-
Contemporary Songs and Accompaniments in
Beginning Band Method Books
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Take a step into today’s classroom and you will see that music learning has evolved to include more contemporary music through non-traditional school setting such as Rock Bands, Mariachi groups, or Music Technology. Demographics in the United States continue to grow increasingly diverse and today’s responsive teaching practices has driven classrooms to include more contemporary music as studies have shown that teenagers prefer contemporary music over other genres (Haak, 1972) and the use of contemporary music generally enhances student learning and motivation (Grashel 1979; Morrison 1998).
Contemporary music has not only reflected in classroom practices but also in the books and materials used in the classroom. With the understanding that teachers utilize method books to shape curriculum and supplement instruction, the content of method books holds important implications and insights into the current music classroom. Consequently, the beginning band curriculum is largely aligned with the method books used in class (Whitener, 1998).
As demonstrated by the Universal Teacher, published in 1923, the use of ‘popular’ or recognizable songs has been used in method books to teach traditional techniques. However, as ‘popular’ music of the time becomes a part of the past, new band methods find ways to incorporate current ‘popular’ styles. Since the publication of the Universal Teacher, there has been growth in multiculturalism that has created a larger demand for culturally diverse music. Cultures from around the world now make up a majority of music selections in band methods books; a majority that was once dominated by ‘popular’ music (Britten, 2004). Shifting from popular music, contemporary music (Jazz, rock, blues, hip-hop, etc.), similar to popular music in the Universal Teacher, is becoming more prominent.
The term diverse culture’s was included in the 2014 National Core Music Standards for ensembles. Under performance, the standards include the use of diverse cultures to develop a critical understanding of a wide arrange of music styles and genres. These standards are met by exposing students to a wide array of cultures and their respective music. Additionally, drawing upon the diversity of students, NCMS also includes standards that connect students to music through personal interests, experiences, ideas, and knowledge. Both standards represent the importance and significance of contemporary music in today’s modern classroom.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze contemporary music in seven beginning band method books published between 2000 and 2016 that feature supplementary accompaniment technology. Research questions include: (1) How often do contemporary songs appear in each book? (2) How often do contemporary accompaniment styles appear in each book? (2) How are contemporary songs and accompaniments represented in beginning band methods books? (3) Do current beginning band books reflect contemporary practices and in turn more diverse and equitable music making in the classroom?
Need for Study
The need for a content analysis of method books reflects the growing canon of materials, technological developments, and evolving best practices in music education. Given the curricular influence of beginning band methods, only a few studies have examined the content of these texts (e.g., Britten, 2004; Byo, 1988). This study will contribute to the index of beginning band method books and allow for further study of topics such as current trends in contemporary music education, music technology in beginning band, and effectiveness of beginning band method books.
Definition of Terms
Contemporary music – The term contemporary music has been used to address the limitations of the term ‘popular music’. As Green (2006) suggests, popular music within music education is subjective to the listener (students/teacher). Within the classroom, the delineation and practice of incorporating popular music, as strictly defined by students, creates a logical issue:
Teachers who include up-to-date popular music cannot reasonably change their curriculum materials at a speed that reflects pupils’ changing allegiances. So music that carries positive delineations for pupils inside the classroom is hard to come by, and even harder to sustain as part of a curriculum. (Green, pg., 105)
For this study, the term contemporary music refers to popular Western music styles developed during the 20th and 21st centuries that traditionally feature ostinato accompaniments as played by a ‘rhythm section’.
Limitations
Only book one of each series is will be analyzed. Therefore, these findings cannot be generalized for other all band method books or their supplemental materials such as concert arrangements. Additionally, there is a certain level of subjectivity when classifying music into various genres. Brittin and Sheldon (2004) used a reliability test to ensure a consensus in classifying genres. This study was completed with only one researcher therefore a reliability test could not be performed.
