Musicians frequently are leery of reading anything which smacks of behavior because they feel that behavioral studies are too deep, too involved, and unrelated to music. Yet there are many behavioral research studies which can, if the results are applied, make a good musician or a good teacher a better musician or a better teacher.

"Psychology of music" relates to musical behavior and includes a vast amount of literature in aesthetics, acoustics, measurement, performance, and therapy. Each of these fields has a well developed and respected literature, any one of which could be the subject of a significant article. Since a delimitation is necessary, however, this report will relate primarily to materials which fall under the rubric "Psychology of Music." Other representative items which impinge on the psychology of music, although not labeled as such, will also be included.

Psychology may be defined as: "the study of mind and behavior in relation to a particular field of knowledge or activity."1 The mind and behavior as they relate to music certainly are relevant to a study of the psychology of music. The concepts of "stimulus" and "response," which are fundamental to any psychological investigation, are important also in the psychology of music. The mind identifies the stimulus and the resultant behavior is determined by how the mind reacts to the stimulus. Since individuals or members of a group can react or respond differently to the same stimulus, behavioral research in the field of music has turned up some rather intriguing and fascinating results.

One of the differences between psychological studies in music and those of a philosophical nature has been the emphasis in the former on obtaining objective, empirical, or a posteriori evidence through rigidly controlled experimentation. This attention to scientific proof in the psychology of music has remained one of its strengths as compared to philosophical studies in music, for example, where the validity of a priori evidence, obtained largely through reflective thinking, is often questioned.

Carl E. Seashore, probably more than any one individual, developed and codified the elements in the aggregate that has become known as the psychology of music. Seashore, after a period of experimentation for about twenty years, published the first standardized music test in 1919. He discusses the development of his Measures of Musical Talents in The Psychology of Musical Talent.2 In this landmark volume Seashore identifies the psychology of music as consisting of: "the psychology of musical talent, the psychology of art principles involved in music, and the psychology of musical training."3 However, his treatise is concerned only with the psychology of musical talent or with the reaction of the musical mind to stimuli. In it Seashore presents a detailed analysis of the development of his test for measuring musical aptitude or capacityan instrument which is still highly respected and widely used today.

The first standardized music test, as already noted, was Seashore's Measures of Musical Talents, which appeared in 1919, concurrent with the publication of The Psychology of Musical Talent. This test of musical aptitude, or capacity, was concerned with measurements of discrimination in six areas; namely, pitch, intensity, time, rhythm, timbre, and consonance.4

Seashore was the founder of a school of thought in music psychology which has become known as hereditarian or absolutistic. Hereditarians espoused the concept that musical talent or aptitude was innate and as such could not be improved by training. Some of Seashore's protégés at the University of Iowa, who also championed the hereditarian philosophy, were Max Schoen and Jacob Kwalwasser, about whom more will be heard later.

Some important research in acoustics, an area which is relevant to the psychology of music, was conducted by the nineteenth century German physicist Hermann L.F. von Helmholtz. Originally published in 1862, Helmholtz's classic study On the Sensations of Tone went through four German editions before it was translated into English and revised by Alexander J. Ellis in 1885.5 The book is still a classic source in the area of acoustics. Part II of Helmholtz's treatise is closely related to what is generally considered to be one facet of the psychology of music. Subtitled "The Relationship of Musical Tones," scales and tonality are discussed comprehensively and in great detail from a scientific standpoint. Possibly anticipating the work which would flow later from the pens of hereditarians such as Seashore, Helmholtz writes: "To distinguish small differences of pitch and intonate them with certainty, requires a greater amount of technical musical power and cultivation of ear, than when the intervals are larger."6

Walter S. Swisher published a small "pocket book" in 1927 entitled Psychology for the Music Teacher, in which he makes several suggestions for applying many psychological principles and learning theories to music teaching.7 Not unexpectedly, considerable attention is given to the "stimulus-response" concept which was mentioned earlier. Placing great emphasis upon the relationship between personality and success or failure in music study, Swisher elaborates on such topics as "psychological types," "how we learn," and "material with which we work." Accordingly, the educational process of learning music involves: "the successful development or evolution of the student's personality, the development of initiative and the student's own powers to cope with his professional and life problems."8 This is still sound advice, both psychologically and musically, almost fifty years after these words were written.

