Council for Research in Music Education

Trumpet Tone Quality versus Intonation Revisited: Two Extensions

Author(s): John M. Geringer, Clifford K. Madsen and Patrick Dunnigan
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 148, Pioneering
Inquiry in the New Century: Exemplars of Music Research, Part I (Spring, 2001), pp. 65-76
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319079
Accessed: 17-09-2018 02:24 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319079?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press, Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Spring, 2001, No. 148

Trumpet Tone Quality versus

Intonation Revisited: Two Extensions

John M. Geringer and Clifford K. Madsen and Patrick Dunnigan

The Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL

Abstract

The purpose of the two studies reported here was to replicate and extend Madsen and
Geringer 's 1976 investigation of preferences for trumpet tone quality versus intonation. Both
extensions had 120 listeners: 60 high school music students and 60 college music majors. In the
first replication study, intonation of the piano accompaniment was varied (flat 25 cents, in-tune,
sharp 25 cents, or sharp 50 cents) in relationship to the melody performed on trumpet with either
good or bad tone quality. The second study varied the intonation of the trumpet in relationship to
accompaniment. Results of the first study showed that listeners gave highest ratings to the in-
tune accompaniment, followed by the sharp 25 cents, and the flat 25 cents. The sharp 50 cents
accompaniment was rated lowest. In the second extension, highest ratings were given to sharp 15
cents and in-tune trumpet performances. Listeners in both extensions, and unlike the original
study, rated good quality examples consistently higher than the bad quality examples.

Review of Literature

The two studies reported here continue a line of research that attempts to ascertain
music listeners' preferences and discriminations of performances within musical con-
texts. We presented examples that varied in intonation and tone quality and asked high
school and university music majors to rate both aspects in order to investigate the
interrelationship between the two.
A large body of research has reported pitch perception and performance abilities
from perspectives of both listener and performer. These investigations have indicated
that there is greater acuity in detecting pitch deviations in the direction of flatness as
well as suggesting an overall preference for sharpness (Geringer & Madsen, 1981,
1989; Madsen, Edmonson, & Madsen, 1969; Madsen & Geringer, 1976, 1981). Fur-
ther, numerous investigations have noted the tendency to perform with sharp rather
than flat deviations (Geringer, 1978; Geringer & Madsen, 1987; Madsen, 1974;
Morrison, 2000; Papich & Rainbow, 1974; Salzberg, 1980, Sogin, 1989; Yarbrough,
Morrison, & Karrick, 1997), although in some contexts a flatness tendency has been
noted as well (Brittin, 1993; Duke, 1985).
Additional research has studied the effects of timbrai complexity on performance
and perception of intonation (Cassidy, 1989; Ely, 1992; Greer, 1970; Swaffield, 1974).
Krumhansl and Iverson (1992) studied the interaction of pitch and timbre and demonstrated
that pitch judgments are impaired when accompanied by changes in timbre. Consistent effects
of tone quality on pitch perception have been noted in the literature (Geringer & Worthy, 1 999;
Singh & Hirsh, 1 992; Wapnick & Freeman, 1980; Worthy, 2000). Listener responses in these
studies indicated a propensity to associate sharper intonation with "brighter" tone quali-
ties and flatter intonation with "darker" tone qualities.
Direct comparisons have been made between intonation and tone quality (Madsen
& Flowers, 1981; Madsen & Geringer, 1976, 1981; Geringer & Madsen, 1981).

65

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 66

Attempts have been made

various populations "attend
& Geringer, 1990). There is
apparent to listeners than
(Geringer & Madsen, 1989
both good intonation and
performances was corrob
sponded primarily to int
examples, and relatively lit
In a 1976 study that serv
Geringer investigated the i
sity undergraduate and gr
accompanied trumpet perfo
soloist. Each version varied
the accompaniment (sharp
ment). The experiment was
as well as the sharp/flat dif
paniment twice as large as
discriminated easily betwe
panied, 2) listener preferenc
in the accompanied contex
significantly more than fla
more influence on ranking
The purpose of the prese
Madsen and Geringer inve
major listeners heard a ser
quality. In the first extensi
to the trumpet melody. In t
relationship to the piano a
tone quality and intonatio
significant differences in i
the experience level of the
intonation conditions betw