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Contemporary music in the classroom is prominent in both research and practice. A change in demographics and student learning has prompted educators to incorporate the use of non-traditional music. Correspondingly, the lineage of beginning band methods has demonstrated a progression of added music diversity (Brittin, 2004).
The effectiveness of the method book versus concept and goal oriented teaching approach was measured by Noble (1971) for the elementary beginning band. Students (N = 253) were selected from six elementary schools with varying population sizes in Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming (two in each state). All classes consisted of 5th grade beginning band students with no prior instrumental experience. Each class met twice a week for 50 minutes. The average class size was 16 students and there were on average an even number of boys and girls. Prior to the experiment, researchers tested students using the Gordon Musical Aptitude Test (MAP) and the Colwell Elementary Music Achievement Test to index student knowledge. In addition, the researchers collected individual IQ scores from each school. Classes were divided into two groups: experimental (n = 143) and control (n = 110). The experimental classes were given seven specific content areas to study over a 12-week period: physical design of the instrument, tone production, ideal tone quality, intervallic relationships, correct note length, rhythm, and phrasing. All experimental classes used the First Division Band Course, book 1 as supplemental material to practice given concepts. Findings indicated that the concept approach was superior to traditional teaching methods in the development of performance skills; methods for upper winds, upper brass, and percussion. However, students with low musical aptitude and achievement scores gained more from the traditional teaching methods. There was no significant difference in the development of aural skills between the experimental and control groups.
Hodges (1976) demonstrated the effects of aural models on beginning band students’ performance achievement. Beginning band students (N = 200) were selected from 14 classes within two different schools. The experimental group listened to recordings of each instrument playing a selected melody for a 14-week period. Students within the control group received identical instruction but without the recordings. At the end, students completed a playing test to access growth. There was no significant difference between the aural and non-aural treated groups. Limitations in classroom instruction time and quality of recordings may have affected the efficacy of the finding. Hodges suggested that active participation with recordings may ensure student attention and develop significant growth.
In the first of its kind, Byo (1988) examined the content of nine beginning band methods published between 1974 and 1988 as related to the best practice of beginning instrumental pedagogy. The books included: Alfred’s Basic Band Method (1977), Band Encounters (1984), Band Today (1977), Belwin Comprehensive Band Method (1988), Best in Class (1982), Division of Beat (1981), Listen, Move, Sing, and Play (1984), Sessions in Sound (1976), and Ed Sueta Band Method (1976). Information drawn from each book included tonal content, rhythmic content, physical features, and selected individual instrument considerations. Findings revealed deficiencies and discrepancies in minor tonalities, use of vocalization, rhythmic isolation, rhythmic analysis, unison versus harmonized exercises, information clutter, and coverage of individual technique. The study suggests that beginning band methods carry implied philosophies and preferences based on its content.
Similar the Byo’s study, Britten (2004) examined the origins of five contemporary beginning band method books and a past band method book for comparison. Method books included Standards of Excellence (1993), Belwin 21st Century Band Method (1996), Accent on Achievement (1997), Essential Elements 2000 (2000), Yamaha Advantage (2001), and the Universal Teacher (UT) (1923). Data included the number of melodies in each book categorized by composer, culture, authentic versus contrived types of music or functions. Contrived exercises focused on presenting or practicing a technique. Authentic pieces include folk songs and classical excerpts with supplemental information on historical/musical context. Categorization reliability determined by agreements/(total agreements + disagreements) equaled 94% for a 20% sample. A majority of the contemporary books presented a wide variety of cultures and non-Western European sources as compared to the Universal Teacher. Melodies from the USA made up an average of 36% in contemporary books as compared to 41% in the UT. Countries excluded in UT appeared in all contemporary methods. This study suggested that the development of sequential learning has yielded more demand for diverse melodies. In addition, cultural changes and social aspects of student learning have made the pedagogical approach from the early 1900’s obsolete to contemporary classrooms.
