreatieve therapie [Indication for creative therapy]. In H. Smitskamp (red.). Reader Kreatieve proces theorie KT2: Basisbegrippen, diagnose, indikatie, de therapeutische relatie [Reader creative process

35

theory - CT2: basic terms, diagnosis, indication, the therapeutic relationship]. Amersfoort: HMN v/h Middeloo. Seashore, C.E. (1938). Psychology of music. New York, DC : McGraw-Hill. Smeijsters, H. (1991). Muziektherapie als psychotherapie [Music therapy as psychotherapy]. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Smeijsters, H. (1992). Indicatie en analogie: kan muziektherapie beschouwd worden als een vorm van psychotherapie? [Indication and analogy: can music therapy be considered as a form of psychotherapy?]. Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie, 18(2), 88-101. Southworth, J.S. (1983). Improvisation for non-musicians: A workshop approach. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(3), 195-205. Special Committee on Aging (1992). Forever young: Music and aging. (DHHS publication No. S.Hrg. 102-545. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Thaut, M.H. (1988). Measuring musical responsiveness in autistic children: A comparative analysis of improvised musical tone sequence of autistic, normal and mentally retarded individuals. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18(4), 561-571. Webster' s Dictionary (1986).Webster' s third new international dictionary of the English language. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, inc. Zentz, L. (1992). Idea bank: Introductory improv. Music Educators Journal, 78(8),
1 2

52-53.

Number of times of past involvement in an improvisation. Expectations of possibilities to play a piano improvisation. 3 Expectation of how the improvisation would sound. 4 Enjoyment of the improvisation. 5 Rating of the interaction capacity (according to subject). 6 Sound rating of the performed interaction. 7 Satisfaction about the improvisation. 8 Number of times of past involvement in an improvisation. 9 Expectations of possibilities to play a piano-improvisation. 10 Expectation of how the improvisation would sound. 11 Enjoyment of the improvisation. 12 Rating of the interaction capacity (according to subject). 13 Sound rating of the performed improvisation. 14 Satisfaction about the improvisation. 15 Physical handicapped.

36