A R T I C L E

308

21st century conceptions of musical Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music
ability Copyright © 2010
Society for Education, Music
and Psychology Research
308–330
10.1177/0305735609351922
http://pom.sagepub.com

SUSAN HALLAM
institute of education , university of london

abstract  This study explored conceptions of musical ability using an inventory

derived from previous qualitative research. Participants included 102 musicians, 95
educators, 132 adult amateur musicians, 60 adults who were not actively engaged
in making music, 193 children actively engaged in making music in addition to their
engagement with the school curriculum and 71 children with no engagement with
music outside of the school curriculum. Overall, musical ability was most strongly
perceived as relating to a sense of rhythm, followed by the ability to understand
and interpret the music, express thoughts and feelings through sound, being able to
communicate through sound, motivation to engage with music, personal commitment to
music, and being able to successfully engage musically with others. Least important were
having technical skills, being able to compose or improvise, being able to read music,
and understanding musical concepts and musical structures. Factor analysis revealed
six factors which differentiated between the six sample groups, with the musicians
(professional, amateur and children) and non-musicians demonstrating that musical
ability is perceived in complex ways which depend on the environment within which
individuals are located, and their particular musical experiences or lack of them.

keywords:  children, musical ability, musicians, perceptions

Introduction
The concept of musical ability has a long history. The development of tests to
assess ‘musical ability’ paralleled that of intelligence testing. In the early- and mid-
twentieth century, there was an assumption that individuals were endowed with
different levels of ‘intelligence’ that were genetically based, relatively immutable
and unchanging. Such measures of intelligence have continued to be used to
identify individuals with learning difficulties and sometimes in situations where it is
necessary to select individuals for limited educational or employment opportunities.
In parallel with intelligence tests, musical ability tests were first developed to assist
music teachers in the selection of those pupils most likely to benefit from music
tuition. Testing began in 1883 when Carl Stumpf (1883) suggested a number of simple
aural tests which music teachers might undertake to select pupils. Subsequently, a

sempre :
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 309

range of tests have been developed which can be administered to groups of children
of different ages. The content of the tests varies although they all focus on aural
skills (for reviews see Hallam, 2006; Shuter-Dyson, 1999). The most comprehensive
set of measures is that of Gordon (1965, 1979, 1982, 1989a, 1989b) who has
devised tests to be used with pre-school children through to adults, taking account
of prevailing cultural norms based on tonal imagery, rhythmic imagery, and musical
sensitivity. Recent testing procedures reflect technological advances. Individualised
computer-based systems can assess the recognition of change in synthesiser-
produced melodies and allow for individual speed of responding increasing validity
and reliability (Vispoel, 1993; Vispoel & Coffman, 1992) through minimising the
reliance on the general cognitive processing skills needed to perform well on earlier
tests (Doxey & Wright, 1990). What these various tests have in common is that they
assess the ability to discriminate sounds that vary in subtle ways.
The devisers of the various musical ability measures held different beliefs about the
nature of musical ability. Revesz (1953) adopted the term ‘musicality’ to denote the
‘ability to enjoy music aesthetically’ which was assessed by establishing the depth to
which a person could listen to and comprehend the artistic structure of a composition.
Seashore (Seashore, Lewis & Saetveit, 1960) believed that musical ability was a
set of loosely related basic sensory discrimination skills, which had a genetic basis
and would not change over time except for variation due to lapses of concentration
or other environmental changes. He did not believe that subtest scores should be
combined to obtain a single score, but rather that a profile should be obtained which
could be divided into a number of clearly defined characteristics which were unrelated
to each other (pitch, loudness, rhythm, time, timbre, tonal memory). In contrast,
Wing (1981) believed in a general ability to perceive and appreciate music rather than
a profile. He believed that the elements in his battery of tests should be related to each
other and an overall score should be reported. Gordon (1979) viewed musical ability
as consisting of three parts, tonal imagery (melody and harmony), rhythm imagery
(tempo and metre) and musical sensitivity (phrasing, balance and style). His tests
contrasted with earlier work in which musical ability was viewed in part as sensitivity
to the prevailing musical, cultural norms.
The concept of musical ability has been severely criticised in recent years. Focusing
on the importance of effort, some have proposed that it is time spent practising which
underpins the development of expert performance, not inherited ability. Ericsson,
Krampe, and Tesch-Romer (1993) suggested a monotonic relationship between
‘deliberate practice’ and an individual’s acquired performance, a relationship supported
by Sloboda, Davidson, Howe, and Moore (1996) who, comparing five groups of
young musicians of different capabilities, found greater levels of practice at all ages
from the ‘best ‘group, increasing over time to lead to large cumulative differences.
Interviews with the parents of these children revealed that singing by the child at an
early age was the only sign that distinguished those children who later succeeded
in being accepted by a high status music school. These results reinforce the practice
explanation (Howe, Davidson, Moore, & Sloboda, 1995). However, not all the
evidence is supportive. Sloboda and Howe (1991) found that students identified
as having greater ability by their teachers had undertaken less practice on their
main instrument, their practice time having been spread more equally across three
310 Psychology of Music 38(3)