Continuing to remain a respected source is The Effects of Music, edited by Max Schoen, which also appeared in 1927.9 Contained therein are essays by several psychologists, all directed toward various types of responses to stimuli, organized under these six subheadings: Types of Listeners to Music, The Sources of Musical Enjoyment, The Mood Effects of Music, The Organic Effects of Music, The Effects of Repetition and Familiarity, and the Effects of Music Besides Auditory and Organic. The essays are the result of a competition conducted by the American Psychological Association in 1921 for the "most meritorious research on the effects of music."10 It is interesting to note that a prize of $500 was given by Thomas A. Edison, through the Edison-Carnegie Research Fund. The prize-winning study, "The Effects of Immediate Repetition on the Pleasantness or Unpleasantness of Music" was conducted by Professor Margaret Washburn and some of her assistants at Vassar College.

Another noteworthy publication in 1927 was Tests and Measurements in Music by Jacob Kwalwasser.11 A protégé of Carl Seashore, Kwalwasser was the first one to review in book form music tests which were on the market at that time. Can the appearance of only one other music aptitude test between 1919 and 1927 be attributed to the precision of Seashore's Measures of Musical Talents and to the profession's generally high regard for it? This is possible; on the other hand, aptitude tests usually are more difficult to develop and validate than achievement tests. It is not without significance that Max Schoen, another of Seashore's disciples at the University of Iowa, developed an instrument in 1925 for measuring aptitude entitled Tests of Musical Feeling and Understanding. The emphasis in this test was on differentiating the distance between 100 paired intervals grouped into ten series of ten pairs each.

Perhaps because it is easier to develop and validate achievement tests in music, the most progress was evident in this area. The Beach Standardized Music Test, which appeared in 1920, was the first such test. Both the aural and the notational aspects of music were emphasized in the Beach test. In the seven years following Beach's pioneer endeavor, ten tests of musical achievement (and/or music appreciation) were published. One of the most unusual of these made its debut three years after Beach's test; namely, Louis Mohler's Scales for Measuring the Judgment of Orchestral Music. Mohler assigned numerical values to compositions according to the opinions of professional musicians. Individuals who could detect small differences in judging the merit of compositions achieved a high score, whereas when large differences were reported subjects received a low score. The Mohler test measured an emotional rather than an intellectual response, and for this reason it should not be regarded as empirical as other measures of achievement in music where the subject's task is to recall specific information and provide objective responses.

The first book with the specific title "Psychology of Music" was published by James L. Mursell in 1937.12 Mursell, a psychologist-musician, who has made significant philosophical and psychological contributions to music, considers the psychology of music to be a body of data assembled under controlled experimental conditions. It will be recalled that this definition is in accord with the one posited earlier in this article. Mursell's highly esteemed book is divided into three sections; the psychology of tonal and rhythmic figures; the psychology of musical functions: listening, performing, composing; and, research in the psychology of music. Perhaps one of the most valuable sections is the 31-page bibliography of studies which had been completed prior to 1937. Researchers will find these early references to be very useful when it is necessary to trace developments in the area of musical behavior. Mursell, in common with Seashore, Schoen, and Kwalwasser, prescribed to the hereditarian or absolutistic concept of musicality, but perhaps with less conviction than Seashore, Schoen, and Kwalwasser. Mursell's inclination in the direction of the absolutists is clearly evident nevertheless. In explaining why people excel in certain areas, for example, Mursell states that it is: "partly because of inherited differences and partly because of environmental influences."13 Continuing his discussion of musical capacity, he says: "marked variants of musical capacity are to a considerable degreethough to exactly what degree we have no ideadue to heredity."14 Since he was both a psychologist and a musician, it is gratifying but hardly surprising to find Mursell reporting that: "Every working musician, indeed, is in a genuine sense a practical psychologist."15

Seashore brought out his monumental Psychology of Music in 1938.16 As a result of his experiments relating to the senses of pitch, time, loudness, and timbre, Seashore says: "they are largely inborn and function from early childhood. After a comparatively early age they do not vary with intelligence, with training, or with increasing age, except as the exhibition of these capacities is limited by the child's ability to understand or apply himself to the task."17 After presenting various acoustical phases of music, including detailed timbre profiles of some well-known vocalists and instrumentalists, Seashore analyzes the inheritance of musical talent. In true hereditarian fashion he states: "The concept of inheritance must have a place in a psychology of music. . . . The inheritance of musical talent . . . may, therefore, be studied . . . for the bearing that it has on the inheritance of mental traits in general."18 Many of the studies reported are those which Seashore conducted in a laboratory setting.