Method

We used a posttest-only design in both extensions. In contrast to the 1976 study:

1) we used both high school and university music student participants (rather than
music majors only), and 2) listeners were asked to rate each of the individual examples
on seven-point Likert-type scales (rather than a series of rank-order comparisons be-
tween excerpts). Intonation and tone quality were rated on separate scales that ranged
from 1 (representing very poor intonation or tone quality) to 7 (representing excellent
intonation or quality).
Each of the present studies had 120 different participants. Sixty of the listeners
were high school students enrolled in instrumental ensembles. Most of these students
were in ninth through eleventh grades and were participants in the second or third wind
band at their high school. Students from three different high schools were used. The
other 60 participants were music major students (both graduates and undergraduates)
enrolled in music degree programs at one of two large state universities.
We used the same musical phrase as in the original study, the first four measures
of "Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star" performed on trumpet in the key of concert F. The
original trumpet recordings (see Madsen & Geringer, 1976) served as the basis for the
updated versions used in the extensions: A professional performer played the phrase 20
times, attempting to play with very good and very bad tone quality while still maintain-

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan

ing accurate intonation (the

music faculty selected one be
had been monitored with a C
sidered to be approximations o
longer note durations, viz., s
bad examples were aurally di
Extension 1
The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the original study. Intona-
tion of the accompaniment, as was the case in the original, was manipulated relative to
the equal temperament standard (A4 = 440 Hz). The original accompaniment had been
recorded with a Johnson Intonation Trainer, which facilitated the tuning of the intona-
tion conditions that we utilized (accompaniment that was in-tune, flat 25 cents, and
sharp 50 cents). Accompaniment consisted of open triadic harmony in octaves other
than that of the trumpet melody. For the present two extensions, we wanted to improve
the sound quality of the accompaniment and made a new recording using an electronic
piano timbre realized on a Yamaha MU-80 Tone Generator. The performance of the
notes and tempo of the original accompaniment was approximated as closely as pos-
sible. We also transferred the original trumpet recordings from reel-to-reel audio tape
to digital format to facilitate subsequent recording, analysis, and editing.
During the preparation of the experimental tape, we used a Peterson 490 digital
tuner and discovered that not all of the tones in the 1976 trumpet recordings were
within ±2 cents of equal temperament as we had thought originally. In particular, tones
with short duration (the repeated quarter notes) in both good and bad quality versions
were as much as 10-15 cents sharp, and varied between and within tones. This was not
noticed in the earlier study because the Stroboconn tuner used at that time was not
capable of accurate readings with these tones of relatively short duration (without iso-
lating each tone on a separate tape loop). To remedy this for the present studies, we
analyzed the intonation of each of the individual tones in both the good and bad ver-
sions with the Peterson tuner. We then used Studio Vision Pro (version 4.2) to manipulate
the frequency of each trumpet tone to minimize deviations from the frequencies of
equal temperament. Studio Vision Pro is a professional quality DSP application that
allows digital editing of sound files, such as manipulating temporal aspects or in the
present case, frequency (pitch shift) without altering duration or quality parameters.
Following the "retuning" of the original trumpet performances, all trumpet tones in
good and bad quality versions were within ±2 cents (at least for most of the tones'
duration) of equal temperament.
We used four intonation conditions in Extension 1 : in-tune, flat accompaniment
(25 cents), sharp (25 cents) and sharp (50 cents) accompaniment. The sharp 25 cents
condition was not used in the original study. Each of the intonation conditions was
paired with the two tone quality conditions (good and bad) for a total of eight combina-
tions of intonation/tone quality. Two additional trials were placed at the beginning of
the experimental excerpts heard by listeners. These trials consisted of the two tone
quality versions of the musical phrase presented without accompaniment. Listeners
were asked to rate these examples of good and bad quality only in relationship to tone
quality. These trials were included in the original study and were intended to establish
that listeners could differentiate between the good and bad trumpet tone qualities when
heard without accompaniment. Four different orders of presentation for the experi-
mental trials were used to balance possible effects of order. Each of the trials had a
duration of 10 seconds. Between each of the ten trials was 10-seconds of recorded
music intended to reduce conceivable effects of tonal memory. We used inter-trial music
excerpts in unrelated keys and instrumentation from recordings by Pat Metheny in
both extensions (ECM 1278, Warner Brothers 9-46791-2, & Geffen 9-24245-2). Pre-
sentations of excerpts were made to participants in groups in their regular music
classrooms or ensemble rehearsal halls on compact discs and heard over loudspeakers.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 68