instruments. Wagner (1975) found that increased practice did not lead to any greater
improvement in performance over an eight-week period, and Zurcher (1972) found
no relationship between total practice time and performance achievement. Reported
correlations between achievement and time spent practising also vary considerably
and are only moderate (Sloboda et al., 1996). It may be that it is the overall length of
time over which learning has taken place rather than the specific amount of practice
that is important (Hallam, 1998a; 2004). In addition, skills can be developed through
playful practice and playing in groups, not only through deliberate practice. Social
factors such as parental support, teacher’s personality and peer interactions have also
been shown to be more important than amount of practice time in achieving a high
level of musical performance (Moore, Burland, & Davidson, 2003).
There has also been a tendency in much of this research to neglect the issue of
drop-outs – those who may have undertaken extensive practice, been unsuccessful
and dropped out. While Sloboda et al. (1996) demonstrated that those who had
dropped out had undertaken less practice and achieved less than those who
continued, in much of the research on drop-outs no single explanatory factor has
emerged. Rather a number of factors, including socio-economic status, self-concept
in music, reading achievement, scholastic ability, measured musical ability,
maths achievement, and motivation are all valid predictors of continuing to play a
musical instrument (Hallam, 1998a; Klinedinst, 1991; Mawbey, 1973; McCarthy,
1980; Young, 1971). Frakes (1984) found significant differences between musical
achievement, academic achievement and attitudes towards musical participation
between drop-outs, non-participants, and participants in musical activity. Drop-outs
perceived themselves as less musically able, received less family encouragement,
tended to feel musically inadequate and turned to sport and other leisure activities
instead of music. Frakes concluded that positive self-perceptions of musical skills
were linked to the desire to continue music education voluntarily. Supporting this,
Hurley (1995) found that students who dropped out viewed continuing to play as
demanding too great a time cost for the relatively small rewards it offered.
When the quality of performance has been considered rather than the level
of expertise attained, the amount of practice undertaken is not a good predictor
(Hallam, 1998a; 2004; Williamon & Valentine, 2000). A further issue is that
measures of time spent practising do not take account of the effectiveness of the
practice undertaken. There are certainly differences in the practising strategies
adopted by students and their metacognitive skills, although their development
seems to be inextricably intertwined with the acquisition of knowledge (Hallam,
2001a; 2001b).
Increasingly it has been recognised that aural skill is only one of many skills
necessary for the development of musical expertise. In 1979, Gilbert devised tests of
motor skills, performance on which was highly correlated with musical attainment
(Gilbert, 1981). The importance of creativity in music has been acknowledged
and ways of assessing it devised (Vaughan, 1977; Webster, 1988), the evidence
suggesting that generally, musical creativity factors seemed to be discrete from
those assessed by musical ability tests (Swanner, 1985). In relation to instrumental
playing, McPherson (1995/6) identified five distinct skills: sight reading, performing
rehearsed music, playing from memory, playing by ear, and improvising, while
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 311

Hallam (1998b) suggested that ‘musical skills’ included aural, cognitive, technical,
musicianship, performance, and learning skills. There has also been an increasing
acknowledgement that individual musicians have differing strengths and
weaknesses within their profile of musical skills.
The changes in conceptualisation of musical ability in many ways parallel
thinking about intelligence, with a gradual move away from a single entity
conception with a genetic basis to a multifaceted developmental conception. While
these changes are well documented, there has been little research addressing the
ways in which individuals within society as a whole conceive of musical ability.
Sloboda, Davidson, and Howe (1994) proposed the existence of a folk psychology
of talent held by non-academics which postulated innately determined differences
between individuals in their capacity for musical accomplishment. This was
supported by the findings from a survey that indicated that more than 75 percent of
a sample of educational professionals believed that playing an instrument, singing,
and composing required a special gift or natural talent (Davis, 1994).
A number of researchers have explored the conceptualisation of musical ability by
different groups in society. Haroutounian (2000) analysed the level of importance
attached to particular criteria in identifying musically able children. General
behaviours of ‘sustained interest’ and ‘self-discipline’ received higher mean responses
than music-specific characteristics indicative of musical aptitude. A performance
assessment scale showed note and rhythmic accuracy rated highest in importance
followed by steady rhythmic performance, dynamic contrasts, and technical fluency.
Originality received the lowest rating. However, interviews with experts across the
musical fields of research, performance, psychology, education, teachers involved
in gifted education programmes and others regularly involved in the identification
of gifted children revealed categories of perceptual awareness and discrimination,
meta-perception, creative interpretation, behaviour/performance, and motivation.
The most decisive factor perceived to determine musical potential in children rested
on criteria related to the child’s creative expressive involvement in musical activities.
This contrasted with the questionnaire survey which found that creativity was found
to be an inadequate measure reinforcing the complexity and difficulty of defining and
identifying musical potential.
Hallam and Prince (2003) explored the qualitatively different ways in which groups
of people with differing levels of involvement in active music-making conceptualised
‘musical ability’. Individuals (129 musicians; 80 non-music educators; 112 adults in
other occupations; 60 students involved in extra-curricular music; 14 not involved
in extra-curricular music) were asked to complete in writing the statement ‘Music
ability is’. The statements were analysed using an iterative process of categorisation.
Musical ability was conceptualised in relation to: receptive activities, generative
activities, the integration of a range of skills, the extent to which it is learned, meta-
cognition, and motivation. Overall, 28 percent of the sample mentioned aural skills
as indicative of musical ability, 32 percent included listening and understanding,
24 percent having an appreciation of music, and 15 percent being responsive to
music. By far the largest response in any category was that musical ability was being
able to play a musical instrument or sing (cited by 71% of the sample). This response
was highest in children who did not take part in extra-curricular music (86%), and
312 Psychology of Music 38(3)

adults not involved in education (83%). The integration of a range of skills was
cited by 9 percent of respondents. Personal qualities including motivation, personal
expression, immersion in music, total commitment and meta-cognition (being
able to learn to learn) were cited most by musicians. The findings did not indicate
a general conception of musical ability as genetically determined. In addition,
the concept of musical ability was constructed in different ways by each group of
participants. The greater the active involvement with music making, the more
detailed and complex the constructions became. This qualitative research, relying
as it did on individuals spontaneously generating their own conceptualisations of
musical ability, did not take account of non-articulated beliefs. The purpose of this
study, using the categorisations derived from the qualitative study by Hallam and
Prince (2003), is to explore current conceptions of the nature of musical ability
adopting a more structured approach.