Mantie (2013) analyzed popular music pedagogy discourse within the field of music education. The study involved 81 international articles that contained connections of popular music and music education. The author created a sampling frame to gather and quantify data. Frequency lists were used to determine the “key-word-in-context” (KWIC). Examined words included: pedagogy, curriculum, repertoire, quality, tradition, Tanglewood, formal, young people, popular, reason, preparation, and purpose. Findings indicated that American authors focused primarily on the legitimacy and quality of popular music verses their international counterpart who were concerned with effectiveness and implementation. The implication of this study suggests that there is lack of understanding within the discourse and implementation of popular music and music education. Additionally, the state of discourse on popular music may be affecting its understanding and practice in music education.
Within the contemporary classroom, Grashel (1979) examined the efficacy of using popular music to teach form in band. The author developed lesson plans that included class instruction, programed instruction, and a combination of techniques specific for middle school students. Students (N = 184) were 7th and 8th grade band members enrolled in four school band programs in suburban Ohio. Instructional method and content was developed using repertoire from the Billboard’s “Hot 100” along with students (n = 4) to pilot the program. Three varying instruction strategies (in-class, programed instruction, and in-class/programed instruction) were each assigned to one band. A fourth band was used as the control group. Based on pre- and post-testing, findings indicated that the experimental bands were effective in teaching form (p < .01). Additionally, while all classes were effective, the class receiving both in-class and programmed instruction received significantly (p <.001) higher posttest scores compared to the other two experimental groups. The author concluded that (a) popular music can be used to effectively teach (regardless the grade) form, (b) that these concepts are transferable to tradition band literature (c) that non-tradition concepts in band, such as form, can be effectively incorporated in rehearsals, and that (d) popular music is a legitimate means to teach nonperformance concepts in intermediate band.
Musical preference has been studied by many educators to reveal trends in both children and adults. LeBlanc (1996) studied a wide age range of listeners and compared results to the LeBlanc theory of music preference. Participants (N = 2,262) ranged in age from 6 to 91 years old. They rated 18 short music examples that included art music, rock, and traditional jazz on a five-point Likert scale. Findings indicated that young listeners had high preferences for all types of music and suggest that early elementary, high school, and college are the best ages to present music listening. In addition, adults appear to be opened to many types of musical genres, which may provide opportunities for music educators to develop audiences and support among this population.
Similarly, Brittin (2000) examined the connection between tempo and stylistic preference of elementary students using a MIDI keyboard. Students in grades 2 through 6 (N = 343) listened to 10 selections of the same tempo and indicated preference and perception of tempo on a 5-point Likert scale. Listening examples included both folk and popular styles; however, one example featured an acoustic piano with simple chords. Findings indicated that older students had less preference of style and that students across all grades gave similar preference to styles of music within their age group. Most preferred styles included hip-hop, heavy rock shuffle, samba, and funk2. A correlation between perceived faster tempo and style and preference was evident for third through sixth graders. Participants perceived the acoustic piano accompaniment to be slower than all other recordings and preferred this excerpt the least. Findings from this study support previous research and suggest that students prefer real versus digital accompaniment instruments, and that environment might affect their music preferences.
Brittin (2000) examined third and fourth grade children’s preference of folk melodies with accompaniment. Children (N = 463) were sampled from one upper-middle class suburban school and one lower-middle class urban school. Folk melodies were selected and set to varying accompaniment styles. Two of the songs played were feature prominently on the television show “Barney & Friends.” Based on a survey of the children, research found that children of both districts responded positively to most songs with rock-based styles being the highest preferred and Barney songs the least. However, in comparison, the urban district was the most positive for all songs while the suburban district was most negative specifically to Barney & Friends songs. The implications of this study point to the importance of using sequenced accompaniments as students responded positively and teachers found benefits in the accessibility in planning and implementation. Also, implications of this article address the effects of media on children’s musical preference and suggest age appropriate selections and further studies into why students respond positively/negatively to certain songs.