The title A Psychology of Music, written by Charles M. Diserens and H. Fine in 1939, suggests that the work should be an important source to be discussed in this article.19 Such is not the case, however, because the book represents one of the first significant ventures into a field which subsequently has become known as music therapy. Included in the treatise are individual laboratory studies relating to various physiological responses or reactions in human beings to musical stimuli. As such, this book, despite its title, is of greater significance to the music therapist than to the music psychologist.

Max Schoen, another Seashore hereditarian disciple, brought out his Psychology of Music two years after the appearance of his mentor's book, by the same title.20 The work is divided into two parts: psychology of music, which deals with various types of responses to sound stimuli, and the psychology of musical aptitudes, wherein aptitudes and talents and their translation into productive and artistic musicianship are discussed. Unlike Seashore's treatise, Schoen's is a compendium of studies by many researchers in numerous areas of the psychology of music (as is the Mursell book, noted earlier). Among Schoen's interesting and sometimes controversial accounts are the effects of the stimuli of tones, keys, colors, and motifs on the responses of listeners. Schoen notes, for example, that: "The diatonic scale has been compared with the seven colors of the color spectrum, and a color scale has been suggested for the scale of C, namely, C-red, D-orange, E-yellow, F-green, G-blue, A-indigo, B-violet."21 Kate Hevner's adjective circle to objectively measure feeling effects of music is presented under the section entitled "The Varieties of Musical Effects: Affective." Using Hevner's circle, respondents can check those adjectives which best describe the music they hear. Appropriate synonymous adjectives appear under each of these subheadings: (1) spiritual, (2) pathetic, (3) dreamy, (4) lyrical, (5) humorous, (6) merry, (7) exhilarated, and (8) vigorous. Schoen delineates two types of musical aptitude: musicality (for musical reception) and talent (for musical production). He contends that musicality can be present without talent and that for this reason there are more "musical persons" than "musical performers." This, says Schoen, has led to greater emphasis on research relating to musicality than to research on musical talent. In harmony with his hereditarian beliefs he states: "Artistic musical performance rests ultimately upon innate, inborn equipment. It is not something that is acquired in one's lifetime, but the person is born with it or without it. All that training can do is to develop that which already exists potentially."22

Psychology for Musicians contains fifteen lectures of a psychological and philosophical nature which organist-composer-psychologist Percy C. Buck gave at the Royal College of Music in London to enable teachers to interact more effectively with their students psychologically and pedagogically.23 Knighted in 1936one of the few musicians to attain this high honorBuck deals with such behavioral topics as reactions (responses) to stimuli, habit, interest, attention, memory, appreciation, and will, to mention a few. Empathic to William James' philosophy of pragmatism, Buck's commentary is replete with practical suggestions and numerous verbal analogies and musical examples. The central theme of this book may be summed up in these pragmatic words: "you can count on your pupils doing far better, if you provide them with some kind of scheme or logical connection in the facts they assimilate. The mind that is willing to set to work without a plan of some sort is not intelligent."24 In the final chapter Buck attempts to pull together what he regards as "isolated facts and principles." He does this through a 4×4 matrix which he labels the "Four Sides of Man" (See Figure 1).

Buck's "Four Sides of Man"


Sides Action Aim Means
Physical The body Reliability Habit
Intellectual Thinking Wisdom Understanding
Aesthetic Feeling Happiness Control
Moral Conscience Character Love of truth



Buck closes in a philosophical vein with these words which must sound all too true to musicians: "Music will not make you rich, but it can make you happy; it will not save your soul, but it can make your soul worth saving."26