Method
The present study is an extension of the research carried out by Hallam and Prince
(2003), which used qualitative methods to determine how participants perceived
the construct ‘musical ability’. In the qualitative study, respondents completed the
statement ‘Musical ability is’. The constructs used in the research reported here
were derived from the first study with some changes to the naming of categories
to better reflect the specific statements included in the questionnaire. They were:
having a musical ear, having a sense of rhythm, listening and understanding,
responding to music, appreciation of music, knowledge about music, evaluation
skills, communication through music, group performance, reading music, technical
skills, expressing thoughts and feelings through sound, being able to understand
and interpret music, motivation, personal characteristics, integration of skills, meta-
cognition, playing an instrument or singing, creativity, composing or improvising,
and the origins of musical ability, i.e. whether it was learned or innate. This last was
not included in the current analysis.
In the current study each of these categories was represented by several
statements derived from the qualitative study. For instance, the statements relating
to having a musical ear were: musical ability depends on having perfect pitch,
musical ability is being able to play by ear, musical ability is being able to internalise
sound. A total of 77 statements were included in the questionnaire. Statements
were responded to through levels of agreement on a 5-point rating scale. Statements
relating to the origins of musical ability were not included in the analyses described
here. Respondents were also asked to provide information regarding age, gender,
occupation, and musical experience. The questionnaire was self-administered
following distribution by the researchers. The exception to this was for the children,
where some questionnaires were administered in music lessons.
The sample was an opportunity sample which consisted of 660 individuals aged
14 to 90. There were 212 males and 447 females, one participant did not indicate
their gender. The sample was balanced between several different groups. These groups
were selected to represent those actively engaged in making music at a range of levels
and those not actively engaged, also encompassing a wide age range. Non-musician
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 313

educators were included to provide a broader educational perspective distanced

from music education itself. The sample included: 102 musicians, 95 educators
who were not music teachers and had no active engagement with making music,
132 adults who were actively engaged in music making in an amateur capacity,
60 adults who were not actively engaged in making music, 193 children actively
engaged in making music in addition to their engagement with the school
curriculum, and 71 children with no engagement with music outside the school
curriculum. The musicians group consisted of those who had portfolio careers
consisting of performing and teaching (the latter mainly instrumental). The
educators were drawn mainly from school settings, did not teach music, and had
no active engagement with it. The adults, those actively engaged in making music
in an amateur capacity and those not, were an opportunistic sample and included
representatives from a wide range of occupations including professional, white
collar, and manual workers. The sample of children was drawn from a junior
conservatoire, a Local Authority youth orchestra, a Local Authority music school,
and two secondary schools.

Results
Table 1 sets out the mean responses in each category, the responses from the
statements having been summed and divided by the number of statements so that
they could be compared. Having a sense of rhythm was the most highly supported
conception of musical ability. Other highly rated categories related to being able to
express oneself through sound, being able to understand and interpret music, and
being able to communicate through music. A range of personal factors including
motivation, personal characteristics, and being able to work in a group followed.
Having a musical ear received relatively low ratings given its high rating in musical
ability tests. The lowest ratings were for reading music and knowledge about music.
An analysis of differences between the six groups of respondents was undertaken
in relation to the questionnaire categories. There were statistically significant
differences between the groups in relation to most of the categories (see Table 2),
the exceptions being responding to music, playing an instrument or singing, meta-
cognition, personal characteristics, and expressing thoughts and feelings through
music. No consistent pattern of responses emerged in relation to the categories
where there were statistically significant differences between the groups.
To attempt to provide a more coherent account of the nature of conceptions of
musical ability, a factor analysis was conducted. Statements relating to whether
musical ability was learned or innate were omitted from the analysis as the intention
was to explore the elements perceived to constitute musical ability. Principal
component analysis was used as it is essentially a descriptive technique which is
appropriate for such theory development (Bartholemew, Steele, Moustaki, & Galbraith
2002; Tabachik & Fidell, 2001). A Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was
conducted to enable the factors to be more easily interpreted. The Varimax rotation
technique is an orthogonal method which assumes that the extracted factors are
uncorrelated. The sample size was broadly appropriate for the number of variables
included in the analysis (66) with a ratio of almost 1:10 (Nunnally, 1978). The
314 Psychology of Music 38(3)

table 1   Mean responses to each category

Musical ability is N Mean SD

Having a sense of rhythm 645 3.84 .69

Expressing thoughts and feelings through sound 475 3.75 .62
Being able to understand and interpret the music 644 3.74 .81
Communication through music 640 3.66 .75
Motivation 627 3.56 .88
Personal characteristics 635 3.48 .73
Group performance 639 3.44 .82
Integration of skills 626 3.39 .75
Responding to music 648 3.37 .75
Meta-cognition 639 3.34 .81
Playing and instrument or singing 641 3.32 .88
Having a musical ear 637 3.29 .74
Listening and understanding 643 3.27 .71
Appreciation of music 644 3.13 .87
Creativity 641 3.10 .79
Evaluation skills 644 3.04 .87
Technical skills 647 3.03 .86
Composing or improvising 638 2.99 .82
Reading music 642 2.77 .99
Knowledge about music 648 2.68 .86

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling which assesses the suitability of the data for
factor analysis was .92 and the Bartlett test was highly significant (.000001).
The scree test indicated that the best factor solution would be obtained by
including only the six factors which had Eigenvalues of above 2. The factors were:
being able to read music and play an instrument or sing (Eigenvalue 15.5); musical
communication (5.01); valuing, appreciating and responding to music (3.1);
composition and improvisation and the skills needed to undertake them (2.5);
commitment, motivation, personal discipline and organisation (2.4); and rhythmic
ability, pitch skills, and understanding (2.3). The six components overall explained
46.8 percent of the variance.
Table 3 sets out the factors and the weightings of the statements relating to each.
Only weightings greater than .2 are included. The scores for each participant on
each factor were saved and a comparison made between scores (see Table 4).
Factor 1 included high ratings for statements relating to reading music, being
able to play an instrument or sing, having appropriate technical and physical skills,
critically evaluating and analysing performance, and understanding music. In
short, skills which may be needed in playing an instrument or singing well. This
factor accounted for 23.6 percent of the variance. Those with the highest scores
on this factor were the children with little active engagement with music, followed
by the children actively engaged with music. The lowest scores were from the
educators who had no active engagement with music (see Table 4).