A recent study (Worthy, 2009) has demonstrated the specialized needs of the beginning band. Worthy evaluated expert beginning band teachers and identified commonalities among them. Three teachers were observed for three connective classes and collected a total of 370 minutes of observation data. The researchers evaluated and compared instructional targets and the frequency and duration of specific teacher and student actions. Findings indicated that teachers were successful in classroom management, focused largely on tone develop, and consistently modeled wind instruments. Of all the observed instructional subjects, pitch accuracy, multiple targets, and posture were the most common. In comparison to middle school, high school, and college bands, teachers talked and modeled more, and students performed less frequently and for shorter periods. Findings suggest that beginning band teachers utilize specialized instructional practices more than instructors of intermediate and advanced ensembles, suggesting that more beginning band pedagogy might be needed in pre-service preparation.
The research presented here reveals a trend in the adaptation of contemporary styles in music education and suggests a positive relationship between the use of popular music and student learning. The uniqueness of beginning band curriculum and teaching techniques yield specific challenges, including, the use of contemporary styles. There are gaps in the analysis of the specific uses of contemporary music in beginning band. This phenomenon suggests that recent technological advances and published materials have outpaced research and in-depth analyses.
Chapter 3 – Methodology
This study is a content analysis of seven beginning band method books published between 2000 and 2016 featuring supplementary accompaniment technology. Books in this study include: Measures of Success (2009), Sound Innovations for Concert Band (2010), Standard of Excellence Enhanced Comprehensive Band Method (2004), Tradition of Excellence (2010), Essential Elements For Band (2004), The Yamaha Advantage (2001), Making Music Matter (2016). For the purpose of this study, clarinet book one from each selected series will be analyzed.
Data Collection/Research Instrument
The contents of each book was organized into 9 charts using an adaption of Watson (2016), Byo (1988), and Brittin (2004) systems for analyzing method books. Figures 1 through 8 (see Appendix) were adapted using Watson’s chart layout and Brittin’s classifiers for melodic content. Brittin’s classification of “popular music” is represented as contemporary music and has been divided into sub genre’s for both songs and accompaniments. Contemporary songs were categorized into 7 genres: Rock, Jazz/Blues, Mexican Folk, Latin Folk, Puerto Rican Folk, Brazilian Folk, and Calypso. Mexican, Latin, Puerto Rican, and Brazilian Folk music was included to reflect contemporary ensembles such as Mariachi Groups. Contemporary accompaniments were categorized into six genres: Rock, Jazz/Blues, Hip-Hop/Pop, Calypso, Latin, and Fusion. Each category was intended to cover a wide variety of sub-genres (such as country would be considered rock). Fusion included accompaniments that used a mix of contemporary genres.
Within non-contemporary songs I again used Brittin’s (2004) classifications. However, I have consolidated selected classifiers for space (carol, Hanukah, hymn, spiritual are now religious; lullaby, nursey rhyme are now traditional). Non-contemporary accompaniments include Band, Piano, Orchestral, World and Other/Mix. The purpose of Other/mix was to categorize accompaniments that included a mix of non-contemporary styles or was a non-descript style such as a click track with auxiliary percussion or synthesized ambient sounds.
Figure 9 categorizes contemporary songs into either contrived or non-contrived and contemporary accompaniments into slow, moderate, or fast. Contrived songs included songs that were made in the style of contemporary music but were not authentic melodies while non-contrived songs were authentic melodies that closely represented the original. Accompaniments were categorized using the count off tempo and transcribed into per minute (BPM) using a external metronome. Each accompaniment was categorized in the following tempos: 60 – 81bpm (slow), 82 – 108 (moderate), and 109+ (fast).
Data Analysis/Statistical Procedures
The first research question asks how often contemporary music is used in beginning band method books. To answer this, I calculated the percentage of each category by dividing the total number of contemporary songs/accompaniments (N) by the total number of all songs/accompaniments in the respective method book. As adapted from Brittin (2004), only written exercises that included a composer or a classifier (i.e. Traditional) were counted as a song while all accompaniment tracks were counted. From this, I will calculate the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of each category as seen in figures 3, 4, 7, and 8. The mean shows the average use of contemporary and non-contemporary music songs/accompaniments the beginning books sampled. The standard deviation served was calculated to show the extent in which methods books differed as a whole from the mean value.
