1
Musical Expression: Performance manner and its impact on audience response
Non-verbal communication is a crucial element when conveying a message to another
human being, a concept directly relevant to the world of music performance. Although music
is a primarily aural medium, previous research suggests experiencing a multi-modal music
performance (containing both audio and visual components) is more likely to influence the
audience’s assessment of a performer (Platz & Kopiez 2012). Bodily movements and visual
cues portrayed by a performer impacts how the audience perceives the aural content (Bhatara,
Tirovolas, Duan, Levy, Levitin, 2011; Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Davidson 1993). Audio-
visual performances may assist the audience in clarifying the expressive intent of the musician,
who in turn may use the visual discourse to communicate or influence audience opinion
(Broughton & Stevens, 2009). Performance manner is generally categorised into three main
modes: “‘Deadpan’ (with minimal expressive interpretation of the music), ‘projected’
(consistent with public performance)’ and ‘exaggerated’ (where all aspects of the expressive
features are overstated)” (Broughton & Stevens, 2009, p. 141). Audiences have been
previously found to respond more positively to performances with a higher level of expression
(Bhatara et al., 2011; Broughton & Stevens, 2009). Studying different modes of performance
demeanour not only provides information regarding the audiences’ perspectives and
experiences, but also contributes to musicians’ awareness of their bodies when performing,
enhancing the art form overall.
This study focuses on ‘showmanship’, or the manner of performing in a particularly
dramatic, flamboyant and enthusiastic manner with the aim of effectively engaging and
entertaining an audience (Broughton 2017; Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2017; Merriam-
Webster Dictionary Online, 2017). Showmanship expands upon the level of expressiveness
portrayed by the ‘deadpan’, ‘projected’ and ‘exaggerated’ modes, further investigating
audience’s perceptions of solo performer. This raises questions regarding music performance
quality (MPQ), performer authenticity (PA), expressiveness and audience interest. MPQ is
based on the quality of the performer’s skill and interpretation without taking the compositional
aspects of the piece into consideration (Thompson & Williamon, 2003). As showmanship
utilizes gestures that are considered flamboyant and superfluous, performer authenticity
measures how the performer’s communicative intent is received. Expressiveness refers to the
ability to convey emotions, while interest is defined as the want to devote attention to
2
something (Cambridge Dictionary Online, 2017). Each of these concepts will be taken into
consideration when evaluating solo performances.
This study will utilise expressiveness, interest, MPQ and PA as dependent variables to
gauge participant responses. Pieces will be performed within the framework of two
independent variables; modality of presentation (audio-visual and audio-only) and
performance manner (projected and showmanship). Responses are considered a combination
of the participant’s subjective perspective (e.g. musical knowledge and preferences) and the
objective audio and visual stimuli provided by the performer (Broughton 2017; Thompson &
Williamon, 2003; Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013). The aim of this study is to investigate how
performance manner and mode of content delivery affect audience perceptions and judgements.
The initial predictions for each dependant variable are displayed in Table 1. Overall, it is
hypothesised that showmanship in conjunction with audio-visual delivery will yield the highest
audience responses.
Table 1.
Hypotheses regarding dependant variables in relation to both independent variables.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Performance Manner (IV) Modality of Presentation
(IV)
Expressiveness AV > AO Showmanship > Projected
DEPENDAN
VARIABLE
Interest AV > AO Showmanship > Projected
(DV)
T
MPQ AV = AO Showmanship = Projected
PA AV < AO Showmanship < Projected
METHOD
Participants:
A convenient sampling technique was used to recruit participants. There were 17
participants in total (female n = 12; male n = 5), all of whom were undergraduate students
ranging in age from 18 to 24 (M = 20.5; SD = 1.8). All participants were asked to clarify their
knowledge of classical instruments. All responded affirmative to having extensive knowledge
of minimum one instrument (piano n = 6; strings n = 4; flute n = 3; saxophone n = 1;
drums/percussion n = 1; guitar = 1; voice = 1). Additionally, participants were required to
respond to statements regarding musical processes and interactions as part of the Goldsmith
Musical Sophistication Index (GOLD-MSI) to determine their extent of musical knowledge
3
(Müllensiefen et al, 2013; Müllensiefen et al, 2014). To establish how participants compared
to the general populace, it is necessary to report on the normative sample group (n = 147,633;
range = 8-26; M = 81.58; SD = 20.62). The results from the current sample (M = 84.82; SD =
9.55; median = 82; range = 71 – 100.5) indicated that participants in this study were higher
than average in terms of musical background. As shown in Table 2, participants were also
required to complete the Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences (STOMP)
survey to determine individual music preferences (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). The highest
response (M = 5.45, SD = 1.35) was in correlation with “reflective and complex” music
(including the classical genre), accentuating participants’ exposure to music similar to the
stimuli.