table 2   Means and standard deviations of group differences

Adults Adults not Children Children with

actively actively actively little active
engaged engaged engaged engagement
Musicians Educators with music with music with music with music Significance

Having a musical ear 3.2 (.76) 3.3 (.81) 3.4 (.75) 3.3 (.72) 3.3 (.68) 3.1 (.66) .049
Having a sense of rhythm 3.6 (.88) 3.76 (.66) 3.89 (.62) 3.88 (.57) 3.95 (.65) 3.86 (.68) .003
Listening and understanding 3.28 (.69) 3.19 (.70) 3.15 (.74) 3.25 (.69) 3.37 (.65) 3.41 (.67) .035
Responding to music 3.44 (.81) 3.25 (.78) 3.29 (.78) 3.36 (.70) 3.43 (.67) 3.54 (.76) NS
Appreciation of music 3.17 (.88) 3.13 (.81) 2.95 (.89) 2.89 (.85) 3.24 (.87) 3.39 (.77) .002
Knowledge about music 2.5 (.80) 2.59 (.79) 2.57 (.88) 2.7 (.85) 2.77 (.84) 3.07 (.91) .0001
Evaluation skills 3.03 (.85) 2.74 (.89) 3.01 (.90) 2.86 (.93) 3.19 (.81) 3.34 (.73) .0001
Playing an instrument or singing 3.29 (.86) 3.2 (1.0) 3.33 (.88) 3.09 (.88) 3.42 (.88) 3.47 (.64) NS
Reading music 2.59 (.99) 2.59 (1.07) 2.67 (1.05) 2.76 (.93) 2.9 (.91) 3.19 (.88) .0001
Technical skills 2.86 (.95) 2.89 (.96) 2.93 (.82) 2.98 (.79) 3.19 (.8) 3.3 (.73) .0001
Communication through music 3.75 (.9) 3.49 (.76) 3.6 (.71) 3.59 (.77) 3.81 (.69) 3.61 (.61) .01
Group performance 3.6 (.82) 3.34 (.85) 3.35 (.84) 3.16 (.85) 3.62 (.77) 3.3 (.7) .0001
Composing or improvising 2.67 (.83) 3.09 (.79) 3.1 (.79) 3.07 (.83) 3.13 (.77) 2.93 (.81) .0001
Creativity 3.01 (.84) 3.09 (.81) 2.99 (.83) 3.02 (.71) 3.17 (.74) 3.35 (.74) .032
Integration of skills 3.4 (.79) 3.42 (.82) 3.17 (.84) 3.32 (.69) 3.52 (.64) 3.58 (.61) .001
Meta-cognition 3.38 (.90) 3.24 (.78) 3.27 (.82) 3.29 (.82) 3.43 (.77) 3.4 (.73) NS
Motivation 3.42 (.99) 3.4 (.91) 3.53 (.92) 3.64 (.86) 3.72 (.81) 3.64 (.76) .028
Personal characteristics 3.57 (.74) 3.53 (.69) 3.39 (.69) 3.43 (.71) 3.54 (.76) 3.36 (.71) NS
Expressing thoughts and feelings through sound 3.88 (.6) 3.73 (.59) 3.79 (.58) 3.59 (.76) 3.74 (.6) 3.55 (.69) NS
Being able to understand and interpret 3.97 (.85) 3.64 (.79) 3.67 (.77) 3.47 (.93) 3.9 (.76) 3.47 (.71) .0001
the music

* Figures in brackets are standard deviations

Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability
315
 316

table 3   The factors structure

Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Factor 1 Valuing, Composition, Commitment, Rhythmic
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating improvisation motivation, ability, pitch
instrument Musical and responding and related personal discipline skills and
or singing commu­ni­cation to music skills and organization understanding

To transfer what is written on a score to an .747 .28

Psychology of Music 38(3)

instrument
Being able to play an instrument well .740
Being able to sight read .696 .302
Having the technical skills to play an .669 .255
instrument
Being able to play an instrument/sing .663
Being able to read music .655 .342
Generating music .641 .232
Being able to master technique .632 .219
Understanding musical concepts .554 .242 .263
Knowing about musical form .546 .291 .255 .244
Being able to reproduce a melody or rhythm .528 .228 .215
on an instrument
To play an instrument, sing, and read music .477
To judge what is musically good or bad .410 .473
To be able to analyse a piece of music .404 .381
Having good overall physical coordination .384 .241 .284
Being able to convey the emotions intended .382
by the composer

(Continued)


table 3   (Continued)
Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Factor 1 Valuing, Composition, Commitment, Rhythmic
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating improvisation motivation, ability, pitch
instrument Musical and responding and related personal discipline skills and
or singing commu­ni­cation to music skills and organization understanding

Is complex and requires being able to do .379 .413

many things
Understanding, knowing and having .363 .448 .27 .223
a flair to be creative in music
Valuing music by taking part in making it .354 .222 .448
Being able to critically evaluate musical .331 .214
performances
Being able to communicate moods and .696 .232
emotions through music
Being able to perform showing .217 .686
understanding of expression
Playing with feeling .653
Being able to interpret the feelings of music .651 .203 .208
Expressing thoughts and feelings through .637 .229
music
Being able to convey your interpretations to .277 .602
an audience
Being sensitive to others within an .559
ensemble
Being able to express through sound .539
Uniting and inspiring group performance .516 .206 .285

