A Profile of Rehearsal Techniq

INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality of the material submitted
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clanfy markings or

notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1 The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copynghted materials that should not have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame If
copynghted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3 When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material bemg photographed,
a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. Foi illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy These prints aie available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.
University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8302966
Pontious.Melvin Floyd
A PROFILE OF REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES AND INTERACTION OF

SELECTED BAND CONDUCTORS
University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign ED.D. 1982
University
Microfilms
I n t © m 8 t i OH31 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI48106
A PROFILE OF REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES AND INTERACTION
OF SELECTED BAND CONDUCTORS
BY
MELVIN FLOYD PONTIOUS
B.Mus.Ed., Wichita S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956

Ed.Mus.M., Oberlin College, 1958
THESIS
Submitted in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education in Music Education
i n the Graduate College of t h e
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign, 1982
Urbana, I l l i n o i s
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
THE GRADUATE COLLEGE
J5aptember, 19ft?
WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS BY
MELVIN FLOYD POMTTOIIS
F.KTTTTT.F.n A PROFILE OF REHEARSAT. TRRHNrOIISS Attn TMTttR Ar.TTP L
OF SELECTED mim nnwnnr.TnBs
BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF.
Head of Department
Committeemen Final Examinatio
t Required foi doctor's degree but not for master's
O 517
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although only one name appears a s the a u t h o r , thi3 dissertation
represents the work and counsel of many. My family has supported me
wholeheartedly in t h i s p r o j e c t , as i n o t h e r s . An e s p e c i a l acknowledg-
ment is due my w i f e , Dorothy, not o n l y for m a t e r i a l a s s i s t a n c e in t h e
d i s s e r t a t i o n , but a l s o for t h e encouragement s h e has given and patience
she has shown during i t s g e s t a t i o n . The a s s i s t a n c e and s u p p o r t of my
cheering s e c t i o n , my daughters Linda and Karen, have also been vital.
The memory of my p a r e n t s , f o r the model of perseverance which was n e c e s -
s a r y for t h e completion of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , has been i n v a l u a b l e .
Most of a l l , c r e d i t must be given Dr. Charles Leonhard for the
counsel and guidance he has given, not only on this p a p e r , but
throughout my d o c t o r a l s t u d i e s . His influence on musl c education in
America is t r u l y beyond e s t i m a t e . I t has a l s o been my p r i v i l e g e t o work
w i t h Dr. Richard Colwell, whose enthusiasm, friendship, and keen in-
s i g h t s into problems of r e s e a r c h have been e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l .
I am indebted t o the f i v e high school band d i r e c t o r s , who must be
unnamed, for t h e i r g e n e r o s i t y and c o o p e r a t i o n in allowing me t o video-
t a p e t h e i r r e h e a r s a l s . Thanks also t o Dr. Dave Peters, for his last
minute s u b s t i t u t i o n on my t h e s i s committee.
I t r e a s u r e most deeply my work with Dr. Harry Begian, s u r e l y the
dean of band d i r e c t o r s in Araerioa. Band d i r e c t o r s everywhere owe him a

iv
great d e a l for h i s musical s t a n d a r d s , which have c o n t r i b u t e d so much to
the s t a t u s of bands in America. I personally am g r e a t l y indebted t o him
for his f r i e n d s h i p , generosity* encouragement, and example of musician-
s h i p , which have been and continue t o be strong influences i n my l i f e .
F i n a l l y , I am grateful for my a s s o c i a t i o n with my very dear
friend, Dr. Tom Harris, with whom I shared the conducting i n t e r n s h i p
under Dr. Begian and whom I knew f o r a l l t o o short a period of time.

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ill
LIST OF TABLES vl
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Description of the Study 4
The Purpose . 4
The Problem. 4
Definitions 6
Delimitations 8
Procedure 9
Need for the Study 24
Organization of the Study 25
II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 26
Interaction Analysis in General Education 26

Interaction Analysis in Music Education 33
Summary 62
III. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA 67
Introduction 67
Subproblem 1 69
Subproblem 2. .79
Subproblem 3 101
Subproblem 4 126
Subproblem 5 130
Subproblem 6 .. 144
Subproblem 7 . 147
Subproblem 8 ,. 156
Subproblem 9 165
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 173
Summary 173
Conclusions 174
Recommendations 181
APPENDIX , 183
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 254
VITA 262
V i
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Conductor A: Percentages of Total Behavior 70
2. Conductor B: Percentages of Total Behavior 72
3. Conductor C: Percentages of Total Behavior 73
4. Conductor D: Percentages of Total Behavior 75
5. Conductor E: Percentages of Total Behavior 77
6. Summary: Percentages of Total Bahavior 78
7. Conductor A: Frequency and Percentages of 81

References to the Elements
8. Conductor A: Time and Percentages of 82
9. Conductor A: Time per Reference in Seconds 83
10. Conductor B: Frequency and Percentages of 84

11. Conductor B: Time and Percentages of 85
12. Conductor B: Time per Reference in Seconds 86
13. Conductor C: Frequency and Percentages of 88

14. Conductor C: Time and Percentages of 89
15. Conductor C: Time per Reference in Seconds 90
16. Conductor D: Frequency and Percentages of 92

vii
17. Conductor D: Time and Percentages of 93
18. Conductor D: Time per Reference in Seconds ..94
19. Conductor E: Frequency and Percentages of 95

20. Conductor E: Time and Percentages of 96
21. Conductor E: Time per Reference in Seconds 97
?2. Summary Data: References to the Elements 99
23. Difficulty and Prior Rehearsal Data 102
24. Conductor A: Analysis Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 103
25. Conductor A: Analysis Based on Difficulty 105
26. Conductor B: Analysis Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 108
27. Conductor B: Analysis Based on Difficulty 111
28. Conductor C: Analysis Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 112
29. Conductor C: Analysis Based on Difficulty 114
30. Conductor D: Analysis Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 116
31. Conductor D: Analysis Based on Difficulty..". 117
32. Conductor E: Analysis Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 120
33. Conductor E: Analysis Based on Difficulty 122
34. Summary Data Based on Prior Rehearsal Time 124
35. Summary Data Based on Difficulty 125
36. Verbal Interaction Data During Active Rehearsal 129
37. Conductor A: Time and Frequency Data for the 131

viii
Three Rehearsal Techniques
38. Conductor B: Time and Frequency Data for the 133

39. Conductor C: Time and Frequency Data for the 134

40. Conductor D: Time and Frequency Data for the «• 136

41. Conducts" E: Time and Frequency Data for the 137

42. Percentage of Time per Technique Based on 138

Total Technique Time
43. Percentage of References per Technique Based 139

on Total References
44. Average Time per Reference 142
45. Frequency and Time Data for Rehearsal Trials .....146
46. Conductor A: Rehearsal Trial Time and 149

Frequency Data
47. Conductor B: Rehearsal Trial Time and 150

Frequency Data
48. Conductor C: Rehearsal Trial Time and 152

Frequency Data
49. Conductor D: Rehearsal Trial Time and 154

Frequency Data
50. Summary: Rehearsal Trial Time and 155

Frequency Data
51. Conductor A: Data on Rehearsal Trials at 158

Less Than a Phrase and a Phrase or More
52. Conductor B: Data on Rehearsal Trials at 160

ix
53. Conductor C: Data on Rehearsal Trials at 161

54. Conductor D: Data on Rehearsal Trials at 162

55. Summary Data on Rehearsal Trials at Less 164

Than a Phrase and a Phrase or More
X
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Anderson' a Categories 28
2 . Categories for the Social-Emotional Climate Index 30
3 • Flanders' I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis Categories 32
4 . Hough-Duncan's Observational System f o r

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis 34
5 . Snapp's Modified System of I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis
for Music Classes 36
6 . Hough's Observational System for I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis 38
7 . Whitehlll»s Modification of Flanders' C a t e g o r i e s 41
8 . Erbes' Rehearsal I n t e r a c t i o n Observation System 46
9 • Pagano' s Modification of t h e Flanders' Categories 48
10. Kirkwood's Classroom Music Analysis System 51
11. Reynolds' Modified Observational System f o r

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis 56
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Much e d u c a t i o n a l research of the past twenty years has been
devoted to the a n a l y s i s of successful l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s in o r d e r t o
determine the factors characteristic of effective teaching. Such
research has concentrated mainly on the techniques, methods, and o r d e r
of p r e s e n t a t i o n by t h e t e a c h e r .
Some of t h e research has revealed t h e influence of the soclo-
emotional climate in the learning s i t u a t i o n on student a t t i t u d e and
achievement. Further, it has been found that this atmosphere is
determined largely by the n a t u r e of the t e a c h e r ' s i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the

i
students.
A result of this latter research has been Inquiry into
observational techniques by which the verbal interaction, or
communication, between teacher and student may be c a t e g o r i z e d . Numerous
systems have been devised t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e analysis of the c o g n i t i v e ,
psychomotor, and affective dimensions of this teacher-student
interaction. The most

widely used a f f e c t i v e system, i n both o r i g i n a l
2
and modified forms, i s that of F l a n d e r s . Building on t h e e a r l i e r works
Ned A. F l a n d e r s , Teacher I n f l u e n c e , Pupil A t t i t u d e s , and

Achievement, F i n a l Report Cooperative Research P r o j e c t No. 397,
U.S. Office of Education (University of Minnesota, 1960), p. 12.
p
Ned A. F l a n d e r s , Analyzing Teaching Behavior, (Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing C o . , 1970), p . 34.
1
2
of Anderson and Withall, he developed and refined an interaction
analysis system designed to facilitate d e s c r i p t i o n of the classroom
climate on the b a s i s of the t e a c h e r ' s verbal b e h a v i o r s .
There is a difficulty in applying classroom observational
systems, with classroom-derived categories, to dissimilar a r e a s of
instruction. For i n s t a n c e , because t h e organization and purposes of a
performance class, such as chorus or band, d i f f e r from those of an
ordinary classroom, an a n a l y s i s system with c a t e g o r i e s s p e c i f i c to the
interaction of performance groups i s necessary. This was the problem
addressed by Erbes in 1972. Noting the call from several sources,
including the Tanglewood Symposium, for an improvement i n large group
i n s t r u c t i o n , he recognized t h a t
" . . a systematic means must be found to provide the music educator

with the techniques necessary t o improve h i s r o l e not only as a
conductor but as a f a c i l i t a t o r of l e a r n i n g in rehearsal
situations."
The instrument which he developed for t h e purpose of rehearsal
analysis, the Rehearsal I n t e r a c t i o n Observation System (RIOS), i s the
Harold H. Anderson, e t a l . , "Studies of Teachers' Class-

room P e r s o n a l i t i e s , I I I , " Applied Psychology Monographs, No. 11,
(Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford University P r e s s , 1946).
11
John W i t h a l l , "Development of a Climate Index," Journal of
Educational Research, 45 (1951), pp. 93-99.
5
Robert Erbes, "The Development of an Observational System
for t h e Analysis of I n t e r a c t i o n in t h e Rehearsal of Musical Organ-
i z a t i o n s , " (Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s , 1972).
6
I b i d . , p . 14.
3
f i r s t rigorous and comprehensive modification of Flanders' systea for
the rehearsal situation. Expanded from t e n to eleven c a t e g o r i e s , I t i s
applicable to both choral and instrumental rehearsals and, like
Flanders' system, is concerned mainly w i t h the a f f e c t i v e dimension of
teacher-student i n t e r a c t i o n .
The work of Erbes and o t h e r s i n classroom i n t e r a c t i o n i s based on
the conclusion that " t h e behavior of t h e t e a c h e r , more than any o t h e r
i n d i v i d u a l , s e t s t h e climate of t h e c l a s s . " ' The behaviors by which the
conductor attempts to effect the desired changes in t h e ensemble's
performance are r e f e r r e d t o as " r e h e a r s a l t e c h n i q u e s . " The indirect or
d i r e c t n a t u r e of t h e s e techniques i s the a r e a of concern in t h a t form of
i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s which attempts to determine classroom c l i m a t e .
The conductor's emphasis on the various elements of performance,
such as pitch, rhythm, phrasing/dynamics, e t c . , i s a l s o an important
c o n s i d e r a t i o n in e f f e c t i v e ensemble i n s t r u c t i o n . An examination of t h i s
area, combined with a study of r e h e a r s a l c l i m a t e , would form a more
complete p r o f i l e s t u d y of t h e conductor's r e h e a r s a l behaviors than that
afforded by the RIOS c a t e g o r i e s a l o n e . This would be of g r e a t benefit
t o the music educator in h i s attempts to "render.. .the rehearsal more

o
r e l e v a n t and v a l u a b l e . "
7
Ned A. Flanders, Teacher I n f l u e n c e , Pupil A t t i t u d e s , and
Achievement, Final Report, Cooperative Research Project No. 397,
U . S . Office of Education ( U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, 1960), p . 4.
Q
Robert Choate, e d . , Documentary Report of the Tanglewood

Symposium (Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference,
1968), p. 137.
4
The present study was designed to extend t h e r e s e a r c h i n the a r e a
of rehearsal interaction. Specifically, the i n v e s t i g a t o r sought t o
e s t a b l i s h a r e h e a r s a l p r o f i l e of s u c c e s s f u l , experienced band conductors
of Class A and AA high schools, involving an examination both of
r e h e a r s a l climate and rehearsal t e c h n i q u e s .
Description of the Study
Purpose
The purpose of t h i s study was to analyze and classify selected
components of the r e h e a r s a l behaviors of s u c c e s s f u l band conductors.
The Problem
The problem was as follows: What is the socio-emotional climate
of t h e r e h e a r s a l s of successful, experienced band conductors; with what
elements of instrumental performance are they concerned; and what
behaviors do they employ in attempting to r e s o l v e these concerns?
From a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the problem, the following subproblems
were derived:
1. What i s the a f f e c t i v e nature of the conductors' rehearsal
interaction?
2 . To what e x t e n t , i n terms of time and frequency, i s the verbal
communication of the conductors focused on t h e various elements of
performance; a ) p i t c h ; b) rhythm; c) a r t i c u l a t i o n ; d) phrasing/dynamics;
e ) tone q u a l i t y ; f) s t y l e ; g ) tone production; and h) balance?

5
3. To what extent, In terms of time and frequency, do the
conductors' attention to the various elements of Instrumental
performance vary with the difficulty of each composition and the amount
of previous rehearsal?
4. What is the frequency of conductor talk during rehearsal and
the ratio of conductor talk to rehearsal time?
5. To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, do the
rehearsal techniques used by the conductors involve a) demonstration; b)
verbal explanation; and c) verbal imagery?
conductors conduct and/or monitor rehearsal trials?
conductors concern themselves with a) a single performer; b) one section
of performers; c) more than one section, but not all; and d) all
performers?
conductors concern themselves with a) less than a musical phrase; and b)
a musical phrase or more?
9. Do the rehearsals conform to a pattern of Synthesis-
Analysis-Synthesis as advocated by Leonhard and House?

6
Definitions
Successful band conductors - those conductors who, through a
minimum of five years of instruction with their present performing
group, have received Superior (Division I) ratings at the State
Organizations Contest in at least the three preceding years.
Class AA and A_ - classifications of schools on the basis of
enrollment. Class AA schools are those with 1601 or more students
enrolled. Those with 801 to 1600 students are Class A.
Interaction - the communication that occurs between the conductor
and performers during rehearsal. Although this communication is usually
verbal, it can also occur in the form of non-verbal demonstration, such
as counting and/or clapping a rhythm pattern or vocalizing a melodic
line.
Pitch - the location of a musical 3ound in the tonal scale as
perceived aurally. Considerations of pitch would be involved in the
aspects of melody, harmony, intonation, range, and register.
Rhythm - the prescribed temporal order in which musical sounds
are produced. Considerations of rhythm would be involved in the aspects
of duration, pulse, tempo, and precision of entrances and releases.
Articulation - the manner in which a given pitch is initiated
and/or released. Considerations of articulation would be involved in
the processes of tonguing and slurring.

7
Phrasing/Dynamics - the definition of certain units of the
composition through an intensification and relaxation of the levels of
amplitude.
Tone Quality - the timbre, or characteristic sound, of a given
instrument in a musically effective way.
Style - the characteristics and mannerisms inherent in a musical
genre, in music of a given era, or in the music of a particular
composer.
Tone Production - those concepts, principles, and technical
skills which are related to the creation of aurally pleasing musical
sounds characteristic of a given instrument.
Balance - that condition in which the contribution to the total
musical effect of each of the voices sounding at a given time is not
obscured by the other voices. Considerations of balance would be
involved in the clarity of the melodic line, in the equalization of
amplitude of the various voices, and In the overall texture of a
composition at any given place.
Rehearsal Trials - the performance of music or practice exercises
by one, some, or all members of the ensemble under the conductor's
supervision. A rehearsal trial may vary in length between a part of a
measure and a complete composition.
Demonstration - an act of modeling by the conductor in an attempt
to clarify certain concepts or technical skills related to performance.