Extension 2
The purpose of the second extension was to investigate whether changing the
intonation of the trumpet, rather than the accompaniment, would affect listeners' rat-
ings of intonation and tone quality. The accompaniment was the same used in the first
extension, but the intonation of the electric piano was not manipulated and was tuned
to the equal temperament standard (A4 = 440 Hz). We used six levels of trumpet into-
nation relative to the piano accompaniment: in-tune, flat 25 cents, flat 15 cents, sharp
15 cents, sharp 25 cents, and sharp 35 cents. The changes in trumpet intonation were
accomplished with Studio Vision Pro and monitored with the Peterson tuner after re-
cording to verify intonation levels. Changes in duration and timbre were not perceivable
following manipulation of trumpet tones. Twelve excerpts were presented to 60 high
school and 60 college music majors (the two tone quality conditions combined with
the six intonation levels). Additionally, for 88 of the listeners, three trials were selected
randomly and were repeated (for a total of 15 trials) to establish internal consistency of
participant responses. The two trumpet tone quality conditions without accompani-
ment were not presented in this extension. Given the degree of discrimination in the
previous studies we determined that this was not necessary and speculated that the
unaccompanied trials may alert listeners to differences in quality that might not other-
wise be noticed. Excerpts were presented on compact disc (three different orders were
used) in regular music classrooms or ensemble rehearsal halls and heard over loud-
speakers. Trials were 10 seconds in duration, and excerpts from the same Pat Metheny
recordings were used for the duration of the inter-trial interval (10 seconds) to inhibit
tonal memory. Listeners again used 7-point rating scales and rated intonation and tone
quality of the examples.

Results

Extension 1
The first two trials presented were unaccompanied examples (as in the original
study in 1976). Listeners rated tone quality only on these two examples. A two-way
analysis of variance with one between subjects factor (the two experience levels of
participants) and one within subjects factor (the two qualities) was used to analyze the
ratings. There was not a significant difference (a < .01) between the high school and
college music major subjects, F (1, 118) = 1.9, p > .15, and listeners discriminated
between the two qualities when unaccompanied, F (1, 118) = 437.85, p < .001. The
mean rating for the unaccompanied good quality was 4.76, and the bad quality mean
was 2.50. Additionally, there was a statistical interaction between level and quality
condition, F ( 1 , 1 1 8) = 34. 1 8, p < .00 1 . High school participants were more extreme in
their ratings for the good (mean = 5.18) and bad quality (2.28) examples, compared to
ratings of the music majors (4.34 and 2.71, respectively). As in the original study,
listeners clearly could tell the difference in tone quality between the good and bad
trumpet tone quality conditions when examples were not accompanied.
A three way multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine the two sets of
ratings (tone quality and intonation) given to the eight accompanied excerpts. The
analysis incorporated one between subjects factor (participants' experience level) and
two within-subjects factors (the two tone quality conditions and the four intonation
conditions). Significant multivariate main effects were found for the tone quality con-
ditions, F (2, 117) = 191.32, p < .001; and for the intonation conditions, F (6, 113) =
132.75, p < .001; but not for experience level, F (2, 117) = 2.47, p > .08. There was a
significant multivariate interaction between tone quality and intonation, F (6, 1 13) = 5.38,
p < .001 . All other two way and three way multivariate interactions were not significant.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan

Subsequent univariate tests of

cant for tone quality ratings, F (
ratings, F (1, 118) = 69.89, p
higher in both tone quality (m
tone quality examples (2.85 and
condition were significant for
.001, and the intonation ratin
intonation ratings showed that
in-tune example means were
3.62, and sharp 50 cents mean
same sequence across the into
significant differences (4.74 for
for sharp 50 cents).
Univariate tests of the intera
nificant for both sets of ratin
tone quality ratings, both p < .
trials (ranging from 0.8 to 1.2
ratings. Intonation ratings we
followed by bad tone, in-tun
flat (3.79); bad tone, flat (3.45)
cents examples (2.34 for good
ratings were highest for the
tone, sharp 25 cents (4.88), go
tone, sharp 50 cents (3.47). As
was the bad tone, sharp 50 cen
was rated higher in quality th
quality examples, tone was rat
trials, intonation was rated hig
50 cents example for which bo
seven-point rating scale).