Comparing the frequency of contrived vs. non-contrived songs and accompaniment tempo was used to answer the second research question: How are contemporary styles represented in beginning band methods books? Using the mean and standard deviation, I analyzed and compared the frequency at which each song/accompaniment was contrived/non-contrived or slow/moderate/fast.
The final research question asks if current beginning band books reflect contemporary practices and in turn more diverse and equitable music making in the classroom? To answer this question, I looked at the growth of contemporary music in beginning band books by comparing my findings with that of Brittin (2004). To insure continuity and equity for comparison, I included one book from Brittin’s study (Measures of Success) and I am maintaining the condensed list of the same descriptors. By comparing total’s and percentages, I was able to determine if there has been an increase, decrease, or no change in use of contemporary music.
Chapter 4 – Results
The percentage of contemporary songs in each method book resulted in a mean total of 7.36% with a standard deviation of 3.44%. Essential Elements had the highest percentage of contemporary song at 13.24% and was followed by Standard of Excellence (11.11%), Tradition of Excellence (9.72%), Yamaha Advantage and Measures of Success (6.19%), and Sound Innovations (3.61). Making Music Matter had the lowest percentage of contemporary songs at 2.86%. Yamaha Advantage had the highest percentage of Rock songs (3.09%). Essential Elements had the highest percentage of Jazz (2.94%), Latin Folk (1.47%), and Calypso (4.41%). Standard of Excellence had the highest percentage of Mexican Folk songs (4.17%). Tradition of Excellence was the only method book to include Puerto Rican Folk songs (1.39%) and Brazilian Folk songs (1.39%).
Non-contemporary songs resulted in a mean total of 92.64% with a standard deviation of 3.44. Folk songs had the highest percentage among non-contemporary genres with a mean total of 33.20% followed by Classical (23.23%), Band (14.28%), Traditional (12.88), Religious (7.23%), and Patriotic (1.82%). Band songs had the highest standard deviation of 20.04 due to Making Music Maker having a high percentage of Band songs (62.86%). Making Music Matter also led the percentage of non-contemporary songs with a total of 97.14%.
The percentage of contemporary accompaniments in each method book resulted in a mean total of 47.26% with a standard deviation of 20.24%. Making Music Matter had no contemporary accompany, leading to a high standard deviation. Essential Elements had the highest percentage of contemporary accompaniments at 68.11% and was followed by Standard of Excellence (57.14%), Measures of Success (54.64%), Tradition of Excellence (52.63%), Yamaha Advantage (51.57%), Sound Innovations (46.70%), and Making Music Matter (0%). Measures of Success had the highest percentage of Rock (35.57%), and Hip-Hop (4.64%) accompaniments. Tradition of Excellence had the highest percentage of Jazz/Blues (7.52%), and Latin (7.52%) accompaniments. Standard of Excellence had the highest percentage of Calypso (3.76%) accompaniments and Essential Elements had the highest percentage of Fusion (29.73) accompaniments. Rock had the highest percentage among contemporary accompaniments with a mean total of 24.65% followed by Fusion (13.45%), Jazz/Blues (3.38%), Latin (2.53%), and Calypso (1.92%).
Non-contemporary accompaniments resulted in a mean total of 52.74% with a standard deviation of 20.24. Band accompaniments had the highest percentage among non-contemporary accompaniments with a mean total of 26.05% followed by Other/Mix (10.12), Orchestral (7.88) World (4.61%), and Piano (4.08%). Band had the highest standard deviation of 20.04 due to Making Music Matter having a higher percentage of band accompaniments (96%). All of Making Music Matter accompaniments were non-contemporary with n=24 being band and n=1 being accompanied by piano.