8
Verbal Explanation - trie use of language and possibly audio-
visual media by the conductor in order to c l a r i f y c e r t a i n concepts or
t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s r e l a t e d t o performance.
Verbal Imagery - the use of analogy or imagery (metaphor, s i m i l e ,
or other figure of speech) t o help c l a r i f y c e r t a i n concepts r e l a t e d to
musical e x p r e s s i v e n e s s .
Delimitations
The study was l i m i t e d to a sample of Class A and AA high school
band d i r e c t o r s 1) who were employed i n Northern I l l i n o i s ; 2) who met the
c r i t e r i a , s t a t e d e a r l i e r , f o r successful band conductors; 3) who were
ranked by an expert panel as being outstanding in the l i s t thus
compiled; and 4) who responded affirmatively to a letter requesting
permission to videotape t h e i r r e h e a r s a l s .
The i n v e s t i g a t o r assumed that t h e samples represented the target
population of experienced, successful band conductors. This assumption
was supported by the c r i t e r i a for the s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s (five y e a r s '
experience and t h r e e consecutive Division I r a t i n g s ) . The c r i t e r i o n of
r a t i n g s made f e a s i b l e the assumption t h a t the ensembles themselves were
sufficiently advanced to generalize musical fundamentals to the
performance s i t u a t i o n .
F i n a l l y , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r assumed that t h e amount of time which a
conductor devoted to the various elements of instrumental performance;
the frequency with which he addressed them; and the techniques and
9
manner he employed in addressing them are valid d e s c r i p t o r s of t h e
conductor's r e h e a r s a l behavior.
Procedure
The Class A and AA high schools in IMEA D i s t r i c t s 2, 7, and 8
(North Central I l l i n o i s ) which met the c r i t e r i o n of a Division I r a t i n g
for the past t h r e e years were determined through a check of the records
of the Illinois High School Association. A letter requesting
information f o r a research study was sent to the band d i r e c t o r s of those
schools. The response, on an enclosed postcard, determined those who
met t h e c r i t e r i o n of l e n g t h of employment. A sample letter and card
appear i n Appendices A and B.
A l i s t of 21 conductors thus obtained was submitted to an expert
panel of t h r e e college band d i r e c t o r s . The panel was asked to rank t h e
seven names on the l i s t whom they judged to be the most outstanding.
Since the quality of c o l l e g e - l e v e l ensembles i s dependent to a marked
degree on the q u a l i t y of the high school programs within the state,
c o l l e g e band d i r e c t o r s a r e highly aware of the outstanding band programs
within the s t a t e . The c o l l e g e d i r e c t o r s s e l e c t e d for the panel were
e s p e c i a l l y knowledgeable In t h i s a r e a .
The i n v e s t i g a t o r combined t h e s e l e c t i o n s of the panel and sent
l e t t e r s describing the study in a g e n e r a l way t o the five highest-ranked
candidates and asked their permission to video-tape two of their
r e h e a r s a l s of not more than one hour each. All five schools represented
by t h e conductors were c l a s s AA.

10
The objective of the study was stated a3 a research project, the
findings of which would be useful in the preservlce and in-service
training of band conductors. The investigator's concern with the nature
of the conductor's interaction and the elements of instrumental
performance was not mentioned until after the recordings were completed.
The conductors were informed that the musical worth of the ensembles was
not being evaluated; that only the investigator and an assistant would
have access to the recordings; and that the tapes would be destroyed
following the study. All of the five conductors who were contacted
agreed to participate. Appendices C and D contain samples of these
letters and cards.
High School A had a student population of 1650 and was the only
public high school in a large rural town of 17,500. The instrumental
music program consisted of an orchestra, a top band of 69 members, and a
second band of 30. The top band was the group used in this study. The
bands met for rehearsal once a day for a period which ranged from 40 to
50 minutes depending on a variable schedule. Sectional rehearsals were
held weekly. Smaller ensembles were mainly limited to preparation for
and performance at the annual State Solo and Ensemble Contest. Private
lessons were available and encouraged.
The four remaining schools were in suburban settings. High
School B had a student population of approximately 2200 and was the only
public high school in a Chicago suburb of 13,240. The instrumental
program consisted of two orchestras and two bands: a wind ensemble of 52
and a second band of 83. Both bands rehearsed for a period of 50

11
minutes. In a d d i t i o n a band c l a s s was provided for t h e approximately 26
s t u d e n t s who were beginners o r who needed remedial work in order to
perform at the second band's level. Two jazz bands existed on an
extracurricular basis. Small ensembles, also extra-curricular,
rehearsed throughout the year and p r e s e n t e d r e c i t a l s twice y e a r l y In
conjunction with s o l o i s t s . S e c t i o n a l r e h e a r s a l s were held as needed.
Private lessons were r e q u i r e d for membership in the wind ensemble, the
group used in t h i s study.
High School C had a s t u d e n t population of 3380 and was the only
public high school in a Chicago suburb of 23,500. The i n s t r u m e n t a l
program consisted of two o r c h e s t r a s , two symphonic bands, and a band
class of about 30 beginners and s t u d e n t s needing remedial work. T h e top
band, the group used in t h i s s t u d y , had a membership of 84, while the
second band numbered 72. Two j a z z bands e x i s t e d on an e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r
b a s i s , as did s m a l l e r ensembles. Small ensembles and soloists gave
recitals throughout the year. S e c t i o n a l r e h e a r s a l s were scheduled as
needed. P r i v a t e l e s s o n s were required f o r membership i n the top b a n d .
High School D had a s t u d e n t population of 2400 and was o n e of
three public high schools in a large town of 70,100 j u s t o u t s i d e
Chicago. The i n s t r u m e n t a l program c o n s i s t e d of two orchestras and two
bands: a top band of 78 and a second band of 6 1 . One j a z z band and
s e v e r a l small ensembles were extracurricular. Some small ensembles
rehearsed throughout the y e a r , while o t h e r s were formed and rehearsed
only in the s p r i n g for the S t a t e Solo and Ensemble Contest. Sectional

12
rehearsals were held as required. P r i v a t e lessons were required f o r
membership in t h e top band, t h e group observed in t h i s s t u d y .
High School E had a s t u d e n t population of 2420 and was one of
three public high schools in a l a r g e Chicago suburb of 72,900. The
i n s t r u m e n t a l program had two o r c h e s t r a s , two symphonic bands, and a band
class for beginning and remedial s t u d e n t s . Two jazz bands and s e v e r a l
small ensembles rehearsed on an extracurricular basis. The small
ensembles rehearsed and p r e s e n t e d r e c i t a l s i n conjunction with s o l o i s t s
d u r i n g the school year. S e c t i o n a l r e h e a r s a l s were scheduled as needed.
Private lessons were required for membership in the t o p band, the group
observed in t h i s study.
Conductors B, D, and E, who i n d i c a t e d on the r e p l y card that t h e y
would do the videotaping themselves, were sent a l e t t e r d e t a i l i n g t h e
recording procedure required to satisfy the needs of the study.
Conductors A and C, who preferred the investigator to do the
v i d e o t a p i n g , were sent a l e t t e r describing t h e circumstances needed for
the taping and requesting s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e dates for t h e t a p i n g . One of
t h e c r i t e r i a f o r the s e l e c t i o n of r e h e a r s a l s was that they would not
immediately follow or precede performances. Samples of t h e s e l e t t e r s
appear In Appendices E and F.
The r e h e a r s a l s of Conductors A, B, C, and D were taped a t a time
which was not immediately following or preceding a performance and t h u s
could be considered normal r e h e a r s a l s i t u a t i o n s . Conductor E, however,
did not adhere t o t h e s t a t e d c r i t e r i a in h i s s e l e c t i o n of r e h e a r s a l s . He
recorded his f i r s t r e h e a r s a l immediately a f t e r a performance, and his

13
second taping was the final rehearsal before c o n t e s t . As a r e s u l t
c e r t a i n a t y p i c a l elements were introduced i n t o the r e h e a r s a l s i t u a t i o n s .
In both rehearsals he expended an unusual amount of time on
administrative announcements and discussion of the concerts that
preceded or were t o follow the r e h e a r s a l . During the f i r s t rehearsal
the band's performance consisted only of sightreading. In the second
r e h e a r s a l he d i r e c t e d his a t t e n t i o n e n t i r e l y t o the f u l l ensemble and t o
r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s of a phrase or more.
When h i s tapes were received and these atypical conditions
discovered, it was too l a t e in the school year to r e - r e c o r d them. His
r e h e a r s a l data were t h e r e f o r e not included in those subproblems in which
these conditions would Influence his data or in which h i s data were
o u t s i d e the range of that of the other conductors. In those subproblems
which considered the conductors' references to the elements of
performance (Two and Three); their use of the techniques of
demonstration, verbal explanation, and verbal imagery ( F i v e ) ; and t h e i r
use of the Synthesis-Analysis-Syntheais p a t t e r n of r e h e a r s a l ; Conductor
E's data were well within the range of the other conductors and were
included. In t h o s e subproblems which considered the nature of the
conductors' interaction (One); the time and frequency of verbal
i n t e r a c t i o n and of rehearsal t r i a l s (Four and S i x ) ; the use of small
groups within the full ensemble in r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s (Seven); and t h e
length of the musical segments involved i n the rehearsal t r i a l s (Eight);
h i s data r e f l e c t e d the unusual conditions which resulted from h i s choice
of r e h e a r s a l s and were t h e r e f o r e r e j e c t e d .
14
As stated earlier, the investigator sought to establish a
r e h e a r s a l p r o f i l e of experienced, successful high school band conductors
through an examination of their rehearsal climates and of their
rehearsal techniques. The climate was studied through the use of t h e
RIOS c a t e g o r i e s , which describe the conductor's interaction as being
direct or indirect. The rehearsal techniques were examined through a
time and frequency study which determined how often and f o r how long a
conductor u t i l i z e d c e r t a i n rehearsal techniques and attended to c e r t a i n
elements of performance. A description of the procedure for each of t h e
subproblems follows.
Subproblem One
What is the affective nature of the conductors' rehearsal
interaction?
The a f f e c t i v e n a t u r e of the r e h e a r s a l i n t e r a c t i o n was determined
through the use of the Rehearsal I n t e r a c t i o n ODservation System (RIOS)
developed by Erbes. Specifically adapted for the music performance
class from the Flanders Instrument, t h e RIOS instrument c l a s s i f i e s the
t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n into eleven c a t e g o r i e s . I t focuses on t h r e e

>
aspects of the r e h e a r s a l : the d i r e c t o r ' s communication, the performers'
communication, and any periods of s i l e n c e or confusion. The director's
communication is f u r t h e r divided i n t o two c l a s s e s : t h a t which supports
or r e i n f o r c e s the performers' i d e a s , performance, behavior, or f e e l i n g s ;
and that which controls or is non-supportive of the performers'
responses. A complete description of the RIOS c a t e g o r i e s appears in
Appendix G.
15
The verbal i n t e r a c t i o n i s analyzed by noting, at three-second
intervals, the category which

d e s c r i b e s the t e a c h e r or student
q
i n t e r a c t i o n occurring at t h a t moment. Erbes found t h a t a period of t e n
hours' training utilizing the t r a i n i n g manual which he developed was
s u f f i c i e n t t o t r a i n observers i n the coding techniques. The training
manual appears in Appendix H.
Prior to analyzing the rehearsals, the Investigator underwent
Erbes' recommended t r a i n i n g procedures. The category d e s c r i p t i o n s and
code numbers were thoroughly memorized i n order to facilitate a quick
reaction to each s h i f t i n the r e h e a r s a l i n t e r a c t i o n . A high frequency
signal at three-second i n t e r v a l s was recorded on an audio-cassette In
order t o provide an a c c u r a t e i n t e r v a l f o r encoding the b e h a v i o r s . Using
t h i s c a s s e t t e and videotapes prepared by Erbes for the purpose of
training, the investigator practiced the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and coding of
behaviors f o r a t o t a l of 15 hours. Following this the investigator
analyzed a test tape prepared by Erbes and sent the coding, the t e s t
tape, and t h e c a s s e t t e with the three-second signal t o Erbes, who had
agreed to check the observer r e l i a b i l i t y for t h e study. He computed t h e
observer r e l i a b i l i t y to be .94 by the Scott formula, well above the .85
level of agreement considered the minimum acceptable by Flanders. The
Scott formula, which Flanders recommends, was used because I t tends to
Bernard Berelson, "Content A n a l y s i s , " Handbook of Social

Psychology, ed. by Gardner Lindzey (Reading, Massachusetts:
Addlson-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 488-522.
16
*
be unaffected by low frequencies, can be adapted to percentages, and is
more sensitive to higher levels of reliability.
Following the training period the investigator observed the tapes
and plotted the behaviors on RIOS Sequence Charts, using the three-
second time sampling technique mentioned earlier. A sample of this
chart appears in Appendix I. From this the data was plotted on RIOS
Frequency Charts. The Investigator derived the percentage of time
devoted to each category from the Frequency Charts. All of the
Frequency Charts appear in Appendix J.
Subproblem Two
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, is the verbal
communication of the conductors focused on the various elements of
performance: a) pitch; b) rhythm; c) articulation d) phrasing/dynamics;
e) tone quality; f) style; g) tone production; and h) balance.
Verbatim typescripts of the tapes were prepared in order to
furnish data for Subproblems Two through Nine. Using unmarked
typescripts, the investigator circled each sentence and/or sentence
fragment relating to a particular element of performance and placed an
abbreviation indicating that element in the margin. If consecutive
sentences or sentence fragments dealt with the same topic, they were
considered to be a single statement. Each statement was numbered
10
Ned A. Flanders, "The Problem of Observer Training and
Reliability," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Applica-
tion, ed. by Amidon and Hough (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1967), p. 161.
17
consecutively for reference, (e.g., "3-P" indicated the third statement
concerning pitch). Sample unmarked typescripts of Conductors B and E
appear in Appendices K and L.
The total time given to consideration of each element was
determined by viewing the videotape and timing each statement with a
stop watch. The number of seconds were then recorded next to the
statement's number and abbreviation. From these timings the total time
devoted to each element was calculated.
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Two
_1_-R_ :01.5 T: (It's OK, but it's not up to tempo.) One, two, one, two.
Clarinets:
_1_-P :02_ T_: (That's an E ...there isn't an E natural there.) 17 again.
Somebody hasn't practiced, and I'm not sure which one of you.
2-A :02_ (And it should be short 8th notes all the way through.) Two,
play, and.
Clarinets:
Subproblem Three
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, does the
conductors' attention to the various elements of instrumental
performance vary with the difficulty of each composition and the amount
of previous rehearsal?
At the time of the tapings the conductors were asked to indicate
the number of rehearsals which had been devoted to the different

18
compositions prior to the taping. The difficulty of the composition was

rated by the panel of college band directors on a scale of one to five.
The data for Subproblem Three were derived from the amounts of prior
rehearsal, the difficulty ratings, and the data developed for Subproblem
Two.
Subproblem Four
What Is the frequency of conductor talk during rehearsal and the

ratio of conductor talk to rehearsal time?
All sentences or sentence fragments of conductor talk between

rehearsal trials were_ considered a single instance of conductor talk. A
simple count then determined the frequency of conductor talk for each
rehearsal.
The investigator viewed the tapes, timed the instances of

conductor talk with a stop-watch, and entered the time in the left-hand
margin next to each statement's number. The ratio of conductor talk to
performance was obtained by dividing the total verbal interaction time
by the rehearsal time exclusive of announcements.
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Four
5_ - s03_.5_ T_: It's OK, but it's not up to tempo. One, two, one, two.
Clarinets:
fL ~ l22. 1} T h a t an E
'"there isn't an E natural there. 17 again.
Somebody hasn't practiced, and I'm not sure which one of you. And it
should be short 8th notes all the way through. Two, play, and.
19
Clarinets:
Subproblem Five
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, do the rehearsal
techniques used by the conductors involve a) demonstration; b) verbal
explanation; and c) verbal imagery?
On separate typescripts the investigator enclosed in pen each
instance of verbal explanation, demonstration, and verbal imagery.
Consecutive sentences and/or sentence fragments in which the same
technique was employed were considered a single statement. Each
statement was numbered consecutively and labelled with an appropriate
abbreviation. This procedure produced the frequency data for each
technique.
The investigator again viewed the tapes, timed each statement
with a stop-watch, and entered the timing next to the statement's number
and abbreviation. From these timings the total time devoted to the
three techniques was determired.
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Five
T: 'Kay. Have to keep saying it again.
0-E_ :02.5^ (Who ever was the last one playing there was absolutely
completely wrong.)
3_-D :07 (Tah-tah, tah-tah, tah-tah, tah-tah is wrong, Ta-tah, ta-tah,
ta-tah, tatah is right.)
UE :CH (That's what I want.) 'Kay? Here it is, trumpets, and 1!