Figure 1 . Mean tone quality and i

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 70

Extension 2
The second extension incorporated a measure of internal consistency within the
test instrument. For 88 of the 120 participants, we included three duplicate items in
addition to the 12 experimental trials. Pearson correlation coefficients between the
repeated items were moderately high (.69, .73, and .75), and dependent sample t-tests
showed no significant differences between ratings for the same items, t < 1.4, df= 87,
p>.\5.
Similar to the first extension, we used a three-way multivariate analysis of vari-
ance to examine the two sets of ratings (tone quality and intonation) given to the twelve
accompanied excerpts. The analysis incorporated one between subjects factor (partici-
pants' experience level) and two within-subjects factors (the two tone quality conditions
and the six intonation conditions). There was not a significant multivariate difference
between the high school and music major participants. Main effects were found for the
tone quality (F (2, 117) = 164.67, p < .001) and intonation (F (10, 109) = 42.23,
p < .001) variables. The interaction between participant level and tone quality was not
significant, however, significant multivariate two-way interactions were found
between level and intonation condition, F (10, 109) = 6.22, p < .001, and tone quality
and intonation, F (10, 109) = 9.62, p < .001. The three-way interaction between all
three factors was significant also, F ( 10, 109) = 2.64, p < .01 .
The tone quality variable affected ratings of both intonation, F (1, 118) = 202.50,
p < .001, and tone quality, F (1, 1 18) = 271.85, p < .001. The good quality examples
resulted in higher intonation mean ratings (4.53) compared to the bad quality examples
(3.35). Similarly, mean quality ratings for good (4.58) were significantly higher than
for bad quality (3.04). Intonation conditions also affected ratings of both intonation
(F {5, 590} = 99.62, p < .001) and quality (F {5, 590} = 49.87, p < .001). Figure 2
shows both the mean intonation and quality ratings for the six intonation conditions.
The Scheffé comparison procedure revealed no significant difference in intonation
ratings between the in-tune (mean = 4.50) and sharp 15 cents (4.64) conditions, or
between the flat 25 cents (3.08) and sharp 35 cents (3.07) means. All other means were
significantly different from each other. In-tune and sharp 15 cents were rated much
higher than the other conditions. Flat 15 cents was rated higher than sharp 25 cents,
which in turn was rated higher than the two with lowest ratings, flat 25 cents and sharp
35 cents. Scheffé analysis of tone quality ratings was similar to the intonation results:
there was no significant difference in quality ratings between in-tune and sharp 15
cents. These two conditions were rated higher than the others. Differences in judged
quality between the three lowest in ratings (sharp 25 cents, flat 25 cents, and sharp 35
cents) were not significant.
Univariate analysis of the interaction between participant level and intonation
condition revealed a difference for intonation ratings, F (5, 590) = 19.28, p < .001, but
not for tone quality ratings, F (5, 590) = 2.94, p > .01. High school students rated the
sharp 15 cents examples higher than the in-tune versions, the flat 15 cents and sharp 25
cents examples were similar, and the sharp 35 cents examples were rated higher than
flat 25 cents. Ratings of music majors dropped steadily from in-tune and sharp 15 cents
(which were rated similarly) through the other conditions (flat 15, sharp 25, flat 25,
and sharp 35 cents).
The interaction between tone quality and intonation conditions was significant in
univariate analyses for both rating scales. Means for intonation ratings, F (5, 590) =
23.67, p < .00 1 , were highest in the sharp 1 5 cents condition in bad tone quality perfor-
mances (followed by in-tune, flat 15, sharp 25, sharp 35, and flat 25 cents). See Figure
3. In the good tone quality examples, the in-tune intonation was rated highest
(followed by sharp 15, flat 15, and the sharp 25, flat 25, and sharp 35 cents examples
were rated similarly). Tone quality means followed a similar pattern: highest ratings in
quality were associated with the sharp 15 cents intonation in bad quality examples, and
with in-tune intonation in good quality examples.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan

Figure 2. Mean tone quality and in

Figure 3. Mean intonation and qual

(Extension 2).