Hungarian psychologist Géza Révész, in 1946, published Einführung in die Musikpsychologie.27 The work was translated into English from the German by G.I.C. de Courcy and published in London in 1953 as Introduction to the Psychology of Music. An American version was published in 1954.28 The book is divided into three parts. Part I is entitled "Hearing, Sound, and Musical Tone." "Fundamental Problems of the Psychology of Sound" is the title of Part II, and Part III is designated "Fundamental Problems of the Psychology of Music." There are some differences between the original German and the English language versions. For example, the first two chapters, relating to acoustics, contain the same material, but in the third chapter (dealing with the human voice), Table 6 in the German version, Das sogennante Oktaven gesetz de Vokale, "so-called octave location of vowels," is not included in the English version. Chapter 6, dealing with consonance, contains updated material in the English edition but there are also some deletions form the German version. Table 9, in the same chapter, relating to the percentage of correct judgment of intervals, Richtige Urteile in Prozent, appears only in the German version. Evidencing his hereditarian predilection, Révész believes that absolute or perfect pitch is "a natural gift par excellence. It appears already in early youth and at once in a highly developed form. In musically gifted children one can find genuine absolute pitch as early as the third year."29 As if to reinforce this absolutistic bent he avers: "Genuine absolute pitch is innate, in many cases inherited. It manifests itself right from the beginning."30 The final section in the German version of Chapter 8, Das musikalische Gedächtnis, "Musical Memory," is not included in the English version. Considerable revision may be found in the English version of Chapter 9, entitled "The Relation Between Tone and Colour Perception." In regard to studies of musicality, Révész, in the German edition, exultantly claims that the first systematic experimental measures of musical talent originated with himself. However, in the English translation, he apologetically gives equal credit to Seashore. Another omission in the English translation is the section called the rhythmic sense, Der rhythmische Sinn. Also, some musical examples of creativity in the musical prodigy which appear in the German edition are not to be found in Chapter 11 of the English version. On the other hand, a two-page chart of Braille music notational equivalents appears only in the English version. Another added feature in English, found in Chapter 12, is entitled "Development of Musical Talent in Maturity and Advanced Age." Some material on primitive musical instruments in Chapter 17 does not appear in the English version. In order to get the full story from Révész one really should read and compare both the German and the English editions.

An excellent collection of empirical studies has been compiled by Jacob Kwalwasser in Exploring the Musical Mind.31 This book contains an account of research conducted by Kwalwasser and some of his students over a period of more than 25 years. Correlations were sought between musical talent and inheritance, intelligence, age, sex, race and nationality, and training. Some of Kwalwasser's hereditarian views are certainly open to question today. Regarding race, for example, he says: "While it is evident that, with some reservations, the Negro is inferior to the white child of comparable age in intelligence, he is generally found to be inferior in most music talent traits, with the exception of rhythm and tonal memory in which he frequently surpasses the whites."32 Evidence of his hewing to the absolutistic view of the relationship between music talent and training is contained in this statement: "It is in the category of the trained that we find the talented in music, but we must avoid the error in reasoning that would lead to the conclusion that talent is a product of training. It is more accurate to consider training a product of talent."33 Other studies consist of research on tongue-agility and motor skills. Kwalwasser's hereditarian proclivity is reinforced when he says: "The basic structures that make musical behavior possible are inherited, for we are born with all the equipment that is ours to use. Nor can talent be acquired from the teacher."34

Subsequent to World War II the absolutistic school of thought began to give way to the concepts of a group of psychologists who have been labeled environmentalists, culturalists, or relativists. The environmentalists believe that cultural exposure and training are the important ingredients in determining musicality, and as such, they reject the view that musical ability or capacity is inborn.

Robert W. Lundin must be considered as one of the most outspoken environmentalists. In An Objective Psychology of Music35 he affirms: "pitch discrimination, like other musical behavior, is acquired and subject to improvement. Since ability to discriminate pitches is included in this category of learned responses, it should be subject to change by training."36 Lundin devotes considerable attention to the dimensions of tone (pitch, loudness, timbre). Excellent sections on affective and aesthetic responses to music and to music tests also may be found in this progressive, up-to-date book. In discussing musical ability his relativistic predilection is evident in these words: "musical behavior is acquired through a long process of individual interaction with musical stimuli."37