20
Trumpets:
Subproblem Six
To what extent, In terms of time and frequency, do the conductors
conduct and/or monitor rehearsal trials?
The separate rehearsal trials indicated on the prepared
typescripts were consecutively numbered. This procedure produced the
frequency data. While viewing the tapes, the Investigator timed the
separate rehearsal trials with a stop-watch and entered these data next
to the trial's number on the typescript. From these data the total time
devoted to rehearsal trials was developed.
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Six
24 :J[0.5_ Band:
T: Trombones and horns, the same thing. 1!
25 :£!• 5_ Trb. and hns.:
T: Everybody, everybody. For the trombones and horns.

They can't count. Everybody, and 1!
26 :J[£.5_ Band:
Subproblem Seven
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, do the conductors
concern themselves with a) a single performer; b) one section of
performers c) more than one section, but not all; and d) all performers?
These data were obtained from the typescripts. Appropriate
abbreviations were placed in the left margin by each rehearsal trial and
21
were numbered consecutively. The time data were obtained from the data
for Subproblem Six.
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Seven
A • • • • I | Cm f \ f C •
5_-A :07.5_ Band:
T: Woodwind—pickup i n t o A w i t h snare drums. 1, 2, 1, 2
5-MS : 0 3 . 5 Woodwinds and d r . :
T: Can you play l i g h t e r . , and s o f t e r . . b u t still keep the
rhythmic (snaps) pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-puh. Lots of energy (snap) 2,
1, 2.
6-MS :12 Ww. and D r . :
Subproblem Eight
To what e x t e n t , i n terms of time and frequency, do t h e conductors
concern themselves with a) l e s s than a musical phrase; and b) a musical
phrase or more?
The i n v e s t i g a t o r determined the l e n g t h s of t h e musical segments
rehearsed by l i s t e n i n g to the t a p e s . Each r e h e a r s a l t r i a l was labeled
with an abbreviation i n t h e l e f t margin of the typescript, indicating
its length as being l e s s than a phrase (LP) or a phrase or more (M).
The time data were obtained from the data f o r Subproblem S i x .
Sample Typescript: Subproblem Eight
1-LP :05.,5 C l a r i n e t s :
T: C l a r i n e t s . . l i t t l e shorter back there—you're in the

22
lower r e g i s t e r back t h e r e — t h a t d o e s n ' t help you a b i t . Keep i t s h o r t .
1, 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7—
7_-P :JJ_ Clarinets:
T: Thank you. Everybody a t 45..one 7/8 bar for f r e e . 1, 2,
3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 - -
8-P :43 Band:
Subproblem Nine
Do the r e h e a r s a l s form a p a t t e r n of Synthesis-Analysis-Synthesis
as advocated by Leonhard and House9
I n t h e i r book, Foundations and Principles of Music Education,
Leonhard and House describe a t h r e e - p h a s e pattern which t y p i f i e s t h e
most e f f e c t i v e teaching of music: s y n t h e s i s , a n a l y s i s , s y n t h e s i s .
" S y n t h e s i s . . . T h e e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e s y n t h e s i s phase
i s t h a t s t u d e n t s have an o p p o r t u n i t y to perceive and r e a c t to the
expressive e f f e c t of a composition and conceive i t as a
whole..."11
An example of the use of s y n t h e s i s in a rehearsal would be a
description by the conductor of the general structure of the
composition. A more obvious instance would be the complete performance
of the composition, o r of major u n i t s w i t h i n i t .
Charles Leonhard and Robert W. House, Foundations and

P r i n c i p l e s of Music Education, 2nd e d . , (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-
H i l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1972), pp. 257^8.
23
"Analysis...The purpose of the analysis phase i s the revelation

to students of musical d e t a i l . . . t h a t is significant to i t s
expressive effect."
Possible examples of analytical behavior by the conductor would

be the following:
1. Identifying, correcting, and rehearsing the devices to obtain

a musical e f f e c t .
2. Describing and clarifying in performance the melody, rhythm,

harmony, or form of the composition.
3. Pointing out repetition and contrast in tonal, rhythmic, and

harmonic patterns and clarifying them through rehearsal.
4. Identifying musical characteristics that are important in

determining the style of the composition.
5. Comparing different styles and unifying the ensemble's style

through rehearsal.
6. Making and justifying value Judgments concerning performance.
7. Identifying, correcting, and rehearsing Isolated rhythmic and

technical problems.
Using the typescripts and the videotapes, the investigator

analyzed the rehearsal of each composition to determine the occurrence
12
'ibid.
24
of the above behaviors and if they occurred in the synthesis-analysis-
synthesis pattern suggested by Leonhard and House. A brief discussion
of the rehearsal of each composition is presented, detailing the
occurrence of the above behaviors and the patterns in which they were
employed.
Need for the Study
There is little objective data regarding the nature of effective
high school instrumental rehearsals. Most texts in college conducting
classes deal adequately with the musical and technical aspects of
communication with the baton, but references to socio-emotional climate
and the relative importance of the elements of performance in rehearsals
are almost nonexistent. As a result, many conductors either rehearse as
they were rehearsed, or they react reflexively to the group's errors of
the moment and lose the overall view of the ensemble's basic progress.
Articles in periodicals by experienced conductors often speak to
some of th?se points, but the recommendations of the authors are
generally based not on systematically obtained objective data but on a
distillation of their experiences as conductors of ensembles. Though
these are of benefit to a point, objective information would be much
more valuable in helping both beginning and experienced conductors to
improve their rehearsal behaviors.

25
In his recommendations for further study, Erbes states:
"The development of a profile of the interaction and rehearsal

techniques of those conductors considered successful would
develop standards for training prospective music educators."
This study was designed to initiate research which would yield
such information. It should prove beneficial both to undergraduate
conducting students and to conductors in general in their attempts to
make the rehearsal process more effective.
Organization of the Study
In Chapter One the purpose and the problem of the study were
stated, the subproblems were derived, special terras were defined, and
the procedures for gathering and reporting the data were described.
In Chapter Two studies of rehearsal interaction which are
relevant to this research are reviewed. The data are presented and
interpreted in Chapter Three, and in Chapter Four the findings are
summarized, conclusions are stated, and recommendations for further
study are presented.
Erbes, pp. 140.

CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The history of research involving interaction analysis can be
traced back at least as far as 1912, but the research related to the
present study is of a much more recent date and can be grouped into two
classifications: Interaction Analysis in General Education; and
Interaction Analysis in Music Education. Because this study utilizes a
modification of Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories, the
literature examined in the first part of this chapter is limited to his
research and to those antecedents which contributed materially to his
work. The second part of the chapter is concerned with studies in music
education using either modifications of those earlier systems or time
and frequency studies.
Interaction Analysis in General Education
The studies of pupil participation by Stevens (1912), Horn
(1914), Puckett (1928), and Wrightstone (1934) were among the first
instances of interaction research. The measurement of effective
teaching behavior was the purpose of interaction research by Barr
(1929), Jayne (1945), and Morsh (1956). These studies were important
Anita Simon and E. Gil Boyer, eds., Mirrors for Behavior:

An Anthology of Observation Instruments (Philadelphia: Research
for Better Schools, 1970), Vol. XIV, pp. RS 1-101.
2
Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, "Measuring Class-
room Behavior by Systematic Observation." Handbook of Research In
Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 19 6*3 TT
pp. 254-256.
26
27
not so much for their contribution to an understanding of the

educational process but for t h e i r value as pioneer work in interaction
analysis techniques.
The works cited were concerned mainly with the cognitive aspects
of classroom behavior. More recently the affective dimension of the
classroom has received major emphasis in classroom interaction research.
This shift in emphasis may be due to the emerging view that a positive
classroom climate i s a concomitant of effective teaching.
Anderson and others in the l a t e '30's and early ' 4 0 ' s defined two
broad categories of behavior — dominative and socially integrative —
and devised a category system which reflected degrees of dominative and
socially integrative contacts. Using t h i s system in studies of
schoolroom behavior, researchers noted that students with a more
integrative teacher displayed consistently higher frequencies of such
behavior as spontaneity and i n i t i a t i v e , problem solving, and voluntary
social contributions. Students with a more dominative teacher were
lower in frequencies of social contribution, displayed l e s s Initiative,
and showed greater compliance t o , as well as a rejection of, teacher
domination. Subsequent studies also revealed that the behavior of the
teacher, more than of any other Individual, sets the climate of the
class. Anderson's categories appear In Figure 1.
Harold H. Anderson, et a l . , "Study of Classroom Personali-

t i e s I I I , " Applied Psychological Monographs No. 11 (Stanford, Cal-
ifornia: Stanford University~Press).
28
FIGURE 1
ANDERSON'S CATEGORIES
Category Category
Number Description
1. Determines a detail of activity or acts for the child
in carrying out a detail.
2. Direct refusal.
3. Relocating, reseating, or placing children In relation
to each other.
4. Postponing, slowing up the child.
5. Disapproval, blame, or obstruction.
6. Warning, threats, or conditional promises.
7. Call to attention or to group activity.
8. Rations material.
9. Lecture method.
10. Questions-lecture method.
11. - 14. Inclusive deleted.
15. Perfunctory question or statement.
16. Approval.
17. Accepts difference.
18. Extends Invitation to activity.
19. Questions or statement regarding child's expressed interest
or activity.
20. The build-up.
21. Participates in joint activity with children.
ZZ. Sympathy.
23. Permission.
29
Observing that learning is most likely to occur in a non-
threatening situation, Withall attempted the development of a technique
to measure social-emotional climate in the classroom through a
categorization of teacher verbal behavior. His study, drawing upon the

4 5
works of Anderson and Lippitt , was based on the assumptions that
classroom climate is a group phenomenon; that the teacher's behavior is
the most important single factor in creating classroom climate; and that
the teacher's verbal behavior is representative of his total behavior.
He constructed the categories inductively by analyzing recordings
of teacher-statements and classifying them as to type of response. From
an original list of 25 categories the list was reduced first to 13 and
then to seven. A list of the categories for Withall's Social-Emotional
Climate Index is shown in Figure 2.
Ibid.
Ronald Lippitt, "An analysis of Group Reaction to Three

Types of Experimentally Created Social Climates," (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Iowa, 1940).
30
FIGURE 2
CATEGORIES FOR THE SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL CLIMATE INDEX.

Category Category
Number Description
V. Leafner~suôft±ve'3tatement3~or~question37
2. Acceptant or clarifying statement or questions.

3. Problem-structuring statements or questions.
4. Neutral statements evidencing no supportive i n t e n t .
5. Directive statements or questions.
6. Reproving, disapproving, or disparaging statements
or questions.
7. Teacher-supportive statements or questions.
The categories were validated by the use of an observer using objective

criteria, by judges' ratings of the teachers' behaviors i n a live
s i t u a t i o n , and by a sociometric instrument which reflected the s t u d e n t s '
positive and negative feelings. He concluded that climate can be
assessed and described and that categorization of teacher-statements
represents a valid measure of i t .
Presently the most widely used system for interaction analysis i s

that devised by Flanders. Drawing on the works of e a r l i e r researchers,
Flanders devised a ten-category system with which he investigated the
relationship between pupils' ratings of their teachers and the nature of
the teachers' influence in the classroom. The data indicated that
John Withall, "The Development of a Climate Index," Jour-

nal of Educational Research, XLV (1951), pp. 93-99.
31
teachers rated highly by students are more indirect in their influence,
give more attention to student ideas, question more, make more use of
7
student ideas, and praise more. The study was replicated by Flanders in
1957 in New Zealand with similar results.
The relationship of teacher influence to pupil achievement was
the subject of a third study by Flanders. Sixteen mathematics teachers
and sixteen social studies teachers were involved in teaching a special
two-week unit of study. Teacher influence was assessed with the
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System, and achievements of the
students was measured by pre- and post-tests. Teachers were selected on
the basis of direct and indirect teaching styles. Analysis of the data
revealed that student achievement and attitude scores were significantly
higher for those classes in which the teachers were more indirect.
Specifically, highest mean scores were achieved in those classes in
which teacher influence was predominantly indirect during the stages of
instruction in which goals were ambiguous, and became more direct when
goals became clear. The findings of this study have had a notable
impact in all areas of classroom interaction analysis. The category
system developed by Flanders is shown in Figure 3.
Ned A. Flanders, "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, and

Achievement," (OE-25040 Cooperative Research, Monograph No. 12,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington,
D.C., 1965), passim.
Q
Flanders, Analyzing Teaching Behavior, p. 401.
32
FIGURE 3
FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES
Category Category
Number „ Description
fi Accepts feeling^ Accepts and c l a r i f i e s an a t t i t u d e o r the
f e e l i n g tone of a pupil i n a nonthreatening manner. Feel-
i n g s may be p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . Predicting and r e c a l l i n g
f e e l i n g s are i n c l u a e d .
2. P r a i s e s or encourages. Praises o r encourages pupil action

or behavior. Jokes that r e l e a s e t e n s i o n , but not a t t h e ex-
pense of another i n d i v i d u a l ; nodding head, or saying "Um
hra?" or "Go on" are included.
3. Accepts or uses Ideas of p u p i l s . Clarifying, b u i l d i n g , or

developing i d e a s suggested by a p u p i l . Teacher extensions
of pupil ideas are included but a s the teacher brings more
of h i s own ideas i n t o play, s h i f t to category f i v e .
4. Asks q u e s t i o n s . Asking a question about content o r pro-

cedure, based on teacher i d e a s , with the intent t h a t t h e pu-
p i l w i l l answer.
5. L e c t u r i n g . Giving f a c t s or opinions about content or pro-

cedures; expressing his own i d e a s , giving his own explana-
t i o n , or c i t i n g an a u t h o r i t y o t h e r than a p u p i l .
6. Giving d i r e c t i o n s . D i r e c t i o n s , commands, or orders t o which

a pupil i s expected to comply.
7. C r i t i c i z i n g or j u s t i f y i n g a u t h o r i t y . Statements intended to
change pupil behavior from nonacceptable to a c c e p t a b l e pat-
t e r n ; bawling someone out; s t a t i n g why t h e teacher i s doing
what he i s doing; extreme s e l f - r e f e r e n c e .
8. P u p i l - t a l k - r e s p o n s e . Talk by p u p i l s in response to t e a c h e r .
Teacher i n i t i a t e s t h e contact or s o l i c i t s pupil statement or
s t r u c t u r e s the s i t u a t i o n . Freedom to express own i d e a s i s
limited.
9. P u p i l - t a l k - i n i t i a t i o n . Talk by p u p i l s which they i n i t i a t e .