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
72

Univariate analyses of the

significant for intonation
ratings, F (5, 590) = 1 .78, p
and music majors rated the
sic majors rated the 15 cen
cent deviations similarly. H
have as large a spread bet
sharp 35 cents, flat 15 cen
presented with bad trumpet
highest in intonation. For m
25 cents with similar ratin
ratings. High school listene
than the in-tune versions,

Figure 4. Mean intonation rat

variables (Extension 2).

Summary and
Participants in the first e
good and bad trumpet ton
consistent with the original
intentionally to exaggerate
In the 1976 study, listene
companied context were not
influenced by the intonatio
the present extensions, ho
markedly higher for the g
exception to this pattern: th
in quality than the good qua
flat version. This indicates

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan

the second extension, all of t

ity examples in quality rating
and the two extensions seem
participants. The relative sali
extensions in two ways: The
level relative to the trumpet
organ timbre of the Johnson
contributed to make the solo v
able to hear quality difference
nation of all of the trumpet t
the likely confounding influe
original did not occur in the
There were no main effect o
mental students and universi
there was not a main effect d
with intonation. High school li
others and sharp 35 cents exam
was a three-way interaction
intonation rating scale (see F
range in intonation ratings as
students rated the in-tune pe
flat 25 cents. Majors rated th
the in-tune example. This ou
across experience levels (e.g
enced listeners discriminate
did not show a greater procli
listeners, as has been found i
The greatest incongruity bet
ences in intonation ratings
accompaniments significantly
accompaniment (a condition w
nificantly higher than flat 2
the sharp (50 cents) examples
study: in-tune and sharp (50
and significantly higher than
disparity is likely a result of
in the original study. As noted
sharp relative to equal temper
but within the duration of t
nized in 1976, but it does help
cents) accompaniment in the o
so sharp relative to the trum
tune" accompaniment was act
and envelope of the accompan
ences in outcome.
Results of the second extension (wherein intonation of the trumpet was manipu-
lated rather than the accompaniment) revealed higher ratings in both intonation and
tone quality for the in-tune and sharp (15 cents) good quality performances, which
were not different from each other, compared to flat (15 cents) and sharp (25 cents)
trumpet (Figure 2). The significant interaction between tone quality and intonation
revealed that across the bad quality performances, sharp (15 cents) was rated signifi-
cantly higher (in both intonation and quality) than in-tune, sharp 25 cents, and flat 15
cents conditions which had similar ratings. In contrast, for good quality performances
the in-tune trumpet examples received highest ratings (Figure 3). We explored several

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 74

possible explanations for th

quality compared to good qu
harmonics in both tones did
of the fundamental, which
Analysis of the first four f
sistent pattern of forman
analysis, however, of the tw
good trumpet tone quality
good quality graphic (upper
5KHz throughout the excer
monic. Inspection of the ba
above the 10th harmonic. P
quality with sharpness and
thy, 1999). Present results
examples were darker in qu
Listeners' ratings demonstr
sions were made slightly
"in-tune" with the accomp
sounded relatively flat).

Figure 5. Spectrographs of g
(lower panel).

As in previous studies in this line, participants could clearly discriminate good

from bad performances. Both intonation and tone quality appear extremely important
to listener perceptions and global judgments of performances (see Geringer & Madsen,
1998). Present results indicate that the relative importance of tone quality in overall
judgments of trumpet performance was underestimated in the 1976 study, and that the
magnitude of preference for sharp intonation was overestimated. The second extension
(which seems more applicable to instructional settings since trumpet intonation was

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Geringer, Madsen, and Dunnigan

varied rather than the accom

and in-tune performances ar
performances. Subsequent stu
mance aspects of the multidim
intonation and other elements within music contexts.

References

Brittin, R. V. ( 1 993). Effects of upper and lower register accompaniment on intonation.