Sympathetic to neither of the extremes of hereditarianism or environmentalism is Paul R. Farnsworth, who takes a middle of the road position which might be labeled "nature-nurture." Farnsworth's approach in his noteworthy The Social Psychology of Music is oriented toward the social sciences rather than toward the physical sciences.38 He is in sympathy with the culturalist or relativist psychologists and musicians who believe "the 'musical ear' can indeed be improved and that there are no culture-free tests."39 After discussing scales, intensity, melody and other phases of music, Farnsworth devotes considerable space to musical taste and musical abilities. Eminence of composers has been of special concern to Farnsworth over a period of almost thirty years. It should come as no surprise, therefore, to have him reveal that Bach and Beethoven are the two composers who have ranked either first or second in every one of his eminence polls conducted with the assistance of musicologists, music students, and symphony performers between 1938 and 1964. As already noted, Farnsworth espouses what might be called the "nature-nurture" concept. He says: "neither nature nor nurture alone can make a musician. Both must be present before musical and other abilities can emerge."40 Farnsworth prefers the term "musical ability" to "musical talent." He believes that "musical talent" and "musical capacity" connote something which is innate. Likewise he considers "aptitude" to be a better term than "talent" or "capacity." "Musical ability," according to Farnsworth, suggests a power to act without the inheritance or the "congenitalness of inferred potentiality."41

Rosamund Shuter's The Psychology of Musical Ability includes topics which are covered in many psychology of music texts.42 An English psychologist and self-styled "frustrated musician," Shuter includes five sections in her book relating to: assessment of musical ability and attainment, development of musical ability, heredity and environmental factors, theories of musical ability, and music and education. Shuter's choice of the term "ability" suggests that she, like Farnsworth, supports the "nature-nurture" theory. For example, she avers: "If the environment is at all favourable, signs of any strong talent that may exist in the child are likely to appear early in life."43 Referring to her difficulty in differentiating ability which is the result of environment and that which is innate, Shuter says: "How far any ability shown by an individual is acquired from the environment and how far it is innate is notoriously difficult to assess."44 She also reports on European research that is largely unknown to most Americans, although some American research in the psychology of music is included. A very valuable feature of her splendid treatise is the four appendices. The first one includes, in concise form, reliability and validity coefficients of seventeen music tests; and the second consists of factorial studies of music tests by eighteen individuals to determine factors which the tests have in common. The third appendix contains correlations between intelligence and musical ability tests, noteworthy because this information is not found in concise form in other sources on music tests. The fourth lists correlations between tests of musical and other abilities, information also largely unobtainable elsewhere.

The series of monographs known as The University of Iowa Studies in the Psychology of Music was begun in 1932 under the editorship of Carl E. Seashore. Articles in each of the first four monographs are centered around one theme or topic. Research pertaining to pitch and intensity vibratos of voice and instrument comprise the first volume (1932). "Measurement of Musical Talent," the second volume, appeared in 1935. It consists entirely of the so-called "Eastman Experiment" which was conducted by Hazel Stanton to determine the correlation between musical aptitude as measured by the Seashore test and success as determined by satisfactory completion of baccalaureate degree requirements. Laboratory studies of vibrato in voice and instrument appeared in 1936 as Volume III. The final volume edited by Seashore, entitled "Objective Analysis of Musical Performance," was published in 1937. It contains an analysis of the tones produced by several vocal and instrumental soloists. Following Volume IV the series ceased publication until it was revived by Edwin Gordon in 1967 with the appearance of Volume V, labeled "A Three-Year Study of the Musical Aptitude Profile." In subsequent monographs Gordon solicited articles relating to research in the psychology of music. The capabilities of elementary school students and the timbre effects of brass-wind instruments consumed much of the space in Volume VI, published in 1970. Volume VII (1971) includes a computer simulation of musical performance adjudication and second-year results of Gordon's five-year longitudinal study of the musical achievement of culturally disadvantaged children. Also, inclusion of a selected bibliography of experimental research studies in the psychology of music covering the years 1937 through 1970 as a sequel to the extensive Mursell bibliography referred to earlier, should bring delight to researchers interested in tracing experimental developments and progress in the psychology of music. At the time of this writing, only one other monograph in this series has appeared. Published in 1972, Volume VIII contains studies relating to the interrelationship of personality, musical aptitude, and musical achievement, and a report on research dealing with the development of rhythmic and tonal capabilities of kindergarten and first grade children. The bibliography of experimental studies in the psychology of music for 1971 further updates the psychology of music bibliography of Volume VII.