Figure 9 shows that a majority of contemporary songs were non-contrived (74.15%) and a majority of accompaniments were played at a moderate pace (73.25%). Yamaha Advantage and Standard of Excellence both shared the highest percentage of contrived songs at 50% while Making Music Matter (n=1) and Sound Innovations (n=3) had the highest percentage of non-contrived songs at 100%. Measures of Success had the highest percentage of fast accompaniments at 19.81% while Tradition of Excellence had the lowest at 1.43%. Standard of Excellence had the highest percentage of moderate accompaniments at 90.79% while Essential Elements had the lowest at 57.89. Finally, Yamaha Advantage had the highest percentage of slow accompaniments while Standard of Excellence had the lowest at 2.63%.
Chapter 5 – Discussion
School ensembles such as band and orchestra are so steeped in traditions that they are often the least likely to see significant shifts in best practices. While there are limitations to the traditional ensemble, there is room for adaptations that includes the use contemporary music. While some have argued that contemporary music is used merely as a ‘bait-and-switch’ technique and that contemporary music in the context of traditional ensembles may comprise the intended aesthetic purpose (Cutietta, 1991), it is important to be able to measure its use and effectiveness in the traditional ensemble to reevaluate our classroom practices.
As the data shows, a majority of songs in beginning band method books are non-contemporary (92.64%). While the percentage of contemporary songs rose from Brittin’s (2004) 3.97% to the current 7.36%, the balance between contemporary and non-contemporary songs remains drastically uneven. This is perhaps due to a combination of limitations and traditions. Possible limitations include copyright costs of newer songs and arranging songs into playable melodies. It can be said that these limitations are a significant factors in song choice as the percentage of contemporary accompaniments, with the constraints of copyright costs and arranging lifted, is higher at 47.26%. While the percentage of non-contrived songs was greater than contrived songs, all the non-contrived or authentic melodies were older folk, rock or jazz songs used in contemporary settings today (i.e. La Bamba or When The Saints Go Marching In). For teachers looking to choose a book based selection contemporary songs most books will be close to 7%. However it should be noted that Making Music Matter by Frank Ticheli is best for a strictly traditional setting in that it had only one contemporary song and no contemporary accompaniments.
While contemporary music, on average, accounted for 47.26% of all accompaniments, 80% of the contemporary accompaniments were either Rock or Fusion making Jazz/Blues, Hip-Hop, Latin and Calypso underrepresented among contemporary accompaniments. This perhaps reflects Mantie (2013) finding that while our international counterparts look at the effectiveness and implementation of contemporary music, the United States continues to question its legitimacy and quality. The question of whether Jazz/Blues, Hip-hop, Latin, and Calypso is a legitimate music to include in a ‘traditional’ ensemble perhaps reflects a larger issue of race and equity in the United States. Given that ‘beginning band methods carry implied philosophies and preferences based on its content’ (Byo, 1988), it is important that the contents reflect a philosophy of musical equity if we intend to implement responsive practices in our classrooms.
Contemporary music has been shown to effectively teach music skills in a traditional band setting (Grashel, 1979) and we know through this study and past others how contemporary music is represented in literature. To continue this discussion more focus needs to be put on the classroom and the various ways contemporary music is being utilized to teach in the traditional ensemble. While accompaniments allow for more contemporary styles in the classroom, how often are they being used and are they being used to teach diverse music styles? Continuing research and discussions such as this will only allow for our classrooms to become more welcoming and effective spaces for music making.