(Continued)
Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability
317
 318

table 3   (Continued)
Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Factor 1 Valuing, Composition, Commitment, Rhythmic
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating improvisation motivation, ability, pitch
instrument Musical and responding and related personal discipline skills and
or singing commu­ni­cation to music skills and organization understanding

Conveying the emotions intended by the .511

Psychology of Music 38(3)

composer
Using music as a source of inspiration .496
Being able to play as part of a group .206 .472 .205
Having a relationship between music and .429
your life
Being able to make decisions about .414
performance and compositions
The integration of different distinct skills .399 .21
Helping others to enjoy or play music .397 .245 .286
Being able to perceive what is musically .363 .519
beautiful
Using music to express one’s personality .340 .264
Making sense of the world through musical .315 .207 .264
stimuli
Taking risks .307 .388 .284
Being able to value music by listening to it .696
Being able to enjoy music .637
Being able to appreciate music .596 .216
Responding to the mood of the music .29 .577
Responding creatively to music .3 .569

(Continued)


table 3   (Continued)
Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Factor 1 Valuing, Composition, Commitment, Rhythmic
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating improvisation motivation, ability, pitch
instrument Musical and responding and related personal discipline skills and
or singing commu­ni­cation to music skills and organization understanding

Being able to judge what is musically good .472

or bad
Being able to describe music in words and
.246 .463 .348
gestures
Responding to a musical stimuli .431 .293
Hearing and understanding music .378 .330
Being able to critically evaluate musical .372
performances
Being able to move in time with a rhythm .360 .48
Being able to compose using new styles .226 .691
Being able to compose .244 .646
Being able to improvise .637
Being able to integrate listening, .251 .267 .617
performing and composing
Being able to organize sound .227 .244 .552
Being able to play an instrument, sing, .453 .508
and read music
Being able to make decisions about .472
performance and compositions
The integration of different distinctive skills .376 .384
Being able to analyse a piece of music .340 .346

(Continued)
Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability
319
 320

table 3   (Continued)
Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
Factor 1 Valuing, Composition, Commitment, Rhythmic
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating improvisation motivation, ability, pitch
instrument Musical and responding and related personal discipline skills and
or singing commu­ni­cation to music skills and organization understanding

Being able to read music .324

Psychology of Music 38(3)

Being able to play by ear .318 .495

The commitment to practise .771
The motivation to succeed .763
Working towards set goals .718
Personal organization and discipline .666
Showing an interest or desire to make music .287 .604
Being self-critical in performances .269 .494
Immersing yourself in music .247 .305 .402
Having a relationship between music and .437 .234 .392
your life
Using music as a source of inspiration .5 .391
Using music to express one’s personality .362 .283 .384
Perceiving a rhythmical progression .707
Being able to sing in time .219 .682
Having a good sense of rhythm .635
Being able to recognize tone/pitch .617
Being able to internalize sound .519
Being able to move in time with rhythm .384


table 4   Group differences on the factors

Factor 3 Factor 5
Factor 1 Valuing, Factor 4 Commitment, Factor 6
Playing an Factor 2 appreciating Composition, motivation, Rhythmic ability,
instrument Musical and responding improvisation personal discipline pitch skills and
or singing communication to music and related skills and organization understanding F Sig

Musicians -.17  .48  .03 -.16 -.27 -.34   4.58 .0001

Non-musician -.25 -.01 -.17  .29 -.09 -.01
10.64 .0001
educators
Adults who have -.02 -.1 -.18 -.06  .21  .29
actively engaged   3.13 .009
with music
Adults not actively  .02 -.45  .005  .15  .19  .05
  3.95 .002
engaged with music
Children actively  .22  .1  .13 -.16  .06  .02
  3.07 .01
engaged with music
Children with little  .46 -.66  .45  .38 -.16 -.1
active engagement   4.13 .001
with music
Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability
321
322 Psychology of Music 38(3)

Factor 2 focused on those issues relating to musical communication including

conveying emotions and moods to an audience, playing and performing with feeling
and emotion, interpreting the music, and making decisions about performance.
There were also weightings related to being sensitive to other musicians within the
group, and inspiring group performance. High weightings were also in evidence in
relation to making sense of the world through music, being inspired by music, and
taking risks. This factor accounted for 7.6 percent of the variance. Those with the
highest scores on this factor were the musicians. Those with the lowest were the
children with little active engagement with music, and the adults with no active
engagement (see Table 4).
Factor 3 accounting for 4.7 percent of the variance included those aspects of
engagement with music which focus on listening and appreciation, including
responding to music; valuing music through listening, hearing and understanding
music; and being able to describe music in words and gestures. Those with the
highest scores on this factor were the children with little active engagement with
music, the lowest scores were from the adults actively engaged with music and the
educators who had no active engagement with music (see Table 4).
The focus of Factor 4 was composition, improvisation, and the skills needed to
undertake them. This included making decisions, integrating different distinct skills,
taking risks, being able to read music, and playing by ear. This factor accounted for
3.8 percent of the variance. Those scoring highest on this factor were the children
with little active engagement with music and the non-music educators. The lowest
scores were from the musicians and the children actively engaged with music.
Factor 5, accounting for 3.6 percent of the variance, focused on personal
commitment, motivation and organisation – all the elements which enable an
individual to develop high level skills in music. Commitment to practice loaded
highly on this factor, as did motivation to succeed, setting and attaining goals and
personal organization and discipline. Immersion in music, using it as a source
of inspiration and as a means of expressing oneself were also important, as was
being self-critical. Those scoring highest on this factor were the adults who had no
active engagement with music and those who did. The lowest scores were from the
musicians and the children with little active engagement with music.
Factor 6 loaded on those elements which have traditionally been considered in
musical ability tests, for instance, rhythmic ability, being able to recognise tone/
pitch, internalise sound, and analyse music. This factor accounted for 3.5 percent of
the variance. Those scoring highest on this factor were the adults who were actively
engaged in making music, the lowest the musicians.
Further analysis of the mean scores on the categories was undertaken to
explore whether there were differences between those who were actively engaged
in music making, as professionals, amateurs or children, and those who had a
more passive engagement with music. This analysis revealed that those actively
engaged with music had statistically significantly higher scores for expressing
thoughts and feelings through sound, being able to understand and interpret
the music, communication through music, and group performances. Those
with a more passive engagement with music scored higher on composing and
improvising (see Table 5). Comparison of the factor scores provided further support
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 323