Table 2.
Participant responses to STOMP survey determining musical preferences in accordance with
four general dimensions.
Music Preference Dimensions
Mean SD
Reflective and Complex 5.45 1.35
(Classical, Jazz, Blues, Folk)
Upbeat and Conventional 4.86 1.74
(Country, Pop, Religious, Soundtracks)
Intense and Rebellious 4.25 2.03
(Alternative, Rock, Heavy Metal)
Energetic and Rhythmic 4.21 1.6
(Rap/Hip-Hop, Soul/Funk,
Electronica/Dance)
Materials:
Three male solo musicians (clarinet n = 1; piano n = 1; vibraphone n = 1) and two
female (flute n = 1, marimba n = 1) were recorded audio-visually performing classical pieces
between 30 and 60 seconds of their own choice. Each musician performed their piece twice,
once in a projected manner and once in showmanship. All performers were required to dress
in black and perform in the same recital venue. The camera remained inert throughout the
duration of each visual performance, displaying one perspective; a full shot of the performer
and their instrument.
4
Procedure:
In the experiment, participants experienced each excerpt shown digitally in four
different conditions, dictated by two independent variables (IV); modality of presentation and
performance manner. The ten excerpts were shown twice; once with both audio and visual
elements (AV) and once with audio only (AO). All participants were required to respond to the
20 musical excerpts in random order and record their responses on a series of seven point Likert
scales. Each series of four Likert scales measured responses in relation to one excerpt, and
required participants to rate the performance from 1 (extremely low) to 7 (extremely high)
regarding the four dependant variables (DV); expressiveness, interest, music performance
quality (MPQ), and performer authenticity (PA). Participants were then asked to rate their
“liking” and “familiarity” regarding the excerpts overall on a seven point Likert scale.
RESULTS
Overall, mean scores and standard deviations regarding each dependant variable
showed little variance as indicated in Table 2. As hypothesised, expressiveness scores were
highest when AV and showmanship were combined (M = 5.47; SD = 1.29). There were minor
differences between the mean scores for interest, especially regarding modality of presentation.
For both projected and showmanship performances, the AO and AV scores were separated by
> 0.05 (See Table 2; Graph 2). In correlation with the hypotheses, the highest scores recorded
for interest were also in conjunction with both showmanship and AV (M = 5.48; SD = 1.26).
There was not much discrepancy between the scores for MPQ; the difference between the M
and SD across all variables was > 0.25 (See Table 2; Graph 3). The highest scores recorded
were for AV showmanship (M = 5.87, SD = 0.98). Contrary to hypotheses, PA did not have a
negative effect on participant response. Similar to the other DV, the highest scores were
recorded for AV showmanship (M = 5.5, SD = 1.3). Overall, participants rated projected
performances higher than showmanship in AO modality, results that were inconsistent with the
hypotheses (See Table 2; Graph 1, 2, 3, 4). Responses to ‘liking’ the stimuli were relatively
neutral (M = 5.7; SD = 0.84), similar to ‘familiarity’ (M = 5; SD = 1.32). All results have been
shortened to two decimal points.
5
Table 2.
Main effects of each independent variable (performance manner, modality of presentation) on
each dependant variable (expressiveness, interest, music performance quality, performer
authenticity).
MODALITY OF PRESENTATION (IV)
Audio-Only (AO) Audio-Visual (AV)
Projected Mean SD Mean SD
PERFORMANCE MANNER (IV)
Expressivenes 5.22 1.44 Expressivenes 4.81 1.6
s s
Interest 5.10 1.31 Interest 5.07 1.46
MPQ 5.65 1.01 MPQ 5.61 1.21
PA 5.36 1.2 PA 5.2 1.41
Showmanshi Expressivenes 5.44 1.3 Expressivenes 5.47 1.29
p s s
Interest 5.47 1.23 Interest 5.48 1.26
MPQ 5.74 0.97 MPQ 5.87 0.98
PA 5.41 1.21 PA 5.5 1.3
Expressiveness Interest
5.7 5.7
5.2 5.2
4.7 4.7
Projected Showmanship Projected Showmanship
Audio Only Audio Visual Audio Only Audio Visual
Graph 1: Mean scores for each independent Graph 2: Mean scores for each independent
variable in relation to Expressiveness. variable in relation to Interest.