References
Brittin, R.V. (1996). Listeners preference for music of other cultures: Comparing response modes. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 328-340
Brittin, R.V. (2000). Children’s preference of sequenced accompaniments: The influence of style and perceived tempo. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 237–248
Brittin, R.V. (2000). Preferences for children’s music: Effects of sequenced accompaniments, school culture, and media association. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, (147), 40-45
Brittin, R.V., & Sheldon, D.A. (2004). An analysis of band method books: Implications of culture, composer, and type of music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 47–55
Byo, J.L. (1988). Beginning band instruction: A comparative analysis of selected class method books. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7(1), 19–23
Cutietta, R. A. (1991). Popular music: An ongoing challenge. Music Educator’s Journal, 78 (April), 26–29
Grashel, J.W. (1979). Strategies for using popular music to teach form to intermediate instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27(3), 185-191
Haak, P.A. (1972). Use of positive and negative examples in teaching the concept of musical style. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 456 – 461
LeBlanc, A., Sims, W., Siivola, C., & Obert, M. (1996). Music style preferences of different age listeners. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44(1), 49 – 59
Mantie, R. (2013). A comparison of “popular music pedagogy” discourses. Journal of Research in Music Education. 61(3), 334-352.
Noble, R.F. (1971). Effects of a concept teaching curriculum on performance achievement in elementary school beginning bands. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19(2), 209-215.
Whitener, W.T. (1982). Comparison of two approaches to teaching beginning band. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 229–235
Worthy, M.D. (2009). Observation and analysis of expert teaching in beginning band. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180(spring), 29-41.
Appendix
Figure 1
Contemporary Songs SI n (%)
SE n (%)
TE n (%)
EE n (%)
YA n (%)
MS n (%)
MMM n (%)
All 3 (3.61) 8 (11.11) 7 (9.72) 9 (13.24) 6 (6.19) 6 (6.19) 1 (2.86) Rock 0 (0) 2 (2.78) 1 (1.39) 1 (1.47) 3 (3.09) 1 (1.03) 0 (0) Jazz 1 (1.20) 0 (0) 1 (1.39) 2 (2.94) 1 (1.03) 2 (2.06) 1 (2.86) Mexican Folk
1 (1.20) 3 (4.17) 1 (1.39) 2 (2.94) 2 (2.06) 2 (2.06) 0 (0) Latin Folk
0 (0) 1 (1.39) 0 (0) 1 (1.47) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Puerto Rican Folk 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1.39) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Brazillian Folk 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1.39) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Calypso 1 (1.20) 2 (2.78) 2 (2.78) 3 (4.41) 0 (0) 1 (1.03) 0 (0) Figure 2
Non – Contemporary Songs SI n (%)
SE n (%)
TE n (%)
EE n (%)
YA n (%)
MS n (%)
MMM n (%)
All 80 (96.39)