table 5   Mean responses to each category of musicians and non-musician groups

Musicians Non-musicians

Musical ability is Mean SD Mean SD Sig

Having a sense of rhythm 3.85 .72 3.82   .64 NS

Expressing thoughts and feelings 3.79 .59 3.64   .67 .018
through sound
Being able to understand and 3.85 .79 3.54   .81 .0001
interpret the music
Communication through music 3.73 .76 3.56   .72 .005
Motivation 3.58 .89 3.53   .86 NS
Personal characteristics 3.50 .74 3.45   .70 NS
Group performance 3.53 .81 3.28   .81 .0001
Integration of skills 3.38 .76 3.44   .73 NS
Responding to music 3.39 .74 3.37   .76 NS
Meta-cognition 3.37 .82 3.4   .77 NS
Playing an instrument or singing 3.36 .87 3.25   .88 NS
Having a musical ear 3.3 .73 3.24   .75 NS
Listening and understanding 3.28 .72 3.27   .70 NS
Appreciation of music 3.13 .89 3.15   .83 NS
Creativity 3.09 .80 3.15   .77 NS
Evaluation skills 3.09 .85 2.96   .89 NS
Technical skills 3.03 .86 3.04   .87 NS
Composing or improvising 2.91 .83 3.17   .77 .0001
Reading music 2.76 .98 2.81 1.01 NS
Knowledge about music 2.65 .85 2.77   .87 NS

*420 respondents were categorized as musicians, 222 as non-musicians

for these differences with those actively engaged in music having a statistically
significant higher factor score on musical communication and those with no active
engagement scoring higher on composition, improvisation and related skills (see
Table 6).

Discussion
The findings described above indicate that conceptions of musical ability as
perceived by this opportunity sample were much broader than those identified by
traditional tests of musical ability. The high proportion of participants stressing the
importance of having a sense of rhythm may reflect the characteristics of popular
music where ‘the beat’ is central. The recognition of motivation and commitment
as elements of musical ability also suggests an awareness of the time required to
successfully develop musical skills. There was also considerable emphasis on being
able to work well with other musicians in a group. Of the factors that emerged only
 324
Psychology of Music 38(3)

table 6   Differences between musician and non-musician groups in relation to the factor structure

Factor 5
Factor 1 Factor 3 Factor 4 Commitment, Factor 6
Playing an Factor 2 Valuing, appreciating Composition, motivation, personal Rhythmic ability,
instrument Musical and responding improvisation and discipline and pitch skills and
or singing communication to music related skills organization understanding

Musician group  .008  .141 .003    -.128  .018  .008

Non-musician -.010 -.287 .021    .275 -.024 -.125
group
F  .036 20,33 .036 17.379  .184  .057
Significance NS  .0001 NS    .0001 NS NS
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 325

one reflected traditional conceptions relating to aural abilities (rhythm and pitch);
the remaining factors focused on other elements which contribute towards expert
musical behaviour in its various forms.
The first and strongest factor to emerge focused on being able to read music and
sing or play an instrument along with all the skills required to do this, reflecting that
which is the most visible exemplification of musical ability in everyday life – playing
an instrument or singing. It seems that for most people, whether they are engaged in
active music making or not (there were no statistically significant differences in the
mean scores between the groups on the specific category relating to the playing of
an instrument or singing as exemplifying musical ability), being able to perform well
provides the clearest indication of someone’s musical ability. Scores on this factor
indicated that this was particularly salient for all of the children. Interestingly, the
lowest factor score was from the non-music educators. Perhaps their conception of
musical ability is influenced by the UK school context where music is included in the
statuary requirements of the National Curriculum (NC) for children aged 5–14. The
required elements for music include listening, appraising, performing, composing,
and applying knowledge and understanding. These broad requirements do not focus
exclusively on playing an instrument or singing.
The second factor identified is closely related to the performance of music and
encapsulates elements relating to musical communication – elements which again
are highly visible in the engagements which people have with music on a day to
day basis. In addition to communicating with the audience, both emotions and
specific interpretations, this element also included communication with other
performers as a crucial facet of musical activity for those engaged in making music.
Unsurprisingly, the highest scores on this factor were recorded by the musicians.
The lowest scores were from the children and adults with little or no active
engagement with music, possibly because understanding of the importance of
communication with other players and the audience only comes from experience
of music making. This interpretation is further supported by the statistically
significant differences in scores on this factor between musicians (professional,
amateur, and children) and non-musicians.
The third factor reflected the work of the music critic and what for many people
is the most frequent way of engaging with music, through listening, enjoying,
and responding to music. While some tests of musical ability have acknowledged
the importance of musical appreciation, for instance, Revesz (1953) considered
that ‘musicality’ included the ‘ability to enjoy music aesthetically’, Wing (1981)
described a general ability to perceive and appreciate music, and Gordon’s (1979)
conceptualisation included musical sensitivity, in general listening to and enjoying
music have not been seen as key elements of musical ability. The highest scores on
this factor were from the children with little active engagement with music, perhaps
reflecting their main mode of engaging with music out of school and aspects of their
music education within school. The lowest scores were recorded by the adults actively
engaged with making music and the non-music educators, the former perhaps
believing that passive engagement is insufficient to ascribe musical ability, the latter
perhaps reflecting a perception that in education listening and appraising are only one
element of a broader musical curriculum.
326 Psychology of Music 38(3)