Expressing own i d e a s ; i n i t i a t i n g a new t o p i c ; freedom to
develop opinions and a l i n e of thought, l i k e asking thought-
f u l questions; going beyond the e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r e .
10. S i l e n c e or confusion. Pauses, s h o r t periods of s i l e n c e and

periods of confusion in which communication cannot be under-
stood by the o b s e r v e r .
33
F l a n d e r s ' System has been modified many times f o r use in special
settings or to d e s c r i b e c e r t a i n behaviors more s p e c i f i c a l l y . Hough in
1965 began a s e r i e s of modifications of t h i s system, culminating i n his
construction in 1970, with Duncan, of the Observational System for
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis. I t s chief d i f f e r e n c e s from F l a n d e r s ' System are
in the addition of student-behavior c a t e g o r i e s and i n the use of some

q
c a t e g o r i e s which r e f l e c t t h e cognitive a s p e c t of c e r t a i n i n t e r a c t i o n s .
This schedule Is shown i n Figure 4 .
I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis i n Music Education
Most research using i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s in the f i e l d of music i s
of relatively recent date. In 1962 Schneider and Cady reported t h a t
they had found " . . . n o s t u d i e s . . d e v o t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to t h e analysis of
music t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , per s e . " 10 Since t h a t time, however, a
number of studies of music classroom interaction have appeared.
P r e s e n t l y t h e r e appears to be a t o t a l of 12 s t u d i e s of music classroom
interaction based on category systems of F l a n d e r s , Hough, and Withall
which have significance for the present study. In addition the
investigator located one study of c h o r a l r e h e a r s a l s which use o r i g i n a l
a
John B. Hough and James K. Duncan, Teaching D e s c r i p t i o n
ana A n a l y s i s , (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g
C o . , 1970), pp. 137-159, passim.
Erwin Schneider and Henry Cady, Evaluation and Synthesis

of Research Studies Related to Music "Education, Cooperative
Research Project No. E-016 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Univer-
sity) 1965, pp. 112.
34
FIGURE 4
HOUGH-DUNCAN OBSERVATIONAL SYSTEM FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS
Teacher-behavior Student-behavior
Symbolsa Behaviors Symbols3
T1 Substantive clarification S1
T2 Response to substantive
solicitation S2
Substantive T3 I n i t i a t i o n of substantive
information S3 Substantive
T4 Solicitation of substantive
response S4
T5 Corrective feedback S5
T6 Confirmation S6
Appraisal T7 Acceptance S7 Appraisal

T8 Positive personal judgment S8
T9 Negative personal judgment S9

T10 Managerial clarification S10
Managerial T11 Response to managerial

solicitation S11 Managerial
T12 Initiation of managerial

information S12
T13 Solicitation of managerial
response S13
Silence T14 Silent covert activity S14 Silence
T15 Silent overt activity S15
Other X Instructionally nonfunctional

behavior X Other
Interaction separation
designation
Categories 1-4 and 10-13 may be further categorized as closed or open

behaviors by using the subscript 0 for open behaviors, e.g., T4 .
35
methods of analysis somewhat similar to the procedures of the present

study.
Snapp used Flanders' System of Interaction Analysis In a study

analyzing the behaviors of students and teachers in a f i f t h grade
instrumental c l a s s . He expanded the original system to include on
teacher-musical activity category and four student-musical a c t i v i t y

categories. Nine teachers were involved and each class session was
audio-taped three times. Not surprisingly, he found that "teacher
lecture" and "group musical a c t i v i t i e s " occupied the greatest amount of
the class time, and that teachers were direct twice as often as indirect
i n their verbal behaviors. The study's importance l i e s in i t s use of a
modification of
Flanders' categories and i t s consequent use as a model
by subsequent investigators. 11 His modification appears in Figure 5.
One of the f i r s t attempts to relate teacher interaction patterns

to teacher effectiveness was Nolin's study in 1969. He selected the
Hough Observation System for the Analysis of Classroom Instruction for
the study. He used this instrument, Hough's second modification of
Flanders' original ten-category system, because of its increased
specificity in Flanders' categories 5, 7, 9, and 10. The modification
i s shown in Figure 6.
David Snapp, "A Study of the Accumulative Musical and

Verbal Behaviors of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade Instru-
mental Music Classes, (Master's t h e s i s , The Ohio S t a t e University,
1967).
36
FIGURE 5
SNAPP MODIFIED SYSTEM OF INTERACTION ANALYSIS

FOR MUSIC CLASSES
Category Category
Number Description
1. Accepts Feelings: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of
the student in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be
positive or negative, and expressed verbally or musically.
Predicting and recalling feelings are also included.
2. Praises or Encourages: praises or encourages student action

or behavior. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense
of another individual, nodding head or saying "uh-huh" or
"go on" are included.
3. Accepts or Uses Ideas of Student: clarifying, building, or

developing ideas or suggestions of students or implied musi-
cal ideas as expressed through student musical activities.
4. Asks Questions: asking a question about content or procedure

with the intent that a student answer.
5. Musical Activities: playing an instrument, clapping, sing-

ing, tapping of foot, or any other forms of physical move-
ment which demonstrate elements pertinent to the music pro-
cess.
6. Lectures: giving facts or opinions about content or pro-

cedure; expressing his own ideas; asking rhetorical ques-
tions .
7. Gives Directions: directions, commands, or orders with which

students are expected to comply.
8. Criticizes or Justifies Authority: statements intended to

change student behavior from a nonacceptable to an accept-
able pattern; "Bawling out" someone; stating why the teacher
Is doing what he is doing so as to achieve or maintain con-
trol; rejecting or criticizing a student's thought or deed.
9. Student Talk-Response: talk by students, In response to

teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits stu-
dents • statement.
37
FIGURE 5 (Continued)
Category Category
Number Description
T6T" IStudenTTaTkÎnYt^ inf-
tiate. If "calling on" student is only to indicate who may
talk next, observer must decide whether student wanted to
talk. If he did, use this category.
11a. Individual Musical Activities: those activities undertaken

by one student which involves some form of physical movement
and are pertinent to the process of making music: singing,
tapping of foot, etc.
11b. Individual Musical Activities-Conducted: the same student

activities as category 11a a except that they are performed
while the teacher is conducting.
12a. Group Musical Activities: the same musical activities as

category 11a except that a group of students is Involved.
12b. Group Music J Activities-Conducted: the same musical activi-

ties as category 11a except that a group of students perform
while the teacher i3 conducting.
13. Silence or Confusion: pauses, short periods of silence, and

stood by the observer.
38
FIGURE 6
HOUGH'S OBSERVATIONAL SYSTEM FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS

(1967)
Category Category
Number Description
INDIRECT TEACHER VERBAL INFLUENCE
1. Affective c l a r i f i c a t i o n and acceptance
2. P r a i s e and reward
3. Cognitive and s k i l l c l a r i f i c a t i o n and acceptance
4. Teacher questions
5. Response to questions
TEACHER DIRECT INFLUENCE
6. I n i t i a t e s information or opinion
7. C o r r e c t i v e feedback
8. Requests and commands
9. C r i t i c i s m and r e j e c t i o n
STUDENT VERBAL BEHAVIOR
10. E l i c i t e d responses
11. Emitted responses
12. Student questions
SILENCE (NON-VERBAL BEHAVIOR)
13. Directed practice or activity
14. Silence and contemplation
15. Demonstration
NON-FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR
16. Confusion and irrelevant behavior

39
The subjects were nine general music teachers in a single school

district, selected on the basis of experience in their present position
and their consent to participate. They were rated by three
administrators as to teaching effectiveness; only the three highest and
the three lowest rated teachers were included in the study. Ten class
sessions of each teacher were recorded. Observer r e l i a b i l i t y was
determined both by analysls-re-analysis by the same observer and by
checking results with an observer previously trained in the technique.
Nolin found no significant difference in total interaction

patterns between the most effective and least effective groups. He
noted, however, that the most effective teachers used somewhat more
"directed activity" and many more "requests or commands" than those
rated least effective. These results caused the author to suggest that
"The d e s i r a b i l i t y of indirect teacher influence or the democratic

influence of the teacher suggested by previous Flanders
Interaction Analysis applications apparently i s not quite so
highly desirable in music teachers. A music teacher can be
effective wtyile being centrally d i r e c t , or autocratic in
character."
In a similar study Whitehill used a modification of Flanders'

System in an effort to determine whether such an adaptation could
discriminate between general music teachers of varying abilities.
Twenty-four general music teachers from a single school system were
given ability rankings by t h e i r supervisor and by three college music
Wallace Henry Nolin, "Patterns of Teacher-Student In-

teraction in Selected Junior High School General Music Classes,"
(Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio State University, 1969), p. 140.
40
teachers acquainted with the s u b j e c t s ' work. The six highest-ranked and
the seven lowest-ranked teachers were chosen for the investigation. The
investigator added five categories to Flanders' original ten in order to
record non-verbal behavior. The subjects were observed for a total time
of six hours by observers in the classroom. The categories for this
modification may be found in Figure 7.
Discrimination was found in the indirect categories and in

"student talk" and "performance under direction of teacher." The high
group "identified student feelings, praised or encouraged student
behavior, made use of student i d e a s , and asked questions more often than
the teachers in the low group." As a result of the study, the author
suggested that Interaction analysis training would be a useful tool in
teacher education. This study was, in essence, a replication of Nolin's
research, using a modification of Flanders' categories and a l a r g e r
sample. Whitehill was the first to demonstrate that interaction
patterns discriminate between levels of teaching abilities in the
general music c l a s s .
McAdams in 1970 sought to determine the relationship between the

nature of college teachers' perceptions of t h e i r classroom interaction
as measured by the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-
Charles D. Whitehill, "The Application of Flanders' Sys-
tem of Classroom Interaction Analysis to General Classroom Music
Teaching," (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University,
1970).
41
FIGURE 7
WHITEHILL'S MODIFICATION OF FLANDERS' CATEGORIES
Category Category
Number Description
T. Accepts Feeling: a c c e p t s and c l a r i f i e s the f e e l i n g tone of
the s t u d e n t s in a nonthreatening mannner. Feellng3 may be
p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . P r e d i c t i n g or r e c a l l i n g f e e l i n g s are
included.
2. Praises o r Encourages: praises o r encourages student a c t i o n

or b e h a v i o r . Jokes t h a t r e l e a s e t e n s i o n , not a t the expense
of another i n d i v i d u a l , nodding head or saying "um hm?" or
"go on" a r e included.
20. Non-Verbal Praise and Encouragement: s m i l e s , nods of a p p r o -

v a l , e t c . , which i n d i c a t e t h a t the teacher wants more-of-
the-same from the s t u d e n t s .
3. Accepts o r Uses Ideas of Student: c l a r i f y i n g , b u i l d i n g , or

developing ideas suggested by a s t u d e n t . As a t e a c h e r
brings more of his own ideas i n t o p l a y , s h i f t t o c a t e g o r y
five.
4. Asks q u e s t i o n s : asking a question about content or procedure

with t h e i n t e n t t h a t a student answer.
5. L e c t u r i n g : giving f a c t s or opinions about c o n t e n t or p r o -

cedure; expressing h i s own i d e a s , asking r h e t o r i c a l ques-
tions.
50. Lecturing Performance: performing so that t h e students will

know how t h e music g o e s .
6. Giving D i r e c t i o n s : d i r e c t i o n s , commands, or o r d e r s to which

a student i s expected t o comply.
7. C r i t i c i z i n g or J u s t i f y i n g Authority: statements intended t o

change s t u d e n t behavior from nonacceptable t o a c c e p t a b l e
p a t t e r n ; bawling someone out; s t a t i n g why t h e teacher i s do-
ing what he i s doing; extreme s e l f - r e f e r e n c e .
70. Non-Verbal C r i t i c i s m : frowns, s c o w l s , t h r e a t e n i n g g e s t u r e s ,

e t c . which i n d i c a t e t h a t student behavior I s u n a c c e p t a b l e .
42
CaVegory =•=*=•=••—=•=*•*-» =»=-=»—)=*=~- — - ^"^'QêgQ^"'

Number Description
8. Student Talk-Response; a student makes a predictable

response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or soli-
cits student statement and sets limits to what the student
says.
80. Student Performance-Response: teacher initiates contact or

solicits performance and sets limits on performance. Stu-
dents make a predictable response to teacher.
9. Student Talk-Initiation: talk by students which they ini-

tiate. Unpredictable statements In response to teacher.
Shift from 8 to 9 as students introduce own ideas.
90. Student Performance-Initiation: performance by students

which they initiate. Unpredictable performance in response
to teacher. Shift from 80 to 90 when students insert their
own ideas into performance, as in improvisation.
10. Silence or Confusion: pauses, short periods of silence and

43
Behavior Scale (FIRO-B), and the nature of their interactions as
Interpreted by Flanders' Interaction Analysis System.
Thirty classroom muoic teachers from the faculties of two private
and two state-supported Texas colleges were asked to complete the FIRO-B
Scale, a self-administered measure of desired and expressed interaction
with others in the areas of inclusion, control, and affection. The
observer analyzed thirty minutes of each teachers' classroom interaction
using Flanders' System. Comparison of the FIRO-B Scale and Flanders'
indirect/direct ratio of each teacher revealed that the FIRO-B Scale was
not a predictor of classroom climate as measured by Flanders' System of
Interaction Analysis. McAdams concluded that the teachers' perceived
concepts of themselves and their real behavior lacked consistency. He
further concluded that there was no significant relation between
indirect/direct behavior and age, academic rank, years of experience, or
previous public school teaching experience.
McAdams provided no rationale for investigating the correlation
between the measures of FIRO-B and the Flanders' i/d ratio. He
apparently assumed that the two measures would have a positive
correlation if indeed the teachers were accurate in their self-
appraisal. This assumption was not stated, however, and no
justification for such an assumption was given.
14
Charles D. McAdams, Jr., "A Comparison of Behavior Pat-
terns of Music Teachers in Selected Universities Utilizing In-
teraction Analysis and the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation-Behavior Scale," (Ph.D. dissertation, East Texas
University, 1970), pp. 121-131.
44
Verrastro's experimental study was the first designed to
investigate the use of i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s in the preservice t r a i n i n g
of music t e a c h e r s . His purpose was to determine the differential
influence of a supervisory process based on c o n s t r u c t s derived from the
Social-Emotional Climate Index of Withall. He hypothesized that a
supervisory process employing such c o n s t r u c t s would cause the student
t e a c h e r s to e x h i b i t a more e q u i t a b l e balance between d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t
influence, t o become more objective and 3 e l f - c r i t i c a l , and to develop a
more humanistic perception of t e a c h e r - r o l e ideology.
T h i r t y - n i n e music education students were randomly selected and
assigned to one of two groups. E i d e l l ' s Ideology Measure was used as a
p r e - and p o s t - t e s t to determine the humanistic propensities of the
student teachers, and the Rokeach Scale was used as a p r e - t e s t to
measure t h e i r r e l a t i v e open-raindedness. He gave the experimental group
instruction In the use of the Withall Climate Index and sought to help
them understand t h e i r own verbal p a t t e r n s and classroom climate. He
also analyzed the verbal behavior of t h e experimental subjects with
a t t e n t i o n to t h e p o s i t i v e and negative consequences of verbal behavior
and i t s r e l a t i o n t o the t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s .
Observers trained in the use of the Climate Index categorized the
classroom interaction of randomly selected tape recordings. The
i n v e s t i g a t o r found a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the verbal behaviors of
the experimental and c o n t r o l groups. The experimental group used more
l e a r n e r - c e n t e r e d behaviors and were more objective in their self-

45
assessment. Verrastro concluded that

student teachers are seemingly
sensitized to t h e i r verbal behaviors through such training. 15
The most thorough modification of the Flanders' System was made

by Erbes (1972) for the purpose of recording teacher behavior In the
large performance group rehearsal situation. He used the Flanders'
System and Snapps' modification of i t for small instrumental groups in a
brief pilot study to test their s u i t a b i l i t y in a large group situation.
He found several shortcomings in each. The categories of the final
instrument were derived inductively by content analysis of approximately
one hundred minutes of choral and instrumental rehearsals from each of
eight schools. The system includes affective, activity, content,
sociological, and miscellaneous categories.
In Erbes' Rehearsal Interaction Observational System (RIOS), as

in the Flanders' System, the interaction i s recorded sequentially at
three second Intervals. Thus, the frequency and total time of
interaction in each category are readily available. An analysis of
interaction patterns is also possible through the use of a matrix
display designed for this purpose. A tentative system was field-tested
and revised three times before construction of the final instrument.
The categories and their descriptions appear In Figure 8.
Ralph Verrastro, "An Experimental Investigation of Verbal

Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with Student Teachers
of Music," (Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University,
1970), pp. 91-98.
46
FIGURE 8
ERBES' REHEARSAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM
Category Category
Number Description
1. Uses: Conductor uses, c l a r i f i e s , or repeats i d e a s , p e r f o r -

mance, behavior, or f e e l i n g s suggested by the s t u d e n t s .
2. Encourages: Conductor encourages, p r a i s e s , or accepts stu-

dent i d e a s , performance, or behavior.
3. Questions: Conductor questions with t h e i n t e n t t h a t the s t u -

dent respond. Questions may a l s o occur in other teacher
categories.
4. Informs: Conductor gives information, l e c t u r e s , or s t a t e s

opinions based on his own ideas or those other than the s t u -
d e n t s ' . Short responses to student questions and r h e t o r i c a l
questions a r e included i n #4.
5. Demonstrates: — Conductor demonstrates the manner i n which an

a c t i s or should be performed or accomplished. (Generally
nonverbal in n a t u r e . )
6. D i r e c t s : Conductor d i r e c t s or commands student with intent

t h a t he comply.
7. C r i t i c i z e s : Conductor c r i t i c i z e s , r e j e c t s , or challenges
student i d e a s , performance, behavior, or f e e l i n g s .
8. C o r r e c t s : Conductor checks or c o r r e c t s student ideas, per-

formance, or behavior i n an obvious manner.
9. Responds: Student responds or questions in a manner struc-

t u r e d by the conductor.
10. I n i t i a t e s : Student i n i t i a t e s communication or questions i n a

manner unstructured by t h e conductor.
11. Silence or Confusion: Periods in which verbal communication

cannot be understood. Constructive periods should be i n d i -
cated by 11+ and nonconstructlve periods by 1 1 - .
Nonverbal Demonstration ( x ) : When demonstration by the conductor or

student i s non-verbal in n a t u r e , an "x" code should be added t o Category
#5. Demonstration of t h i s type i s an extension of verbal c a t e g o r i e s and
would include s i n g i n g , w h i s t l i n g , or o t h e r o r a l sounds, c l a p p i n g , t a p -
ping, or playing an instrument to i l l u s t r a t e an idea or opinion.
47
V a l i d i t y , assessed with the use of W i t h a l l ' s Climate Index as a
criterion instrument, was e s t a b l i s h e d a t .94, a high level of v a l i d i t y
f o r the measurement of the sooio-emotional climate op large group
rehearsals. Erbes computed the r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument to be a t
t h e .83 l e v e l , using ODservers who had received a minimum of fifteen
hours training. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation system is
a p p l i c a b l e to both instrumental and vocal performance groups, and, to
d a t e , remains t h e most comprehensive a p p l i c a t i o n of i n t e r a c t i o n analysis

1 fi
techniques to the r e h e a r s a l situation.
Pagano u t i l i z e d a modification of F l a n d e r s ' System of I n t e r a c t i o n
Analysis to study the verbal i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s of f i r s t and s i x t h
grade general music t e a c h e r s . She was attempting to determine if the
i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s of t e a c h e r s within a single grade varied and i f the
i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r ' s p a t t e r n s varied between grades one and s i x .
She s e l e c t e d ten t e a c h e r s by proportional random procedure from
f o u r d i f f e r e n t systems in Essex County, New J e r s e y . Each t e a c h e r taught
i n both grade one and s i x , and each was recorded a minimum of f i v e times
at each grade level. She modified F l a n d e r s ' System by adding f i v e
s u b s c r i p t s to e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r i e s . Two were added in teacher behavior,
two in student behavior, and one in s i l e n c e . The c a t e g o r i e s appear in
Figure 9.
Robert Erbes, "The Development of an Observational System

f o r the Analysis of I n t e r a c t i o n in the Rehearsal of Musical Organ-
i z a t i o n s , " (Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s , 1972).
48
FIGURE 9
PAGANO'S MODIFICATION OF THE FLANDERS CATEGORIES
Category Category
Number Description
1. Accepts Feelings: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of

the students In a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be
positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are
included.
2. Praises or Encourages: praises or encourages student actions

or behavior. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense
of another Individual or saying "um hum," or "go on" are in-
cluded.
3. Accepts or Uses Ideas of Student: clarifying, building, or

developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher
brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category 5.
4. Asks Questions: asking a question about content or procedure

by performing with the intent that a student answer.
5. Lecturing: giving facts or opinion about content or pro-

cedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical ques-
tions .
*5a. Lecturing Performance: performing so that the students will

know how the music goes.
6. Giving Directions: directions, commands, or orders to which

a student is expected to comply.
7. Criticizing or Justifying Authority: statements intended to

change student behavior from nonacceptable to acceptable
pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is do-
ing what he is doing; extreme self-reference.
8. Student Talk-Response: a student makes a predictable

response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or soli-
cits student statement and sets limits to what the student
says.
49
Category Category
Number Description
*8a. Student Performance-Response: teacher initiates contact or

solicits performer and sets limits on performance. Students
make a predictable response to teacher.
9. Student Talk-Initiation: talk by students which they ini-

tiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher.
Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas.
*9a. Student Performance-Initiation: performance by students

which they initiate. Unpredictable performance in response
to teacher. Shift from 8a to 9a when students Insert their
own ideas into performance as in improvisation.
*10a. Silence While Iistening: periods of teacher and student

silence while listening to music not performed live by the
teacher or student. Listening for the purpose of gaining
knowledge about and for the enjoyment of music.
10. Silence or Confusion: pauses, short periods of silence and

periods oF confusion in which communication cannot be under-
50
Although she found definite interaction patterns among sessions
of the individual teacher in the same grade and among all the teachers
in the same grade, individual teachers displayed different interaction
patterns between grades one and six. She noted that the results
suggested that music teachers were more direct in their teaching styles
and allowed fewer chances for student responses than regular classroom
17
teachers.
Kirkwood studied the relationship of certain dimensions of

teacher and pupil behavior to specific student achievements in
elementary general music classes. The investigator, noting certain
inadequacies for her purpose in the Hough and Flanders systems,
developed her own instrument, the Classroom Music Analysis System. It
included modifications of the Flanders Categories; a four-point teacher
rating scale on the factors of enthusiasm, focus, and clarity; and a
checklist of materials used. She f e l t t h a t her system described the
classroom behavior of teacher and student and allowed the researcher to
determine possible relationships between certain dimensions of behavior
and achievement in music. The categories are shown in Figure 10.
Observers were trained by the investigator and achieved an agreement of
.89.
Alicia Pagano, "A Study of the Classroom Interaction Pat-

terns of Selected Music Teachers in F i r s t Grade and Sixth Grade
General Music Classes," (Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , American University,
1972), pp. 109-118.
51
FIGURE 10
KIRKWOOD'S CLASSROOM MUSIC ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Musical Performance A c t i v i t i e s
a. Non-Conceptual
1. Listening b . Conceptual
a. NC
2. Singing b. C
a. NC
3. Playing Instruments b. C
4. Creating a. NC - This category i n c l u d e s c r e a t i n g

musical compositions or dance
b. C
Movement a. NC
b . C - The conceptual s u b d i v i s i o n of t h i s
c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s conducting
Reading or Aural D r i l l a. Vocal

b. Instrumental
c. Dictation
7. Non-performance d i r e c t e d a c t i v i t i e s , Includes t e s t - t a k i n g , making

r e p o r t s , p a i n t i n g to music, e t c .
Teacher Verbal
1. Informing a. Verbal - This category includes any

s u b s t a n t i v e information the teacher
offers,
b. Performance
example - Subdivision B includes any
musical demonstration o r example g i v e n ,
i n c l u d i n g playing i n t r o d u c t i o n .
2. Managing This c a t e g o r y includes any d i r e c t i o n s , whether

s u b s t a n t i v e or n o n - s u b s t a n t i v e . "Turn t o
page 6 9 , " "Leave the room q u i e t l y , " "Sing with
more e x p r e s s i o n . "
52
3. Questioning a. Closed (any question to which there is only

one right answer or the teacher w i l l accept
only one answer).
b. Open (any question to which there may be a
number of possible answers, including value
questions and opinion questions i f they are
substantive).
4. Accept The teacher accepts the student's answer or his
feelings.
5. Use Student Ideas The teacher takes a student's response and re-
s t a t e s i t , c l a r i f i e s i t , or asks another student
to respond to the original student's idea.
6. Praise The teacher praises the student or h i s response.
7. Rejects The teacher rejects the student's response or
his behavior in a punitive manner.
Student Verbal
1. Answer The student answers a question posed by the

teacher.
2. Question a. Substantive (deals with the subject matter),
b. Non-Substantive (includes such remarks as,
"May I sharpen my pencil?" "Do we have to
do t h i s " ) .
3. Student Statement Student makes a statement about something on
his own i n i t i a t i v e .
Confusion/Silence This category is for behavior non-codable in

other categories.
53
High Inference V a r i a b l e s
1. Teacher enthusiasm Rating 4: The teacher appears a c t i v e l y I n -

volved i n the lesson. His physical movement,
g e s t u r e s , voice i n f l e c t i o n , any f a c i a l ex-
p r e s s i o n s i n d i c a t e v i t a l i t y and i n t e r e s t .
Rating 1: The teacher appears a p a t h e t i c and
uninvolved. He seems to be merely "going
through the motions" of t e a c h i n g .
2. Task Focus Rating 4: The teacher keeps the pupils focused

upon t h e business a t hand. He appears
b u s i n e s s l i k e and achievement o r i e n t e d .
Rating 1: I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n the
focus of the lesson. The teacher seems un-
concerned whether the c h i l d r e n learn anything
from the l e s s o n .
3. Clarity Rating 4: The lesson i s l o g i c a l l y organized

P o i n t s a r e presented and developed i n a c l e a r ,
e a s i l y understandable manner a p p r o p r i a t e for
the p a r t i c u l a r students involved. There i s
a minimum of confusion.
Rating 4: The lesson I s presented in a disorgan-
ized and confused manner. There appears to be
l i t t l e l o g i c a l progression of i d e a s .
54
Nineteen elementary music teachers and one of each of t h e i r fifth
grade classes were selected for t h e study. The MAT I and I I were used
a s a pre- and p o s t - t e s t measure. Data was c o l l e c t e d by observers i n the
classroom with a minimum of s i x observations per t e a c h e r .
The data revealed that the v a r i a b l e s of teacher clarity, focus,
and enthusiasm; the amount of time devoted t o music reading; teacher
management and directness; and student-initiated statements and
substantive questions were all positively related to achievement.
Teacher r e j e c t i o n of student statements was negatively related to

18
achievement.
Reynolds, i n a study s i m i l a r to t h a t of E r b e s , sought t o develop
an instrument to describe and analyze teacher and student behavior in
small performance c l a s s e s . The i n v e s t i g a t o r f e l t t h a t F l a n d e r s ' System
d i d not permit adequate d e s c r i p t i o n of student and teacher behavior. She
chose instead Hough and Duncan's most recent modification of the
Observation System for I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis, which has c a t e g o r i e s t h a t
apply equally to teacher and s t u d e n t . She modified the c a t e g o r i e s still
further, basing her modifications on conjecture and on responses to a
q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent to supervising and student teachers asking for
reactions to given classroom i n c i d e n t s . Some d i s t i n c t i o n s of t h e OSIA
were deemed of minor importance and were omitted i n order to reduce the
complexity of the modification. Other modifications were made in order
18
Grace Kirkwood, "Teacher Behavior and Pupil Achievement
i n Selected Elementary Music Classrooms, (Ph.D. d i s s e r a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1974), pp. 7 0 - 7 1 .
55
t o describe a p p r a i s a l behaviors more completely. Her c a t e g o r i e s appear
i n Figure 11„
Following her modification of the OSIA, Reynolds conducted a
field study to establish feasibility. The subjects were fourteen
student teachers selected for availability. She employed audio
recording and concurrent live observation t o secure both audible and
non-audible d a t a . She concluded t h a t the category system as modified
was adequate for r e p o r t i n g behaviors in the small performance c l a s s . 19
Reynolds assumed that the content validity of the OSIA
established by Broadwater In an earlier study held true for her
modification. She c i t e d i n t e r - o b s e r v e r r e l l a b l i t y of .80, the process
of category modification employed, and the data gathering techniques as
support for her claim of v a l i d i t y .
In 1976 Froelich used observational techniques in order to
determine the v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to the e f f e c t i v e teaching of singing in
t h e elementary general music classroom. She r e j e c t e d as unproven the
belief that "indirectness" was such a v a r i a b l e and f e l t t h a t r e s e a r c h
must go beyond investigating the affective dimension of teacher
behavior. Through the use of a p i l o t study she refined a proposed s e t
of c a t e g o r i e s of t e a c h e r - l e a r n e r behaviors. These were reviewed by both
the participating teachers and other experienced non-participating
1Q
'Kay Reynolds, "Modification of the Observational System
f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis Focusing on Appraisal Behaviors of
Music Teachers in Small Performance C l a s s e s , " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974), pp. 120-123, e t passim.
56
FIGURE 11
REYNOLDS' MODIFIED OBSERVATIONAL SYSTEM

FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS
Categories
1. Soliciting Clarification
2. Responding
3. Initiating
4. Soliciting
5. Judging Incorrect
6. Judging Correct
7. Acknowledging
8. Personal Positive Judging
9. Personal Negative Judging
10. Musical Direction
X. Instructionally Nonfunctional
0. Silent Reflection
Interaction Separation Designation
Y Interaction Separation Designation
Prefixes Used in oonjection with Categories
T Teacher 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
S Student 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Subscripts Used in conjunction with Categories
M Musical 2, 3, 4
P Physical 2, 3, 4
R Gave a
Reason 5, 6, 8, 9
H Hyperbole 5, 6, 8, 9
I Irony 5, 6, 8, 9
N Sarcasm 5, 6, 8, 9
Teacher Error
Designation Used in Conjunction with Categories
Teacher Error'a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Coding is c i r c l e around appropriate number

57
teachers in o r d e r to e s t a b l i s h content v a l i d i t y . Observer reliability
by category was computed following data c o l l e c t i o n . Those c a t e g o r i e s
with a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of less than .60 were e l i m i n a t e d .
Fourteen music specialists in a large school district were
selected by suggestion of t h e supervisor of music. The b a s i s for the
s e l e c t i o n was not s t a t e d . One fourth grade c l a s s of each teacher was
observed a t o t a l of four times by a t l e a s t one of the observers during a
s i x week p e r i o d . The f o u r t e e n music teachers s e l e c t e d one song which
all classes were to prepare. Following the fourth o b s e r v a t i o n , a
performance of t h i s song and two others selected from each class's
repertoire by the r e s e a r c h e r were taped and t h e tapes evaluated by four
competent j u d g e s on the b a s i s of d i c t i o n , phrasing, pitch, blending,
and musicality. She concluded that the categories she developed
included a u s a b l e number of v a r i a b l e s which were established as being
c o n s i s t e n t and s t a b l e . She f u r t h e r found t h a t the e f f e c t i v e teaching of
singing was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the teaching patterns of work on
phrasing, instrumental accompaniment by students, conducting by the
teacher without the piano, and r e c i t i n g and rhythmic reading of the
words to the song. 20
In an experimental study s i m i l a r to t h a t of V e r r a s t r o , Hicks used
Erbes' RIOS instrument to examine the e f f e c t of i n t e r a c t i o n a n a l y s i s
Hildegard F r o e l i c h , "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s h i p

of Selected Observational V a r i a b l e s to the Teaching of S i n g i n g , "
(Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n , 1976), p p .
176-178.
58
training on student teachers. Fifty-two conducting students were
randomly assigned to one of two groups. In addition to the regular
conducting instruction, the experimental group received ten hours of
instruction in the theory and techniques of interaction analysis and the
RIOS instrument, while the control group received ten additional
sessions of training in conducting. An attitude scale measuring
dogmatism and attitude toward traditional and progressive educational
methods was administered as a pre- and post-test to the entire group.
Following the treatment the student teachers' verbal behaviors were
analyzed with the RIOS scale.
The findings indicated that those students who had received
training in Interaction analysis were less dogmatic, used more indirect
verbal behaviors, were more aware of a variety of verbal behaviors, and

21
exhibited more varied verbal behavior than did the control group.
In two of the studies surveyed the researchers analyzed the
rehearsal situation, but, unlike other studies reviewed here, they
emphasized the cognitive dimension in their selection of categories.
Ervln proposed to develop an observation system which could be used to
evaluate both choral and Instrumental conductor effectiveness. He
videotaped ten-minute segments of a rehearsal by each of 37 junior high,
senior high, and college instrumental and vocal conductors and asked a
*" 'Charles Eugene Hicks, "The Effect of Training in Interac-

tion Analysis on the Verbal Teaching Behaviors and Attitudes of
Prospective School Instrumental Music Education Students Studying
Conducting," (Ed.D dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978),
pp. 94-99.
59
panel of judges to rank the conductors' abilities to produce short-term
improvements during the segment. He analyzed the segments of the 14
highest and 14 lowest ranked conductors and, from a list of verbal and
non-verbal behaviors, determined the following eleven behaviors to be
discriminators of conductor effectiveness.
1. eye contact
2. expressive gestures
3. pitch theme units
4. time theme units
5. volume theme units
6. otner musical theme units
7. reinforcement theme units
8. discipline/punishment theme units
9. "on task" theme units
10. non-musical direction theme units
11. teaching function theme units
To validate the eleven variables as predictors of conductor
effectiveness, Ervin had five music educators view a random selection of
the videotapes and rank the conductors on their use of the variables.
Their rankings and those of the Judging panel were in 84 percent
agreement.
In 1977 Thurraan made an analysis of certain rehearsal behaviors
used by selected choral conductors. His purpose was to describe
rehearsal techniques and the quantity and content of verbal references
during the rehearsal. Five conductors from the high school, college, and
professional fields were selected on the basis of experience, type of
Charles Ervin "Systematic Observation and Evaluation of