65 (90.28) 65 (90.28) 59 (86.76) 91 (93.81) 91 (93.81) 34 (97.14) Folk 37 (44.58) 26 (36.11) 29 (40.28) 20 (29.41) 37 (38.14) 37 (38.14) 2 (5.71) Traditional 18 (21.69) 14 (19.44) 5 (6.94) 7 (10.29) 7 (7.22) 10 (10.31) 5 (14.29) Religious 5 (6.02) 4 (5.56) 7 (9.72) 8 (11.76) 8 (8.25) 9 (9.28) 0 (0) Classical 18 (21.69) 16 (22.22) 17 (23.61) 16 (23.53) 33 (34.02) 24 (24.74) 4 (11.43) Patriotic 2 (2.41) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (4.41) 0 (0) 3 (3.09) 1 (2.86) Band 0 (0) 4 (5.56) 7 (9.72) 5 (7.35) 6 (6.19) 8 (8.25) 22 (62.86) Figure 3
Contemporary Songs % Category Mean SD All 7.36 3.44 Rock 1.2 .97 Jazz 1.64 .97 Mexican Folk
1.97 1.23 Latin 0.41 0.65 Puerto Rican .20 .49 Brazilian .20 .49 Calypso 1.74 1.52 Figure 4
Non-Contemporary Songs % Category Mean SD All 92.64 3.44 Folk 33.20 11.99 Traditional 12.88 5.39 Religious 7.23 3.56 Classical 23.23 6.10 Patriotic 1.82 1.68 Band 14.28 20.04 Figure 5
Contemporary Accompaniments SI n (%)
SE n (%)
TE n (%)
EE n (%)
YA n (%)
MS n (%)
MMM n (%)
Total 85 (46.70) 76 (57.14) 70 (52.63%) 126 (68.11) 82 (51.57) 106 (54.64) 0 (0) Rock 54 (29.67) 29 (21.80) 35 (26.32) 56 (30.27) 46 (28.93) 69 (35.57) 0 (0) Jazz/Blues 8 (4.40) 1 (.75) 10 (7.52) 3 (1.62) 10 (6.29) 6 (3.09) 0 (0) Hip – Hop 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (3.01) 3 (1.62) 0 (0) 9 (4.64) 0 (0) Calypso 1 (.55) 5 (3.76) 3 (2.26) 5 (2.70) 5 (3.14) 2 (1.03) 0 (0) Latin 3 (1.65) 3 (2.26) 10 (7.52) 4 (2.16) 0 (0) 8 (4.12) 0 (0) Fusion 19 (10.44) 38 (28.57) 8 (6.02) 55 (29.73) 21 (13.21) 12 (6.19) 0 (0) Figure 6
Non – Contemporary Accompaniments SI n (%)
SE n (%)
TE n (%)
EE n (%)
YA n (%)
MS n (%)
MMM n (%)
Total 97 (53.30) 57 (42.86) 63 (47.37) 59 (31.89) 77 (48.43) 88 (45.36) 25 (100) Band 16 (8.79) 26 (19.55) 20 (15.04) 23 (12.43) 24 (15.09) 30 (15.46) 24 (96) Piano 6 (3.30) 0 (0) 6 (4.51) 7 (3.78) 19 (11.95) 2 (1.03) 1 (4) Orchestral 16 (8.79) 8 (6.02) 12 (9.02) 13 (7.03) 19 (11.95) 24 (12.37) 0 (0) World 9 (4.95) 4 (3.01) 13 (9.77) 6 (3.24) 4 (2.52) 17 (8.76) 0 (0) Other/Mix 50 (27.47) 19 (14.29) 12 (9.02) 10 (5.41) 11 (6.92) 15 (7.73) 0 (0) Figure 7
Contemporary Accompaniments % Category Mean SD All 47.26 20.24 Rock 24.65 10.78 Jazz/Blues 3.38 2.62 Hip-Hop 1.32 1.73 Calypso 1.92 1.31 Latin 2.53 2.43 Fusion 13.45 10.63 Figure 8
Non-Contemporary Accompaniments % Non-Contemporary Accompaniments
Category Mean SD All 52.74 20.24 Band 26.05 28.72 Piano 4.08 3.56 Orchestral 7.88 3.88 World 4.61 3.25 Other/Mix 10.12 8.11 Figure 9
Contemporary Exercises and Accompaniments SI n (%)
SE n (%)
TE n (%)
EE n (%)
YA n (%)
MS n (%)
MMM n (%)
Mean % (SD)
Exercises Contrived 0 (0) 4 (50.00) 1 (14.29) 3 (33.33) 3 (50.00) 2 (33.33) 0 (0) 25.85 (19.81)
Non-Contrived 3 (100) 4 (50.00) 6 (85.71) 6 (66.67) 3 (50.00) 4 (66.67) 1 (100) 74.15 (19.81) Total 3 (100) 8 (100) 7 (100) 9 (100) 6 (100) 6 (100) 1 (100) Accompaniments Slow 14 (16.47) 2 (2.63) 10 (14.29) 30 (23.81) 27 (32) 8 (7.55) n/a 16.13 (9.75) Moderate 64 (75.29) 69 (90.79) 59 (84.29) 73 (57.94) 48 (58.54) 77 (72.64) n/a 73.25 (12.14) Fast 7 (8.24) 5 (6.58) 1 (1.43) 23 (18.25) 7 (8.54) 21 (19.81) n/a 10.48 (6.50) Total 85 (100) 76 (100) 70 (100) 126 (100) 82 (100) 106 (100) n/a