The remaining three factors accounted for similar amounts of variance. In each
case their contribution to the production of music as it appears in everyday life is
hidden compared with those of performing and communicating. Factor 4 centred
on the skills required for composition and improvisation. The highest weighting
within this factor was on composing using new styles – a form of creativity.
Other elements with high weightings were those which might be considered to be
necessary in order to compose and improvise: integrating listening, performing and
composing, reading music, playing by ear, making decisions, analysis, description,
and risk taking. The highest scores on this factor came from children with little
active engagement with music and the non-music educators, once again, perhaps
reflecting the requirements of the National Curriculum which include composition.
The lowest scores were recorded by the musicians and the children actively
engaged with making music. For these groups making music is mainly focused
on performance rather than creation. The statistically significant differences in
responses relating to this factor between the musicians (professional, amateur, and
children) and non-musicians support this.
Factor 5 related to personal commitment to music, motivation, discipline,
and organization, acknowledging the importance of these in developing musical
expertise. The adults (those actively participating in music making and those
not) scored the highest on this factor, the former perhaps because of awareness
of their own commitment, the latter because of their lack of it. The lowest scores
were recorded by the musicians, who, although they may acknowledge their own
commitment in attaining high levels of expertise, may not view this as a specific
element of musical ability. Other low scorers were the children with little active
engagement with music, perhaps because they fail to recognize the importance of
motivation and commitment in developing high level skills or as a reflection of their
own lack of commitment to engage with music outside the curriculum.
The sixth factor focused on rhythmic and aural skills. The highest scores on this
factor came from the adults who were actively engaged in amateur music making,
the lowest from the professional musicians. The amateur musicians may perceive
these historically recognized forms of musical ability as important because they
have come to believe that they distinguish them from those who do not engage
with music as a hobby, or indeed because their lack of them has prevented them
from becoming professional musicians. The professionals may take these aural skills
for granted or have relegated them to a less important role as other elements, e.g.
musical communication becomes more important with increasing expertise.
Did any patterns emerge for particular groups of respondents? The children
with little active engagement with music tended to hold a broad conception of
musical ability which seemed to encapsulate their experiences outside school,
where presumably their main engagement is listening, and inside school where
they are required to actively participate in making and creating music. In contrast,
the children actively engaged in making music seemed to have a more focused
conception related to appreciating music making and performance reflecting
their own experiences. For the musicians at high levels of expertise, musical
communication, central to their everyday work, was considered the most important
constituent of musical ability. In contrast, the non-music educators perceived the
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 327

creative aspects of musical engagement as central, perhaps reflecting not only their
knowledge of music education within the school National Curriculum but also the
requirements of the music syllabus of the General Certificate of Secondary Education
(GCSE) taken by children at age 16, which places high importance on composition.
For the amateur musicians issues relating to aural skills and motivation were key,
the latter a perception shared by those not actively engaged in making music and
clearly crucial if music making is to constitute a major portion of an individual’s
leisure time.
What is clear from the findings of this research is that musical ability is perceived
in complex ways which depend on the environment within which individuals
are located. This infers that conceptions may change over time. There was also
a tendency for conceptions to focus on observable outcomes reflecting the type
of musical end-states which Gardner (1999) argues are necessary for describing
an ‘intelligence’. At a general level, there was a tendency to perceive musical
ability as being exemplified by actual musical skills in performing, composition,
and improvisation, through listening, valuing and appreciating music and
through being able to communicate through music. While aural skills which have
traditionally been the means through which musical ability has been assessed
played a part, they were perceived to be less important in indicating ability than
generative skills. Despite these general trends, specific groups and individuals within
those groups held different conceptions dependent on their particular musical
experiences or lack of them. This can be interpreted within a social constructive
perspective which assumes that the development of cognition depends on the
interactions between individuals and their social surroundings (Cole, 1996; Gergen
& Gergen, 2000; Rogoff, 2003; Wertsch, 1988). We might therefore expect that as
the means to create and perform music become increasingly accessible to everyone
through more advanced computer technology there will be marked changes in the
way that musical ability is conceptualised.
What are the implications of this for education? Teachers of music, whether
class or instrumental teachers, need to be aware that others may hold very different
conceptions of musical ability to their own and that what they perceive as important
in developing high levels of musical expertise, for instance, musical communication,
may not be readily recognized by others. Teaching will need to take account of
this, with particular emphasis being given to those key elements which may not be
easily recognized by others. Teachers who have to operate a process of selection for
playing an instrument because resources are limited should take account of a wider
range of factors than has previously been the case. While aural skills as assessed by
traditional tests may be important, other factors such as previous experience and
motivation, without which it is impossible to achieve high levels of expertise, should
perhaps be given greater weighting.

references

Bartholomew, D.J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I., & Galbraith, J.I. (2002). The analysis of
interpretation of multivariate data for social scientists. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
and Hall/CRC.
328 Psychology of Music 38(3)