Journal of Band Research, 29 (1), 43-50.
Cassidy, J. W. (1989). The effect of instrument type, stimulus timbre, and stimulus
octave placement on tuning accuracy. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Edu-
cation, 26, 7-23.
Duke, R. A. (1985). Wind instrumentalists' intonational performance of selected musi-
cal intervals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 33, 101-111.
Ely, M. C. (1992). Effects of timbre on college woodwind players' intonation perfor-
mance and perception. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 158-167.
Geringer, J. M. (1978). Intonational performance and perception of ascending scales.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 32-40.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1981). Verbal and operant discrimination/prefer-
ence for tone quality and intonation. Psychology of Music, 9, 26-30.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1987). Programmatic research in music: Perception
and performance of intonation. In C. K. Madsen & C. A. Prickett (Eds.), Applica-
tions of research in music behavior (pp. 244-253). Tuscaloosa, Al: University of
Alabama Press.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1989). Pitch and tone quality discrimination and
preference: Evidence for a hierarchical model of musical elements. Canadian Music
Educator: Special Research Edition, 30, 29-38.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1995/1996). Focus of attention to elements: Listen-
ing patterns of musicians and nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education, 127, 80-87.
Geringer, J. M., & Madsen, C. K. (1998). Musicians' ratings of good versus bad vocal
and string performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 522-534.
Geringer, J. M., & Worthy, M. D. (1999). Effects of tone-quality changes on intonation
and tone-quality ratings of high school and college instrumentalists. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 47, 135-149.
Greer, R. D. (1970). The effect of timbre on brass-wind intonation. Experimental Re-
search in Music: Studies in the Psychology of Music, 6, 65-94.
Krumhansl, C. L., & Iverson, P. (1992). Perceptual interactions between musical pitch
and timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-
mance, 78,739-751.
Madsen, C. K. (1974). Sharpness and flatness in scalar solo vocal performance. Sci-
ences de V Art/Scientific Aesthetics, 9(1), 91-97.
Madsen, C. K., Edmonson, F. A., & Madsen, C.H., Jr. (1969). Modulated frequency
discrimination in relationship to age and musical training. Journal of the Acousti-
cal Society of America, 46 (6), 1468-1472.
Madsen, C. K., & Flowers, P. J. (1981). Effect of tuning in an attempt to compensate for
pitch/quality errors in flute/oboe duets. Contributions to Music Education, 5, 2-9.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1976). Preferences for trumpet tone quality versus
intonation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 46, 13-22.
Madsen, C. K., & Geringer, J. M. (1981). Discrimination between tone quality and
intonation in unaccompanied flute/oboe duets. Journal of Research in Music Edu-
cation, 29,305-313.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 76

Madsen, C. K., & Geringer

cus of attention of mus
Research in Music Educat
Morrison, S. (2000). Effect
the intonation accuracy o
48,39-51.
Papich, G., & Rainbow, E. (1974). A pilot study of performance practices of twentieth
century musicians. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22, 24-34.
Plomp, R. (1976). Aspects of tone sensation. New York: Academic Press.
Salzberg, R. S. (1980). The effects of visual stimulus and instruction on intonation
accuracy of string instrumentalists. Psychology of Music, 8 (2), 42-49.
Singh, P. G., & Hirsh, I. J. (1992). Influence of spectral locus and F0 changes on the
pitch and timbre of complex tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
92,2650-2661.
Sogin, D. W. (1989). An analysis of string instrumentalists' performed intonational
adjustments within an ascending and descending pitch set. Journal of Research in
Music Education, 37, 104- 1 1 1 .
Swaffield, W. R. (1974). Effect of melodic parameters on ability to make fine-tuning
responses in context. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22, 305-312.
Wapnick, J., & Freeman, P. (1980). Effects of dark-bright timbrai variation on the
perception of flatness and sharpness. Journal of Research in Music Education,
28, 176-184.
Worthy, M. D. (2000). Effects of tone-quality conditions on perception and perfor-
mance of pitch among selected wind instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 48, 222-236.
Yarbrough, C, Morrison, S., & Karrick, (1997). The effect of experience, private in-
struction, and knowledge of directional mistunings on the tuning performance and
perception of high school wind players. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 134, 31-42.

This content downloaded from 216.87.207.12 on Mon, 17 Sep 2018 02:24:36 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms