“But they told me it was professional”: Extrinsic factors in the evaluation of musical performance

[CMOT]

Psychology of Music Paper

Abstract
This study investigated the performance preferences of listeners without formal training in music. Specifically, it asked whether the quality of the performance (as represented by the status of the performer), the order of presentation of the performances, and extrinsic information about the quality of the performance impacted preferences. In Experiment 1, participants heard pairs of performances of solo piano music and were informed that one was played by a conservatory student, and one by a world-renowned professional. After each pair, they selected the one they thought had been performed by the professional. Their responses seem to have been driven by a combination of a preference for the performance actually played by the professional and a preference for the second performance in the pair. In Experiment 2, they heard the same performance pairs, but this time were informed, correctly or incorrectly, before each performance whether it was played by a student or by a professional. After each pair, they selected the performance they preferred. This time, their responses were influenced not just by the actual performer identity and the order of presentation, but also by the priming condition. Listener preferences seem to be driven by a combination of factors intrinsic and extrinsic to the performance itself.

 

[CMOT]

Not sure why this is on ASR, but if we discuss wine, cars and knives, then why not the psychology of musical performance perception?*

I am confused. This seems very relevant to ASR along multiple dimensions. First and foremost, it demonstrates that individuals' preferences are subject to influence from external factors that are not part of the actual *auditory* signal. If this doesn't sound familiar to you, I am not sure what to say. A decent chunk of ASR is devoted to people claiming things and others pointing out that without double blind, ABX testing, one can't isolate one's judgments from external factors - cost, appearance, etc. This paper scientifically demonstrates that (I know there are other such demonstrations, but more data is always good).

Second, it is interesting because it falls within the actual topic domain of ASR - music. Presumably people are chatting on ASR about equipment to listen to podcasts... Another good chunk of ASR is devoted to music, music performance, and music experiences. So the fact that beliefs about those performance seem to influence their experiences is interesting. Apparently cash-strapped symphonies can hire some hacks, dress them in formal wear, explain how they are musical discoveries, and people will enjoy the experience??? (it doesn't really say that, I am being hyperbolic).

But music performance is the first step in the chain that we are discussing. So it is interesting that expectations can influence even that step. A bit more surprising than being sucked into beliefs about pure copper or handcrafted discrete circuits, etc.

 

[Frgirard]

why not the psychology of musical performance perception?*



* Psychology is not my field of expertise and I am highly critical of people who claim to undertake and publish research in fields they are not expert

Please stop.

 

[CMOT]

I will just note I posted this in the forum entitled “Psychoacoustics: Science of How We Hear”. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Speedskater]

Without out reading the paper.
Were both recordings done on the same piano, on the same day?

 

[CMOT]

Without out reading the paper.
Were both recordings done on the same piano, on the same day?

Nope:
Stimuli were 90–120 second segments of 8 piano pieces from the common practice period (see Appendix 1). For each piece, one performance by a conservatory student and one by a world-renowned professional were selected as stimuli. Student performances were drawn from user-uploaded recordings on the internet as well as email submissions from graduate and post- graduate students of piano. Professional performances were drawn from commercially available recordings. The excerpts were specifically selected in order to minimize differences in recording quality. The excerpts were trimmed so that they started and ended at the same moment in each piece, and were edited to make volume levels and static noise consistent across recordings.

But since the effect reversed depending on condition, recording differences can't explain the effect.

 

[Speedskater]

With so many uncontrolled variables, the paper was just wheel spinning.

 

[CMOT]

With so many uncontrolled variables, the paper was just wheel spinning.

Please explain the specifics of your concerns. Otherwise you comment is just "wheel spinning". it is Audio SCIENCE Review...

 

[TLEDDY]

Although interested in the paper, there is a paywall requirement to read the entirety. That said, not interested enough to pay the required amount.

 

[mkt]

https://sci-hub.do/https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616642543

 

[CMOT]

It isn’t worth it. The abstract really explains the basic findings which are consistent with similar studies on wine tasting etc. mostly interesting because it was using musical performance which is first step in our listening chain. Also that if music marketing makes us believe the performer is higher quality then we perceive it that way (within limits). So another place to liberally apply snake oil! I guess in some sense this is exactly what MQA is trying to do!

 

[pozz]

With so many uncontrolled variables, the paper was just wheel spinning.

You'll find the kind of setup used in this test common in the psychology of music. A lot of it is to do with practicality of the experiment and experience of the experimenter, and most importantly their goals. The results are still useful even if the experiment is less controlled than it otherwise could be.

I took some same/different melody tests which used a single synthesized piano note and a scrambled set of intervals. This was a hypercontrolled test. Everything was the same except the intervals in the melody: same tempo, same amount of notes, same duration, no change in amplitude envelope of each note. Single play with no ability to repeat. And the melodies weren't so much composed as randomized. It was a totally artificial environment because all the experimenters wanted was to understand the instantaneous ability to distinguish between intervals and lace them together into distinct sequences. I was initially really taken aback because none of this is explained to you up front (another control, since the intention is to collect data before the subject has a chance to adapt, wherein their scores become better). But it became obvious that once you take away every other cue found in music, like timbre, onset and decay, variations in tempo and tuning, it becomes much, much harder to recognize small differences in melody. Which is what they were going for. I assume the data also allowed them to quantify this ability to some extent.

 

[pozz]

Also that if music marketing makes us believe the performer is higher quality then we perceive it that way (within limits).

Honestly the performers should be more willing to read this kind of stuff. It's so hard to judge your own work, and it's easy to inflate your ability due to success or deflate it when listening to someone more successful than yourself. Would make for better musicians in the long run.

 

[CMOT]

Honestly the performers should be more willing to read this kind of stuff. It's so hard to judge your own work, and it's easy to inflate your ability due to success or deflate it when listening to someone more successful than yourself. Would make for better musicians in the long run.

For years, some areas in academics review all papers blind - because we know there are halo effects that lead readers to believe some science is better than others - reversing the names and other associated qualities reverses the judgments (within limits). So maybe all music should come that way - in brown paper wrappers!

 

[pozz]

For years, some areas in academics review all papers blind - because we know there are halo effects that lead readers to believe some science is better than others - reversing the names and other associated qualities reverses the judgments (within limits). So maybe all music should come that way - in brown paper wrappers!

Ha! Might not be a bad idea. Certainly I tell myself to keep my own fanboyism in check sometimes.

 

[Wes]

It would work only in very large fields. You already know who everybody is and what they've been working on. Moving the order of authors around might be fun tho.