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Davidson, J.W. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movement of solo
musicians. Psychology of Music, 21(2), 103–113.
Davidson, J., & King, E.C. (2004). Strategies for ensemble practice. In A. Williamon (Ed.)
Musical Excellence (pp 105–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, M. (1994). Folk music psychology. The Psychologist, 7(12), 537.
Doxey, C., & Wright, C. (1990). An exploratory study of children’s music ability. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 425–440.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Frakes, L. (1984). Differences in music achievement, academic achievement and attitude among
participants, dropouts and non-participants in secondary school music. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Iowa.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st Century. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Gergen, M.M., & Gergen, K.J. (2000). Qualitative enquiry: Tensions and transformations. In
N.K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1025–1046).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilbert, J.P. (1981). Motoric music skill development in young children: A longitudinal
investigation. Psychology of Music, 9(1), 21–25.
Goodman, E. (2000). Analysing the ensemble in music rehearsal and performance: The nature
and effects of interaction in cello-piano duos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of London.
Goodman, E. (2002). Ensemble performance. In J. Rink (Ed.) Musical performance: A guide to
understanding (pp. 153–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, E.E. (1965). Musical aptitude profile manual. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gordon, E.E. (1979). Primary measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.
Gordon, E.E. (1982). Intermediate measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.
Gordon, E.E. (1989a). Advanced measures of music audiation. Chicago, IL: GIA.
Gordon, E.E. (1989b). Audie: A game for understanding and analysing your child’s musical
potential. Chicago, IL: GIA.
Hallam, S. (1998a). Predictors of achievement and drop out in instrumental tuition.
Psychology of Music, 26(2), 116–132.
Hallam, S. (1998b). Instrumental teaching: A practical guide to better teaching and learning.
Oxford: Heinemann.
Hallam, S. (2001a). The development of meta-cognition in musicians: Implications for
education. The British Journal of Music Education, 18(1), 27–39.
Hallam, S. (2001b). The development of expertise in young musicians: Strategy use,
knowledge acquisition and individual diversity. Music Education Research, 3(1), 7–23.
Hallam, S. (2004). How important is practicing as a predictor of learning outcomes in
instrumental music? In S.D. Lipscomb, R. Ashley, R.O. Gjerdingen, & P. Webster.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition, August 3–7th
2004, Northwestern University, Evanston, USA (pp 165–168).
Hallam, S. (2006). Musicality. In G. McPherson (Ed.) The child as musician: A handbook of
musical development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hallam, S., & Prince, V. (2003). Conceptions of musical ability. Research Studies in Music
Education, 20, 2–22.
 Hallam: 21st century conceptions of musical ability 329

Haroutounian, J. (2000). Perspectives of musical talent: A study of identification criteria and

procedures. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 137–160.
Howe, M.J.A., Davidson, J.W., Moore, D.M., & Sloboda, J.A. (1995). Are there early childhood
signs of musical ability? Psychology of Music, 23, 162–76.
Hurley, C.G. (1995). Student motivations for beginning and continuing/discontinuing string
music tuition. The Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 44–55.
Juslin, P., & Sloboda, J. (2001). Music and emotion: Theory and research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Klinedinst, R.E. (1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade
instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39(3), 225–238.
Mawbey, W.E. (1973). Wastage from instrumental classes in schools. Psychology of Music, 1,
33–43.
McCarthy, J.F. (1980). Individualised instruction, student achievement and drop out in an
urban elementary instrumental music program. Journal of Research in Music Education, 28,
59–69.
McPherson, G.E. (1995/6). Five aspects of musical performance and their correlates. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, Special Issue, the 15th International Society for
Music Education. University of Miami, Florida, 9–15 July, 1994.
Moore, D., Burland, K., & Davidson, J. (2003). The social context of music success: A
developmental account. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 529–549.
Nunnally, J.O. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: MacGraw-Hill.
Revesz, G. (1953). Introduction to the Psychology of Music. London: Longmans.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Seashore, C.E., Lewis, L., & Saetveit, J.G. (1960). Seashore measures of musical talents. New
York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.
Shuter-Dyson, R. (1999). Musical ability. In D. Deutsch (Ed.). The Psychology of Music (pp.
627–651). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace and Company.
Sloboda, J. A., Davidson, J. & Howe, M. J. A. (1994). Is everyone musical? The Psychologist,
7(8), 349–354.
Sloboda, J.A., Davidson, J.W., Howe, M.J.A., & Moore, D.G. (1996). The role of practice in the
development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 287–309.
Sloboda, J.A., & Howe, M.J.A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence: An
interview study. Psychology of Music, 19, 3–21.
Stumpf, C. (1883). Tonpsychologie. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Swanner, D.L. (1985). Relationships between musical creativity and selected factors, including
personality, motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence as measured in third grade
children. Unpublished dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Tabachik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Vaughan, M.M. (1977). Measuring creativity: Its cultivation and measurement. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 50, 72–77.
Vispoel, W.P. (1993). The development and evaluation of a computerized adaptive test of
tonal memory. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 111–136.
Vispoel, W.P., & Coffman, D.D. (1992). Computerized-adaptive and self-adapted tests of music
listening skills: Psychometric features and motivational benefits. Applied measurement in
Education, 7, 25–51.
330 Psychology of Music 38(3)

Wagner, M.J. (1975). The effect of a practice report on practice time and musical
performance. In C.K. Madsen, R.D. Greer, & C.H. Madsen, Jr., (Eds.), Research in Music
Behaviour. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Webster, P.R. (1988). New perspectives on music aptitude and achievement.
Psychomusicology, 7(2), 177–194.
Wertsch, J.V. (1988). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Williamon, A. (1999). The value of performing from memory. Psychology of Music, 27,
84–95.
Williamon, A., & Valentine, E. (2000). Quantity and quality of musical practice as predictors
of performance quality. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 353–376.
Wing, H.D. (1981). Standardised Tests of Musical Intelligence. Windsor, England: National
Foundation for Educational Research.
Young, W.T. (1971). The role of musical aptitude, intelligence and academic achievement in
predicting the musical attainment of elementary instrumental music students. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 14, 385–398.
Zurcher, W.Z. (1972). The effects of model-supportive practice on beginning brass instrumentalists.
Unpublished EdD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

susan hallam is Professor of Education at the Institute of Education, University of London

and currently Dean of the Faculty of Policy and Society. She is the author of several books
including Instrumental Teaching: A Practical Guide to Better Teaching and Learning (1998), The
Power of Music (2001), Music Psychology in Education (2005), and co-editor of The Oxford
Handbook of Psychology of Music (2009). She is past editor of Psychology of Music, Psychology of
Education Review and Learning Matters.
Address: Institute of Education, University of London 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL, UK.
[email: S.Hallam@ioe.ac.uk]