Papers of the International Seminar on Experimental Research in Music Education, which was held at the University of Reading, England in July of 1968, were published in the Spring, 1969 issue of the Journal of Research in Music Education.45 There are fourteen articles devoted to the development and measurement of musical abilities. Also included are reports on psychological music testing in Hungary and music experimental research in Germany and Scandinavia.

One of the Eastern European countries where research in the psychology of music seems to be flourishing is Poland. Krzysztof Z. Polakowski discusses the general trends in psychology of music in "Polish Research in the Psychology of Music."46 Polakowski reveals that the studies in the past have been concerned largely with the measurement of basic music capacities; however, the general trend now is to "explore the relationship between general musicality and personality rather than musicality alone."47

Readers interested in keeping abreast of the most recent research in the psychology of music should refer to various journals of aesthetics, acoustics, music, psychology, and therapy. These may be found in most college and university libraries and in many large public libraries as well. The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, Education Index, and Music Index are some of the bibliographical tools which should be very helpful in ferreting out appropriate articles.

The field known as psychology of music is a broad umbrella which covers many different phases of music. It is a rapidly changing field; and there is still a great need for considerable research although a large volume of research has already been reported, especially in behaviorally-oriented experimentation. The psychology of music is a fascinating and engrossing field from which many significant research studies have emanated. Many of them should be of interest to musicians at all levels of instruction. It is gratifying to realize that the application of findings from some of these studies can enable good musicians and good music teachers to do better what they already are doing well.

1Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1973), p. 931.

2Carl E. Seashore, The Psychology of Musical Talent (Boston: Silver Burdett, 1919).

3Seashore, p. 1.

4In the 1939 revision the test of consonance was replaced with a test of tonal memory.

5Hermann L.F. von Helmholtz, On the Sensations of Tone, trans. and rev., Alexander J. Ellis (1885; rpt., New York: Dover, 1954).

6Helmholtz, p. 363.

7Walter S. Swisher, Psychology for the Music Teacher (Boston: Oliver Ditson, 1927).

8Swisher, p. 67.

9Max Schoen, ed., The Effects of Music (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1927).

10Schoen, p. 4.

11Jacob Kwalwasser, Tests and Measurements in Music (Boston: C.C. Birchard, 1927).

12James L. Mursell, The Psychology of Music (1937; rpt., New York: Johnson Reprint, 1970).

13Mursell, p. 321.

14Ibid., p. 331.

15Ibid., pp. 13-14.

16Carl E. Seashore, Psychology of Music (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938).

17Seashore, p. 3.

18Ibid., p. 330.

19Charles M. Diserens and H. Fine, A Psychology of Music (Cincinnati: Privately Printed, 1939).

20Max Schoen, The Psychology of Music (New York: Ronald Press, 1940).

21Schoen, Psychology, p. 72.

22Ibid., p. 161.

23Percy C. Buck, Psychology for Musicians (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1943).

24Buck, p. 1.

25Ibid., p. 105.

26Ibid., p. 111.

27"Géza Révész, Einführung in die Musikpsychologie (Bern, Switzerland: A. Francke, 1946).

28Géza Révész, Introduction to the Psychology of Music, trans., G.I.C. de Courcy (Norman, Okla.: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1954).

29Révész, Introduction, p. 98.

30Ibid., p. 108.

31Jacob Kwalwasser, Exploring the Musical Mind (New York: Coleman-Ross, 1955).

32Kwalwasser, Exploring, pp. 18-19.

33Ibid., p. 85.

34Ibid., p. 161.

35Robert W. Lundin, An Objective Psychology of Music, 2nd ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1967).

36Lundin, p. 27.

37Ibid., p. 220.

38Paul R. Farnsworth, The Social Psychology of Music, 2nd ed. (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1969).

39Farnsworth, p. 4.

40Ibid., p. 156.

41Ibid., p. 151.

42Rosamund Shuter, The Psychology of Musical Ability (London: Methuen, 1968).

43Shuter, p. 103.

44Ibid., p. 111.

45Journal of Research in Music Education, 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), pp. 5-159.

46Krzysztof Z. Polakowski, "Polish Research on the Psychology of Music," Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, No. 2 (Summer, 1972), pp. 286-88.

47Ibid., p. 288.

5349 Last modified on November 12, 2018