Conductor Effectiveness," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of West
Virginia, 1975), pp. 60-69.
60
position, and availability. Two rehearsals of each conductor were
videotaped and analyzed to determine the extent of the conductor's
concern for the following:
a) elements of vocal production:
1. pitch
2. time
3. text/diction
4. phrasing/dynamics
5. tone color
6. style
7. vocal production
b) rehearsal techniques:
1. approval
2. disapproval
3. demonstration
4. verbal imagery
5. verbal explanation
c) and for the units of the choir and of the music being
rehearsed:
1. less than a phrase

2. a phrase or more
3. one section
4. more than a s e c t i o n , but not a l l
5. t h e e n t i r e ensemble
He found that the conductors devoted 35 to 40 percent of
rehearsal time to verbal communication and spent 50 t o 60 percent of
that communication on the elements of v e r b a l performance. They gave the
greatest emphasis to phrasing/dynamics, with over 36 percent of the
r e f e r e n c e s and 32 percent of the time expended on that element alone.
They employed demonstration more often and f o r a g r e a t e r amount of time
than verbal imagery and verbal explanation. Although they used verbal
imagery twice as much as verbal explanation, considerably more time was
expended on verbal e x p l a n a t i o n . Disapproval was used more often and for

61
a g r e a t e r amount of time than approval. They devoted 60 percent of the
r e h e a r s a l time t o rehearsal t r i a l s , and 75 p e r c e n t of the t r i a l s and 92
percent of the t r i a l time involved the e n t i r e ensemble. Approximately
67 percent of the t r i a l s and 94 percent of the time were spent in

23
rehearsing a phrase or more. The study i s important as a description
of successful choral c o n d u c t o r s ' rehearsal p r i o r i t i e s , p r a c t i c e s , and
techniques.
In a study u t i l i z i n g t h e RIOS categories, Erbes analyzed the
verbal rehearsal techniques of 15 band and orchestra conductors,
randomly s e l e c t e d from a population of 33 conductors whose groups had
received D i v i s i o n I r a t i n g s i n S t a t e F e s t i v a l s in a t l e a s t t h r e e of the
preceding f i v e y e a r s . Tape r e c o r d i n g s of two r e h e a r s a l s per conductor
were made f o r the study. He found t h a t 78.9 p e r c e n t of the c o n d u c t o r s '
verbal interaction was direct, compared to 5.3 percent indirect
interaction. The conductors invested the g r e a t e s t amounts of time in
Category 6 ( D i r e c t i n g , 33.3 p e r c e n t ) and Category 4 (Informing, 22.8
percent). He noted a slight decrease in the conductors' i n d i r e c t

24
behavior from t h a t of previous s t u d i e s .
J
V i r g l l Leon Thurman, "A Frequency and Time Description of
Selected Rehearsal Behaviors Used by Five Chora] Conductors,"
(Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1977), pp. 98-162.
24
E r b e s , "A Study of Verbal Rehearsal Techniques," Michigan
School Band and Orchestra Association J o u r n a l 17-19 (Spring,
1976), pp. 164^1158.
62
Summary
Teacher-student Interaction was the subject of educational

research at least as early as 1912, but the main body of work in this
area i s of much more recent date. Early research dealt mainly with the
cognitive aspects of classroom interaction, while more current work in
the field is concerned with the affective dimension.
Interaction Analysis in General Education
In the 1930's and early ' 4 0 ' s Anderson and his fellow researchers
developed a category system designed to f a c i l i t a t e the classification of
teacher interaction as either integrative or dominative. They used this
system to examine the relationship of student attitude and study
behavior to these two teaching s t y l e s . Withall attempted to develop a
technique to determine the classroom climate through a classification of
the verbal behavior of the teacher. His system, which included seven
categories, was validated by an observer using objective c r i t e r i a , by
judges' ratings of the teacher in a live situation, and by a sociometric
instrument. The results of hi3 study indicated that the categorization
of the verbal interaction of the teacher is a valid measure of classroom
climate.
Building on the work of Anderson, Withall, and others, Flanders

devised a ten-category system which described the teacher's verbal
behavior as a r a t i o of Indirect (non-dominatlve) to direct (dominative)
interactions. Using this sytem in subsequent studies, he found that
student achievement was highest and classroom climate more positive
63
under those teachers with more indirect interaction. This system is

presently the most widely used in Interaction analysis, both in the
original form and in i t s modifications for use in special s e t t i n g s .
Interaction Analysis i n Music Education
In 1967 Snapp, using a modification of Flanders' System,

determined that teacher Interaction in his sample of f i f t h grade
instrumental classes was direct twice as often as indirect. Nolin used
a modification of Hough's Observation System in an attempt to r e l a t e the
interaction patterns of general music teachers to teaching
effectiveness. The study revealed no significant differences, but, like
Snapp, he noted a high degree of d i r e c t teacher influence. This led him
to suggest that Flanders' conclusions regarding the desirability of
indirect teacher interaction may not extend to music teachers.
Whitehill performed a similar study *•>? interaction patterns and

teacher effectiveness, but, unlike Nolin, he used a modification of
Flanders' System in h i s analysis. The results of his study demonstrated
that Interaction patterns in the general music class do indeed
discriminate between l e v e l s of teaching a b i l i t i e s .
McAdams utilized Flanders' System to examine the relationship

between college teachers' classroom interaction and the teachers' views
of their own classroom behaviors. No significant relationship was
found. Verrastro used the Withall Climate Index to study the effect of
Interaction analysis t r a i n i n g on music education students. He concluded
that students given such training used more learner-centered behaviors,
64
were more objective in self-assessment and were more sensitized to the

effects of t h e i r verbal behaviors.
The development of an instrument for the analysis of performance

group rehearsals was the subject of two studies. In 1972 Erbes modified
Flanders' System in order to develop an instrument to study teacher
interaction in the large performance group rehearsal. Withall's Climate
Index was used as a criterion measure, and validity was established at
.94. The Instrument is applicable to both instrumental and choral
rehearsals and is usable by observers with a minimum of fifteen hours of
training. In addition to providing a r to of indirect t o direct
interaction, the RIOS, l i k e Flanders' System, also enables the observer
to analyze the interaction patterns as well as determine the frequency
and total time of teacher interaction in each category.
Pagano modified the Flanders' System to study the verbal and

non-verbal patterns of f i r s t and sixth grade general music teachers. In
addition to her findings that individual teacher's interaction patterns
were consistent at the same grade levels but differed between grade
l e v e l s , she also noted that music teachers were more direct in their
teaching style than regular classroom teachers.
Kirkwood studied the correlation of teacher and pupil behavior to

student achievement in elementary general music classes. Using an
interaction analysis instrument she developed for the study, the
investigator found that teacher clarity, focus, and enthusiasm; the
amount of time devoted to music reading; teacher management and
directness; and student i n i t i a t e d statements and substantive questions
65
were positively related to student achievement. Teacher rejection of
student statements was negatively related to student achievement.
Reynolds' study was concerned with the development of an
Instrument for the analysis of the small performance group rehearsal.
Feeling that the Flanders' System did not allow sufficient description
of student and teacher interaction, she chose instead Hough and Duncan's
Observation System for Instructional Analysis. Her modification of the
OSIA was subjected to a field study from which she concluded that the
modification was adequate for describing behavior in the small
performance class. She did not establish the validity by a criterion
measure but instead assumed that the content validity previously
established for the original OSIA held true for her modification.
Further, she cited her process of category modification; her data
gathering techniques; and the Inter-observer reliability index (.80) as
support for the study's validity.
Froellch sought to determine the variables related to the
effective teaching of singing. She developed a set of categories
inductively from a pilot study and used these to describe the teaching
techniques of 14 elementary general music teachers. She found that
effective teaching of singing was positively related to the teaching
patterns of work on phrasing, instrumental accompaniment by students,
conducting by the teacher without the piano, and reciting and rhythmic
reading of the words to the song.
Erbes studied the verbal rehearsal techniques of fifteen band and
orchestra conductors randomly selected from a group of conductors whose

66
ensembles had received Division I ratings at State Contests. He found
that nearly 80 percent of their interaction was direct, with large
investments of time in the categories of Directing and Informing.
Hicks examined the effects of interaction analysis training on
student teachers in music education in a study somewhat similar to that
of Verrastro. Using Erbes' RIOS categories to analyze the interaction,
he found that student teachers receiving interaction training were less
dogmatic, used more indirect verbal behaviors, and had a greater
repertoire of verbal behaviors than the control group.
In 1975 Ervin developed an observation system to evaluate choral
and instrumental conductor effectiveness, From an analysis of 28 short
choral and instrumental rehearsal segments he determined eleven
variables to be discriminators of conductor effectiveness. Thurman
(1977) analyzed rehearsals of five choral conductors in a time and
frequency description of their rehearsal techniques and verbal
references. He Investigated the amount of rehearsal time expended In
verbal communication, the conductors' concern for the various elements
of vocal production, their rehearsal techniques, and their use of
approval and disapproval.

CHAPTER I I I
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA
Introduction
Between February ZZ and May 15, 1978, each conductor was
videotaped during two r e g u l a r l y scheduled rehearsal periods, each
l a s t i n g l e s s than an hour. All the rehearsals took place in each
ensemble's normal rehearsal facility. All of the r e h e a r s a l s were
recorded on one-half inch r e e l - t o - r e e l Sony video t a p e r e c o r d e r s . One of
the conductors used Memorex tape and another used Scotch 3-M t a p e . All
o t h e r r e h e a r s a l s were recorded on Sony V-32 video tape. All of the
t a p e s gave e x c e l l e n t f i d e l i t y and c l a r i t y .
Conductor A's r e h e a r s a l s were videotaped on March 20 and 2 8 . The
ensemble rehearsed 50 minutes per day, f i v e days per week. On t h e day
of t h e second t a p i n g the r e h e a r s a l time was shortened eight minutes due
to an all-school activity. In both r e h e a r s a l s t h e band was preparing
for contest.
Conductor B's r e h e a r s a l s were videotaped on February 22 and March
15. The ensemble rehearsed 45 minutes per day, f i v e days per week,
although the f i r s t r e h e a r s a l was shortened by ten minutes due to an
all-school a c t i v i t y on t h a t day. The f i r s t r e h e a r s a l was concerned with
preparation f o r the winter concert and the second rehearsal was in
preparation f o r the State Organizations Contest.
67
68
Conductor C's r e h e a r s a l s were videotaped on March 2A and 22. The
ensemble rehearsed 45 minutes per day, f i v e days per week. He shortened
h i s second r e h e a r s a l by approximately five minutes in o r d e r to announce
at the end of the period his decision not to r e t u r n as the band
director the following year. Since his announcement followed the
rehearsal, no unusual conditions were p r e s e n t in the r e h e a r s a l i t s e l f .
In both r e h e a r s a l s he was preparing the band f o r the s p r i n g concert.
Conductor D's r e h e a r s a l s were videotaped on April 20 and May 15.
The ensemble rehearsed 50 minutes per day, f i v e days per week. He had
intended t o record them e a r l i e r , but sickness and a crowded performance
schedule prevented it. Both rehearsals were in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the
spring c o n c e r t .
Conductor E's r e h e a r s a l s were videotaped on March 6 and March
10. The ensemble rehearsed 45 minutes per day, five days per week. His
two r e h e a r s a l examples consisted of the f i r s t and the l a s t r e h e a r s a l s in
preparation for the National Music Contest i n Denver.
Following the videotaping of a l l r e h e a r s a l s and the preparation
of verbatim typescripts from the tapes, the data were organized
according to the subproblems. The following information i s presented in
this chapter:
1. Raw frequency and time data f o r each conductor
2 . Percentages of frequency and time data, where a p p l i c a b l e
3. Average time per i n s t a n c e , where a p p l i c a b l e
4. Averages of the d a t a for a l l conductors.

A discussion of each c o n d u c t o r ' s behavior accompanies t h e data display.
A summary concludes each subproblem.
Subproblem One
What is the affective nature of the conductors' rehearsal
interaction?
The i n v e s t i g a t o r analyzed t h e videotapes of the rehearsals with
the Rehearsal I n t e r a c t i o n Observation System, Erbes' adaptation t o t h e
r e h e a r s a l s i t u a t i o n of Flanders' c a t e g o r i e s . The c a t e g o r i e s are grouped
into Conductor Supportive ( I n d i r e c t ) Behavior (Categories 1,2,and 3 ) ;
Conductor Non-supportive (Direct) Behavior (Categories 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8);
Student Behavior (Categories 9 and 10); S i l e n c e or Confusion (Category
11); and Performance ( I n d i c a t e d by / ) .
The r e h e a r s a l s were coded on a sequence chart by marking, at
three-second intervals, the number of the category d e s c r i p t i v e of the
i n t e r a c t i o n taking place. The coding data for Subproblem One are
displayed i n Tables 1-6. Since t h e nature of the conductors' interaction
was the point of i n t e r e s t in t h i s subproblem, a l l of the interaction,
including that during announcements and warmup p r i o r to the a c t u a l
r e h e a r s i n g , was included in the analysis. The subscripts by each
conductor's designation i n d i c a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r r e h e a r s a l .
Conductor A
Conductor A interacted directly 83.4 percent of the total
Interaction time and i n d i r e c t l y 10 percent of the time. His i n t e r a c t i o n

70
fell mainly into the direct categories of 4 and 6, with percentage
values of 35.1 and 31.2 respectively. The lowest percentage (.6) was
found in Category 1 (Using). The data for Conductor A appears in Table
1.
TABLE 1
PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL BEHAVIOR
Cab. A
1 A
1
Mean
1 •3 1. .6
2 5.1 3.2 4.2
3 5.1 5.3 5.2 I n d i r e c t T o t a l : 10
4 35.2 34.9 35.
5 1.9 2.2 2.
5x 5.6 1.8 3.9
6 29.5 33.3 31.2
7 4.5 9.9 6.9
8 5.9 2.6 4.4 D i r e c t T o t a l : 83.4
9 .6 2. 1.2
10 0.0 0.0 0.0
11 + 6.4 4. 5.3
A marked change occurred between the first and second rehearsals
in Categories 1 (Encouraging), 7 (Criticizing), and 8 (Correcting).
During the first rehearsal Conductor A employed a circumspect approach
in correcting playing errors, with an occasional use of humor. He
addressed students on a high plane, with obvious regard for them as
persons. During the second rehearsal his corrections were more pointed.
71
He tended to criticize more often and more strongly than in the first
rehearsal, while at the same time his encouraging and correcting
interaction diminished. The second rehearsal was but seven rehearsals
prior to the contest, and the conductor may have been feeling the
pressure.
Conductor B
Conductor B interacted directly 82.8 percent of the total

interaction time and indirectly 10.9 percent of the time. His areas of
greatest interaction were Categories 4 (Informing) and 6 (Directing).
His pre-rehearsal instructions and the explanation of the style of the
Swedish march, Valdres, accounted for the emphasis on Category 4 in the
first rehearsal. A protracted explanation of the s t y l e of the Second
Suite by Hoist caused an even greater emphasis in this category in the
second rehearsal. In the indirect categories an increase during the
second rehearsal in Categories 1 and 3 (Using and Questioning) and a
coincident decrease in Category 2 (Encouraging) was noted. The data for
Conductor B appear In Table 2.
72
TABLE 2
Cat. B1 B2 Mean
1 .2 2.3 1.3
2 4.0 3.1 3.6
3 5.8 6.2 6.0 Indirect Total: 10.9
4 32.0 37.6 34.9
5 0.0 0.0 0.0
5x 6.5 5.8 6.1
6 36.7 28.3 32.3
7 3.8 5.6 4.7

8 3.4 6.0 4.7 Direct Total: 82.8
9 3.8 3.3 3.6
10 .7 .2 .4
11+ 3.1 1.7 2.4
Conductor B governed h i s r e h e a r s a l w i t h a l i g h t hand and in a
generally pleasant manner. His c o r r e c t i o n s were carried out in a frank,
non-accusing manner. A remark i n the first rehearsal regarding parts
t h a t were not p r a c t i c e d was more i n the n a t u r e of an observation than an
upbraiding. His explanation of style contained jokes and light
r e f e r e n c e s to the I n t e n t of t h e composer.
Conductor C
Conductor C interacted directly 77.4 percent of the total
interaction time and indirectly 3.4 percent of the time. The category
73
receiving greatest emphasis was 6 (Directing). Though Category 4
(Informing) accounted for the n e x t l a r g e s t amount of i n t e r a c t i o n , it
received l e s s than h a l f t h e time i n v e s t e d i n Category 6. Categories 8
(Correcting) and 5x (Non-verbal Demonstration) followed in amounts of
time. The conductor used little indirect interaction during the
rehearsals. The high values in Category 11+ were due to a p e r i o d of
several minutes devoted t o tuning d u r i n g each r e h e a r s a l . The data for
Conductor C appear i n Table 3 .
TABLE 3
Cat. C. C~ Mean
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 1.5 3.1 2.4
3 .9 1.0 1.0 I n d i r e c t T o t a l : 3.4
4 18.5 16.2 17.6
5 0.0 .4 .2
5x 7.3 3.3 5.3
6 47.3 42.9 45.8
7 2.7 3.3 3.0
8 7.5 3.3 5.4 Direct T o t a l : 77.4
9 0.0 1.0 .5
10 2.0 .2 1.1
11+ 20.0 14.8 17.6
Conductor C's general approach to the rehearsal was task
oriented. His interaction centered on altering the students' performance

74
as quickly and efficiently as possible. He was very sure of the
interpretations he desired and insisted on corrections without being
vindictive or heavy-handed. He injected little or no humor into the
rehearsal, however, was accusatory at times, and gave little
encouragement (Category 2 ) . The rehearsals were characterized by student
inattention and talking, which resulted in a sharp rebuke at one point.
Conductor D
Conductor D interacted directly 72.1 percent of the total
Interaction time and indirectly 9.3 p e r c e n t of the t i m e . Category 6
(Directing) dominated the rehearsal, with Category 4 (Informing)
receiving the next l a r g e s t amount of I n t e r a c t i o n . Marked differences
between t h e two r e h e a r s a l s occurred in C a t e g o r i e s 3 (Questioning) and 5x
(Non-verbal Demonstration). The data for Conductor D appear i n Table 4 .