Music Performance Performer Authenticity
Quality
5.7
5.7
5.2
5.2
4.7 4.7
Projected Showmanship Projected Showmanship
Graph 3: Mean scores
Audio Onlyfor each independent
Audio Visual Graph 4: Mean scores
Audio Onlyfor each independent
Audio Visual
variable in relation to MPQ. variable in relation to PA.
6
DISCUSSION
The experiment conducted investigated audience judgements of performers under
different conditions. Overall, the results suggest that participants preferred showmanship and
AV performances in comparison to projected and AO, corroborating with the initial hypothesis.
However, anomalies must still be considered. Contrary to the predictions that PA would be
lower in response to showmanship and AV scores would suffer as a result, PA scores were
highest during showmanship AV performances. Furthermore, there was a significant difference
between the mean responses for projected performance regarding expressiveness. Contrary to
hypotheses, AO projected performances produced higher results than the same AV
performances. This is considered an irregular, as the other DVs produced relatively consistent
responses to the IVs that correlated with the hypotheses. Both interest and MPQ scores
validated hypotheses regarding modality of presentation and performance manner. Hence, the
overall hypothesis is relatively justified by the results. The correlation with previous research
conducted in this area suggests that the higher the level of visual expression, the more positive
the audience’s response. However, it is difficult to come to a conclusive decision considering
the limitations of the study.
As this experiment consisted of an extremely small sample size and results varied so
little, further experiments are required to determine whether these results are replicable. There
were several factors that may have contributed to biased responses. In corroboration with
higher than average GOLD-MSI results, the STOMP responses accentuated the fact that the
current sample participants had experience in a classical music background. This had the
potential to affect their perception of the stimulus, as did knowledge of the instruments played
in the study stimuli. Also, as the pieces performed were of the musicians’ own choice, the
various stylistic and compositional elements of the piece could have influenced judgements.
Additionally, as the excerpts were shown in one randomised order, there was no control over
order effects. This could be improved by setting a control excerpt and conducting multiple
experiments with various, mixed demographic sample groups with the excerpts in a different
randomised order for each one. Further results are needed to determine whether these theories
regarding performance manner and audience response are justified.
In a wider context, concepts investigated in this study could provide some insight into
the creative process performers undertake when considering performance manner. Although
showmanship was predicted to hinder performance authenticity, participant responses
suggested that high levels of visual expression enhanced the perception of the performer.
7
Hence, the way musicians perceive their own performance may not coincide with the
audience’s perspective. Therefore, pedagogical techniques regarding performance training
could be advanced by cultivating an understanding of the effects performance manner has on
audience opinion.
8
Reference List:
Bhatara, Anjali; Tirovolas, Anna K.; Duan, Lilu Marie; Levy, Bianca; Levitin, Daniel J.
Perception of emotional expression in musical performance. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol 37(3), Jun 2011, 921-934.
[Link]
Broughton, M., & Stevens, C. (2009). Music, movement and marimba: An investigation of
the role of movement and gesture in communicating musical expression to an audience.
Psychology of Music, 37(2), 137-153.
Broughton, M. (2017). MUSC2320 Music and Science Week 10 Lecture; Music and
Creativity. Retrieved from University of Queensland, School of Music, Blackboard Learn
web site:
[Link]
6_1&content_id=_2589069_1&framesetWrapped=true
Cambridge University Press (2017). ‘Showmanship’ definition.
[Link]
Cambridge University Press (2017). Showmanship Definition. ‘Expressive’ definition.
[Link]
Cambridge University Press (2017). Showmanship Definition. ‘Interest’ definition.
[Link]
Davidson, J. (1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo
musicians. Psychology of Music, 21, 103–113.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated (2017). ‘Showman’ definition. [Link]
[Link]/dictionary/showmanship
Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014). Measuring the facets of
musicality: The Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI). Personality and
Individual Differences, 60, S35.
Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Stewart, L., & Ji, J. (2013). Goldsmiths musical sophistication
index (gold-msi) v1. 0: Technical Report and Documentation Revision.
Platz, Frierich, & Kopiez, Reinhard. (2012). When the eye listens: A meta-anlysis of how
audio-visual presentation enhances the appreciation of music perception. Music
Perception, 30(1), 71-83.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi's of everyday life: the structure and
personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of personality and social psychology,
84(6), 1236.
9
Thompson, S., & Williamon, A. (2003). Evaluating Evaluation: Musical Performance
Assessment as a Research Tool. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 21-
41.
Wrigley, William J., & Emmerson, Stephen B. (2013). Ecological Development and
Validation of a Music Performance Rating Scale for Five Instrument Families. Psychology of
Music, 41(1), 97-118.