75
TABLE 4
Cat. D1 D2 Mean
1 1.9 1.1 1.6

2 .8 1.7 1.2
3 4.7 9.6 6.6 Indirect Total: 9.3
4 21.2 18.6 20.2
5 0.0 0.0 0.0
5x 20.3 4.4 14.2
6 29.9 32.9 31.0
7 2.6 3.6 3.0
8 4.5 2.4 3.7 D i r e c t T o t a l : 72.1
9 1.6 6.8 3.6
10 1.5 .2 1.0
11+ 11.1 18.6 14.0
During the first rehearsal Conductor D was intent on the correct
performance of a single rhythmic figure which occurred in various
sections of the band throughout the composition. His extensive use of
non-verbal means to model the correct and the incorrect means of
performing the figure accounts for the great amount of interaction in
Category 5x (Non-verbal Demonstration).
The large number of questions (Category 3) during the second
rehearsal and the smaller percentage of Category 5x accounted mainly for
the shift In the amount of direct and indirect interaction between the
two rehearsals. This does not, however, adequately describe the general
76
atmosphere. Many of the conductor's questions were judgmental or couched
in reprimanding terms. He betrayed f r u s t r a t i o n on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s ,
used sarcasm o c c a s i o n a l l y during the second rehearsal, and had to
discipline students on two occasions. In a l e t t e r accompanying t h e
v i d e o t a p e s , he made references t o the particular problem of keeping
s t u d e n t s on task d u r i n g the spring of t h e year.
Conductor E
Conductor E interacted directly 91.2 percent of the total
interaction time and indirectly 4.6 percent of t h e time. Most of t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n occurred i n Categories 4 (Informing) and 6 (Directing). He
used Non-verbal Demonstration (Category 5x) e x t e n s i v e l y (10.8 p e r c e n t ) .
Since the s t u d y ' s premise was a d e s c r i p t i o n of interaction and
techniques used i n t y p i c a l r e h e a r s a l s , t h e conductors were asked not t o
record s i g h t r e a d i n g or r e h e a r s a l s j u s t preceding or following concert
appearances. The f i r s t of Conductor E ' s r e h e a r s a l s , however, immediately
following an appearance a t the ABA convention and was given over to
administrative announcements, explanations, and sightreading. This
accounts for the heavy concentration of Category 4 (Informing) In the
first rehearsal. The second r e h e a r s a l was the f i n a l r e h e a r s a l before a
contest. Announcements (Category 4) were extensive in this rehearsal
also, as well as non-verbal demonstration (5x) of c e r t a i n s u b t l e t i e s of
a r t i c u l a t i o n and dynamics. Both were obviously a t y p i c a l r e h e a r s a l s . His
data, which appear i n Table 5 for comparison, were r e j e c t e d , therefore,

77
i n the summary of t h i s subproblem. A t y p e s c r i p t of Conductor E's first
r e h e a r s a l appears in Appendix L.
TABLE 5
Cat. E
1 E
2 Mean
1 .4 1.4 .9
2 .2 .3 .23
3 2.3 4.6 3.5 Indirect Total: 4.6
4 68.1 40.3 54.2
5 .8 .6 .7
5x 7.3 15.8 11.6
6 16.0 27.3 21.6
7 1.4 3.8 2.6

8 .4 .8 .6
9 .8 1.1 .9
10 1.0 2.2 1.6
11 + 1.5 1.9 1.7
Summary
With Conductor E's data excluded, the conductors interacted

directly 78.1 percent and indirectly 8.6 percent of the total
interaction time. The percentage of direct interaction ranged from 83.4
to 72.1, while the percentage of Indirect interaction ranged from 10.4
to 3.4. Their Interaction f e l l mainly into Categories 4 (Informing) and
6 (Directing). Category 5x (Non-verbal Demonstration) occupied the next
78
largest amount of time. The summary data are presented in Table 6.
TABLE 6
Cat. A B C D Mean
1 .6 1.3 0.0 1.6 .9
2 4.2 3.6 2.4 1.2 2.8
3 5.2 6.0 1.0 6.6 5.0 Indirect Total: 8.4
4 35.1 34.9 17.6 20.2 27.0
5 2.0 0.0 .2 0.0 .6

5x 3.9 6.1 5.3 14.2 7.4
6 31.2 32.3 45.8 31.0 35.1
7 6.9 4.7 3.0 3.0 4.4

8 4.4 4.7 5.4 3.7 4.6 Direct Total: 19.0
9 1.2 3.6 .5 3.6 2.2

10 0.0 .4 1.1 1.0 .6
11 + 5.3 2.4 17.6 14.0 9.8
This preponderance of direct interaction does not seem to be

1 2
unusual for music teachers. Snapp and Pagano observed that the
general music teachers in their studies were more direct than classroom
teachers. Nolin noted that the "most effective" teachers in his study
used a direct teaching style, while Kirkwood found that a direct

1
Snapp, passim.
2
Pagano, pp. 109-118, passim.
3
Nolin, p. 140.
^Kirkwood, pp. 70-71.

79
teaching style was positively related to student achievement.
Erbes, in a study reported in 1976, found that the conductors

interacted directly 78.9 percent of the t o t a l interaction time and
i n d i r e c t l y 5.3 percent of the time. Leonhard and House have likewise
pointed out that performance groups are usually teacher-dominated.
Even though direct, or non-supportive, interaction dominated

these rehearsals, i t does not necessarily follow that a negative climate
existed. I t is quite probable that students in performing groups come to
their rehearsals with expectations different from those they bring to
t h e i r academic classes. A student might well expect to achieve 100
percent on a given math assignment, but in music a perfect performance
can only be a goal toward which he s t r i v e s . There are always changes and
improvements which i t i s the teacher's responsibility to point out and
c o r r e c t . As a result, the student probably anticipates and accepts a
predominance of corrective interaction from the conductor.
Subproblem Two
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, Is the verbal

communication of the conductors focused on the various elements of
performance: a) pitch; b) rhythm; c) a r t i c u l a t i o n ; d) phrasing/dynamics;
e) tone quality; f) s t y l e ; g) tone production; and h) balance?
Erbes, "A Study of Rehearsal Techniques," pp. 17-19.

Leonhard and House, Foundations and Principles, p. 287.
80
Since some of the conductors referred to the elements of
performance during the announcement and warmup segments of the
r e h e a r s a l , t h e s e segments were i n c l u d e d i n the data for t h i s subproblem.
Conductor A
Conductor A initiated 116 instances of verbal interaction related
to the elements of Instrumental performance. The total time of this
interaction was 24.45 minutes and amounted to 61.8 percent of his total
verbal communication. The mean length of each reference was 12.6
seconds. The data appear in Tables 7 through 9.
The area receiving greatest emphasis was phrasing/dynamics. Over
30 percent of Conductor A's references and more than 28 percent of the
time expended on the elements of performance were devoted to this area.
Areas receiving secondary emphasis were rhythm, which accounted for
nearly 21 percent of the references and over 19 percent of the time; and
balance (slightly more than 11 percent of the references and over 18
percent of the time). During both rehearsals the conductor concentrated
on clarity of line, attacks, and releases; hence, his emphasis on the
above elements. Preparation of the band for contest was the conductor's
primary concern in both rehearsals.
Conductor B
Conductor B made 140 separate references to the elements of
performance for a t o t a l of 16.6 m i n u t e s , or 51.2 percent of h i s t o t a l
verbal i n t e r a c t i o n . The mean l e n g t h of each reference was 7-1 seconds.
The data appear i n Tables 10 through 12.

81
TABLE 7
CONDUCTOR A: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGES OF

REFERENCES TO THE ELEMENTS
Elem. A
1 A2 Tot. Mean
# % # it # *
Pitch 5 7.8 7 13.5 12 10.3
Rhythm 15 23.4 9 17.3 24 20.7
Artie. 11 17.2 3 5.8 14 12.1
Ph/Dyn 17 26.6 18 34.6 35 30.2
Tone Q 4 6.3 5 9.6 9 7.8

Style 3 4.7 4 7.7 7 6.0
Tone P 2 3.1 0 0.0 2 1.7
Balance 7 10.9 6 11.5 13 11.2
Total 64 52 116
82
TABLE 8
CONDUCTOR A: TIME AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem. A1 ~A_" Tot. Mean

% min. % min. %
Pitch .65 4.7 2.31 21.8 2.96 12.1
Rhythm 2.8 20.2 2.0 18.9 4.8 19.6
Artie. 2.55 18.4 .17 1.6 2.72 11.1
Ph/Dyn 3.98 28.7 2.95 27.8 6.93 28.3
Tone Q .78 5.7 .53 5.0 1.32 5.4
Style .42 3.0 .37 3.5 .78 3.2
Tone P .42 3.0 0.0 0.0 .42 1.7
Balance 2.26 16.3 2.28 21.5 4.53 18.5
Total 13.85 10.60 24.45

83
TABLE 9
CONDUCTOR A: TIME PER REFERENCE IN SECONDS
Elem. A
1 A2 Mean
Pitch 7.8 19.8 14.8
Rhythm 11.2 13.3 12.2
Artie. 13.9 3.3 11.7
Ph/Dyn 14.0 9.8 11.9
Tone Q 11.7 6.3 8.8

Style 8.3 5.5 6.7
Tone P 12.5 0.0 12.5
Balance 19.4 23.3 21.2
Mean 13.1 12.2 12.7

TABLE 1 0
CONDUCTOR B : FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGES OF

B
Elem.
//
B
1
1
%
// u Tot.
#
Mean
%
Pitch 7 13.0 16 18.6 23 16.4
Rhythm 12 22.2 ZZ 25.6 34 24.3
Artie. 11 20.4 18 20.9 29 20.7
Ph/Dyn 13 24.1 22 25.6 35 25.0
Tone Q 0 0.0 1 1.2 1 .7

Style 3 5.6 5 5.8 8 5.7
Tone P 1 1.9 2 2.3 3 2.1
Balance 7 13.0 0 0.0 7 5.0
Total 54 86 140
85
TABLE 11
CONDUCTOR B : TIME AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem. Tot. Mean

min. % min. % min. %
Pitch .58 7.9 2.41 26.3 3.0 18.0
Rhythm 1.12 15.1 1.82 19.8 2.94 17.7
Artie. 1.12 15.1 .91 9.9 2.03 12.2
Ph/Dyn 1.97 26.5 2.'8 30.5 4.77 28.7
Tone Q 0.0 0.0 .13 1.5 .13 .8

Style 1.48 20.0 .85 9.3 2.33 14.1
Tone P .1 1.4 .26 2.8 .36 2.2

Balance 1.05 14.2 0.0 0.0 1.05 6.3
Total 7.42 9.18 16.61

86
TABLE 12
CONDUCTOR B: TIME PER REFERENCE IN SECONDS
Elem. B. B0 Mean
Pitch 5.0 9.0 7.81
Rhythm 5.6 5.0 5.2

Artie. 6.1 3.0 4.2
Ph/Dyn 9.1 7.6 8.2
Tone Q 0.0 8.0 8.0
Style 29.7 10.2 17.5
Tone P 6.0 7.8 7.2

Balance 9.0 0.0 9.0
Mean 8.2 6.4 7.1

His principal concern was phrasing/dynamics, which accounted for
over 28 percent of the verbal interaction regarding the elements of
performance and 25 percent of all references to the elements. Additional
areas of concern were pitch, rhythm, articulation, and style.
Both rehearsals dealt with selections in the early stages of
preparation, and the conductor was intent on achieving correct rhythms,
understanding of style, and clarity in articulations. Many of the
corrections for pitch arose from student errors in reading notes and
interpreting key signatures in unfamiliar scores.
Conductor C
Conductor C referred to the elements of performance 147 times fof
a total or 10.13 minutes or 44.8 percent of his total verbal
interaction. The mean length of each reference was 4.1 seconds. His
principal concerns were style, phrasing/dynamics, and rhythm, which
together accounted for over 77.5 percent of all the references. The data
appear In Tables 13 through 15. Tables 13 and 14 reveal that he referred
most often to rhythmic problems but spent the greatest amount of time
dealing with aspects of style.
That the conductor was able to stress the finer points of
interpretation throughout both rehearsals was due largely to the
technical facility of the group. Rhythmic references usually concerned
precision of the parts, not incorrect rhythms. His statements regarding
phrasing/dynamics stressed subtleties of the phrase line or of balance.

88
TABLE 13
CONDUCTOR C: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem.
1
c
<* # S Tot.
#
Mean
t
Pitch 6 9.0 2 2.5 8 5.4
Rhythm 13 19.4 27 33.8 40 27.2
Artie. 10 14.9 5 6.3 15 10.2
Ph/Dyn 20 29.9 18 22.5 38 25.9
Tone Q 1 1.5 5 6.3 6 4.1

Style 13 19.4 23 2.5 36 24.5
Tone P 1 1.5 0 0.0 1 .7

Balance 3 .2 0 0.0 3 2.0
Total 67 80 147
89
TABLE 14
CONDUCTOR C: TIME AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem. C~j Cg" Tot. Mean

Pitch .25 4.8 .06 1.2 .31 3.0

Rhythm .85 16.4 1.62 32.7 2.47 24.4
Artie. .62 12.9 • 34 6.9 .96 9.5

Ph/Dyn 1.83 35.4 1.02 20.6 2.85 28.2
Tone Q .02 .3 .23 4.7 .25 2.5

Style 1.34 25.9 1.68 34.0 3.03 29.9
Tone P .04 .8 0.0 0.0 .04 .4
Balance .23 4.4 0.0 0.0 .23 2.2
Total 5.18 4.95 10.13

90
TABLE 15
CONDUCTOR C: TIME PER REFERENCE IN SECONDS
Elem. C C Meai
1 2
Pitch 2.5 1.8 2.3
Rhythm 3.9 3.6 3.7
Artie. 3.7 4.1 3.8
Ph/Dyn 5.5 3.4 4.5
Tone Q 1.0 2.8 2.5
Style 6.2 4.4 5.0
Tone P 2.5 0.0 2.5
Balance 4.5 0.0 4.5
Mean 4.6 3.7 4.1

91
Conductor D
Conductor D made 145 references to the elements for a total time
of 18.33 minutes, or slightly more than 37 percent of his total verbal
interaction. The mean length of each reference was 7.6 seconds. The data
appear in Tables 16 through 18.
The principal areas of emphasis were rhythm and pitch. Over 70
percent of the verbal interaction time devoted to the elements was
expended on these aspects. A concern of somewhat less importance was
phrasing/dynamics, which received less than half of the time of rhythm
and pitch.
The large amount of time expended on rhythm reflected the
conductor's concern for the dotted-eighth-sixteenth rhythms which
dominated parts of one composition (Concertino for Woodwind Quintet and
Band). His preoccupation with intonation in the lower voices (Elsa's
Procession) during the second rehearsal accounted for the large amount
of time devoted to pitch.
Conductor E
Conductor E made 76 r e f e r e n c e s t o the elements of performance for
a t o t a l of 18.30 m i n u t e s , or 47 p e r c e n t of h i s t o t a l verbal interaction.
The mean l e n g t h of each reference was 14.5 seconds, a result of his
extended e x p l a n a t i o n s during both r e h e a r s a l s . The d a t a appear i n Tables
19 through 2 1 .
TABLE 16
CONDUCTOR D: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem. D Tot. Mean

# s # D 2
» # %
Pitch 15 18.1 36 58.1 51 35.2
Rhythm 36 43.4 8 12.9 44 30.3
Artie. 6 7.2 3 4.8 9 6.2

Ph/Dyn 20 24.1 12 19.4 32 22.1
Tone Q 2 2.4 0 0.0 2 1.4

Style 1 1.2 1 1.6 1 1.4
Tone P 1 1.2 1 1.6 1 1.4
Balance 2 2.4 1 2.1 3 2.1
Total 83 62 145
TABLE 17
CONDUCTOR D : TIME AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem.
4
min.
Dl
% < °%2
min.
Tot.
min.
Mean
%
Pitch 1.79 16.8 4.23 55.5 6.03 32.9
Rhythm 5.28 49.4 1.68 22.0 6.96 38.0
Artie. .63 5.9 .69 9.1 1.33 7.2

Ph/Dyn 2.0 18.7 .78 10.2 2.78 15.1
Tone Q .18 1.6 0.0 0.0 .18 1.

Style .27 2.5 .07 .9 .33 1.8
Tone P .03 .3 .02 .2 .05 .3
Balance .52 4.8 .17 2.2 .68 3.7
Total 10.7 7.63 18.33

94
TABLE 18
CONDUCTOR D: TIME PER REFERENCE IN SECONDS
Elem. D D Mean
1 2
Pitch 7.2 7.1 7.1
Rhythm 8.8 12.6 9.5
Artie. 6.3 13.8 8.8
Ph/Dyn 6.0 3.9 5.2
Tone Q 5.3 0.0 5.3
Style 16.0 4.0 10.0
Tone P 2.0 1.0 1.5

Balance 15.5 10.0 13.7
Mean 7.7 7-4 7.6

TABLE 19
CONDUCTOR E: FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGES OF

Elem. E1 E9 Tot. Mean

# '% it % it %
Pitch 4 13.7 2 4.3 6 7.9
Rhythm 7 24.1 13 27.7 20 26.3
Artie. 0 0.0 4 8.5 4 5.3
Ph/Dyn 11 37.9 12 25.5 23 30.3
Tone Q 2 6.9 1 2.1 3 4.0
Style 3 10.3 2 4.3 5 6.6
Tone P 0 0.0 4 8.5 4 5.3
Balance 2 6.9 9 19.2 11 14.5
Total 29 47 76
TABLE 20
CONDUCTOR E: Til AND PERCENTAGES OF

REFERENCES i THE ELEMENTS
Elem. E~. Eg Tot. Mean
Pitch T61 8.1 .53 4.9 1.14 6.2
Rhythm 2.72 36.2 1.96 18.1 4.7 25.5
Artie. CO 0.0 1.53 14.1 1.53 8.3
Ph/Dyn 2.28 30.4 3.18 29.4 5.46 29.8
Tone Q .68 9.0 .06 .5 .73 4.0
Style .7 9.3 .29 2.7 .99 5.4
Tone P 0.0 0.0 .69 6.4 .69 3.8
Balance .52 6.9 2.58 23.8 3.09 16.9
Total 7.51 10.82 18.33

TABLE 21
CONDUCTOR E: TIME PER REFERENCE IN SECONDS
Elem. E. E2 Mean
Pitch 9~7T "TO TO
Rhythm 23.3 9.0 14.0
Artie. 0.0 22.9 22.9
Ph/Dyn 12.5 15.9 14.2
Tone Q 20.3 3.5 14.7
Style 14.0 8.8 11.9
Tone P 0.0 10.4 10.4
Balance 15.5 17.2 16.9
Mean 15.5 13.8 14.5

Tables 19 and 20 reveal that his main concern was with problems
of phrasing/dynamics and rhythm. Over 56 percent of the references were
to these two aspects of performance. A third area of concern was
balance, with slightly more than 14 percent of the total references.
In the first rehearsal (essentially a sight reading session) he
dwelt mainly on phrasing/dynamics and rhythmic considerations. During
the final rehearsal (immediately prior to performance) balance and
phrasing/dynamics were stressed. The group was technically very able,
and as a result most of the references dealt with subtle points of
performance.
Summary
Of the studies surveyed which dealt with analysis of the

rehearsal situation, only three
contained categories for classifying
7
references to the elements of performance. Froelich 1 noted that teaching
patterns dealing with phrasing and rhythm were positively related to
effective singing instruction in the elementary general music class.
o
Ervin found that choral conductor behaviors dealing with pitch, time,
and volume were among the variables which he determined to be
discriminators of conductor effectiveness.

q
In his rehearsal profile of five choral conductors, Thurman
7
Froelich, pp. 176-178.
Q
Ervin, pp. 60-69.
Q
Thurman, p. 108.
99
found that 58 percent of the conductors' verbal interaction was related
to the elements of choral performance, with the greatest emphasis on the
elements of phrasing/dynamics and time.
In the present study the investigator found that 48 percent of
the conductors' total verbal communication concerned the elements of
performance. The remaining 52 percent were procedural and
organizational announcements, disciplinary statements, and starting
indications for rehearsal trials. Using the communications referring to
the elements as a basis, Table 22 shows the percentage of references
made to each of the elements and the percentage of time given to each.
TABLE Z2
SUMMARY DATA: REFERENCES TO THE ELEMENTS
Elem. References Time Time/Refer,

# % min. % seconds
Pitch 100 16.1 13.4 15.3 8.1
Rhythm 162 26.0 21.8 24.9 8.1
Artie. 71 11.4 8.6 9.7 7.2
Phr/Dyn 162 26.0 22.7 25.9 8.4
Tone Q 21 3.4 2.6 3.0 7.5
Style 58 9.3 7.5 8.5 7.7
Tone P 12 1.9 1.6 1.8 7.8
Balance 37 5.9 9.6 11.0 15.6
Total 623 87.8 8.5
The conductors differed in their stress on the various elements,
not only with each other but also from one rehearsal to another.
Certain consistencies of emphasis can be observed, however. Conductors

A, B, C, and E dwelt especially on phrasing dynamics and rhythm.
Conductor D, though pre-occupied with pitch, also gave rhythm and
phrasing/dynamics heavy investments of time. The conductors stressed
articulation and style somewhat less, with tone production the least
attended.
The elements given the greatest emphasis were phrasing/dynamics,
with 26 percent of the references and time; and rhythm, with
approximately one-fourth of the references and time. By comparison,
Thurman found that the choral conductors in his study devoted 36 percent
of their references and 32 percent of their interaction time to
phrasing/dynamics, with time (rhythm) receiving approximately 30 percent
of the references and time.
To one surveying these data, a cautionary note is in order. The
time and frequency percentages do not indicate the relative importance
of the elements. As an example, the amount of time given to tone
quality(less than 3 percent) does not indicate its importance in a truly
musical performance.
The data indicate the rehearsal priorities of this group of
conductors. Several variables will influence a conductor's
determination of rehearsal priorities, two of which (prior rehearsal
time and difficulty) will be examined in Subproblem Three. Another
variable, the band's basic ability, was reduced in importance in the
study by the selection criteria of contest achievement and nomination by
an expert panel. As a result, the students In these groups brought to

101
the rehearsals a level of a b i l i t y t h a t obviated the need for a great
amount of s t r e s s on elements such as tone production and tone q u a l i t y .
Subproblem Three
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, does the
conductors' attention to the various elements of instrumental
performance vary with the d i f f i c u l t y of each composition and the amount
of previous r e h e a r s a l ?
Following the t a p i n g of the r e h e a r s a l s the conductors were asked
to indicate whether the amount of rehearsal time expended on each
composition p r i o r to the t a p i n g s had been less than 30 minutes, more
than 30 minutes, or more than 60 minutes. The d i f f i c u l t y of the
compositions had been r a t e d on a s c a l e of 1 to 5 by an expert panel of
college band directors. The data base for Subproblem Three appears in
Table 23.
Since the point of interest in this subproblem was the
conductors' attention to the elements while r e h e a r s i n g the various
compositions, i n t e r a c t i o n during the announcements and warmup was not
considered.
Conductor A
In rehearsing those selections with more than thirty minutes of
prior rehearsal time, Conductor A made 58 references to the elements for
a total of 12 minutes and 59 seconds, or 72.3 percent of his total
verbal interaction during the rehearsal of those compositions. On the

102
TABLE 23
DIFFICULTY AND PRIOR REHEARSAL DATA
Cond. Composition - Diff. Prior Reh.

Reht composer (min.)
A Fanfare- 4 30+
1
Montenegro
Passacaglia - Reed 3 30+
A Hermitage -
2 2 60+
C. Williams
Passacaglia - Reed 3 60+
B Valdres - Hansen 3 30+

1
Jupiter - Hoist 5 60+
B Second Suite -
2
Hoist 3 30-
C Seventeen Come
1
Sunday-V. Williams 3 30+
Sebastian Ballet
Suits (beginning) -
Menottl 5 30+
Sebastian Ballet
Suite (ending) -
Menotti 5 30-
C0 Sebastian Ballet
'2 Suite (ending) 5 30-
Symphony #3 -
Giannini 5 30+
Concertino for
D1 WW 5tet & Band -
Long 4 60+
Elsa's Pro-
cession - Wagner 4 30+
D2 Elsa's Pro-
cession - Wagner 4 60+
Concertino for
WW 5tet & Band -
Long 4 60+
E. Toccata -
Frescobaldi 4 30+
E2 Toccata -
Frescobaldi 4 60+
Mars - Hoist 5 60+
103
compositions with more than 60 minutes of p r i o r rehearsal t i m e , he made
42 references to the elements for a t o t a l of eight minutes and 26.5
seconds, or 60.2 percent of the total verbal interaction during the
rehearsal of those selections. The data appear in Table 24. The
frequency percentage columns are based on the total frequency of
references to the elements while rehearsing. The time percentage
columns a r e based on t h e t o t a l time of verbal I n t e r a c t i o n regarding the
elements while r e h e a r s i n g .
TABLE 24
CONDUCTOR A: ANALYSIS BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
Elem. 30+ min. 60+ min.

Frequency Time Frequency Time
# % min. % # * min. %
Pitch 5 8.6 .65 5.0 5 II.9 1.94 23.0
Rhythm 15 25.9 2.8 21.6 8 19.1 1.85 21.9
Artie. 9 15.5 1.98 15.3 3 7.1 .17 2.0

Phr/Dyn 14 24.1 3.7 28.5 16 38.1 1.73 20.5
Tone Q 4 6.9 .78 6.0 2 4.8 .14 1.7

Style 3 5.2 .42 3.2 3 7.1 .33 4.0
Tone P 1 1.7 .39 3.0 0 0.0 0.0 O.'O
Balance 7 12.1 2.26 17.3 5 11.9 2.3 27.0

Total 58" 127^5 42 8746"
On those compositions with more than 30 minutes prior rehearsal
time, the elements referred to most frequently, rhythm and
phrasing/dynamics, a l s o ranked f i r s t i n the amount of time expended.
Other elements r e c e i v i n g strong emphasis were balance and a r t i c u l a t i o n .
I t was obvious from their performance in this rehearsal that the

104
students were beyond the early l e a r n i n g stages on these s e l e c t i o n s .
Hence the conductor was a b l e to emphasize expressive elements such as
dynamics, b a l a n c e , and a r t i c u l a t i o n .
On those compositions with more than sixty minutes prior
rehearsal time, the conductor expended t h e g r e a t e s t amount of time on
balance and p i t c h . He did, however, refer more frequently to the
elements of phrasing/dynamics and rhythm. His remarks concerning balance
and pitch were i n the n a t u r e of extended explanation and exposition,
while most of h i s r e f e r e n c e s to phrasing/dynamics and rhythm were s h o r t
reminders o r quick c o r r e c t i o n s of I n a c c u r a c i e s . He e v i d e n t l y f e l t that
the band had mastered the l a t t e r two a r e a s and needed only r e m i n d e r s .
His longer references t o balance and p i t c h indicated a f e e l i n g t h a t the
band needed a g r e a t e r understanding of those elements.
G e n e r a l l y , Conductor A's a t t e n t i o n t o the more basic or obvious
elements (rhythm and the grosser dynamic considerations) varied
inversely with the amounts of prior rehearsal time. Less obvious
elements ( b a l a n c e , p i t c h ) received more frequent a t t e n t i o n a f t e r larger
amounts of p r i o r r e h e a r s a l t i m e .
The d a t a based on the d i f f i c u l t y of the compositions appear in
Table 25.
In r e h e a r s i n g the l e s s d i f f i c u l t s e l e c t i o n , Hermitage, by C l i f t o n
Williams, Conductor A emphasized balance and rhythm. Though making only
t h r e e r e f e r e n c e s to b a l a n c e , he gave a d e t a i l e d explanation of proper
balance each time. He had obviously made these p o i n t s before and was
TABLE 25
CONDUCTOR A: ANALYSIS BASED ON DIFFICULTY
Elem. 2 3 4
Frequency Time Frequency Time Frequency Time
* % min. % # % min. % # % min.
Pitch 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 16.1 2.59 21.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rhythm 3 30.0 .63 32.6 8 12.9 1.94 16.4 12 42.8 2.08 31.4
Artie. 1 10.0 .12 6.0 2 3.2 .05 .4 9 32.1 1.98 30.0
Phr/Dyn 2 20.0 .18 5.9 26 41.9 4.34 36.6 2 7.1 .92 13.9
Tone Q 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 8.1 .5 4.2 1 3.6 .43 6.4
Style 1 10.0 .03 .8 5 8.1 .73 6.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tone P 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 3.6 • 39 5.9

Balance 3 30.0 2.02 68.0 6 9.7 1.7 14.3 3 10.7 .82 12.4
Total 10 2.98 62 11.85 28 6.62
106
clarifying his intent. The rhythmic nature of the composition probably
accounts for his emphasis on rhythm and h i s concern f o r s u b l e t i e s of
rhythmic p r e c i s i o n .
Phrasing/dynamics and p i t c h received t h e most attention in the
composition ranked " 3 " in d i f f i c u l t y ( P a s s a c a g l i a , by Reed), with rhythm
and balance r e c e i v i n g somewhat l e s s emphasis. The composition i s a slow
passacaglia in which pitch, phrasing, and balance are major
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . His e f f o r t s to refine the rhythm were directed to
achieving p r e c i s i o n in t h e slow tempo. In t h e most d i f f i c u l t selection,
Fanfare, by Montenegro, t h e conductor's dominant concerns were rhythm
and articulation. The fact that t h i s composition i s h i g h l y rhythmic
undoubtedly influenced t h e c o n d u c t o r ' s emphasis.
No c l e a r pattern of rehearsal priorities based on difficulty
emerged. When the nature of the s e l e c t i o n s were taken i n t o account,
however, r e a s o n s for the c o n d u c t o r ' s concerns were obvious. On the
faster, more rhythmic s e l e c t i o n s , rhythm was a major c o n s i d e r a t i o n . On
t h e slower composition, t h e elements of phrasing/dynamics, pitch, and
balance were s t r e s s e d .
Conductor B
While rehearsing the composition with less than 30 minutes prior
rehearsal (Second Suite in F_, by Hoist), Conductor B referred to the
elements 85 times for a total of 8.63 minutes. This accounted for 51.4
percent of the total verbal interaction occurring during the rehearsal
of the only selection in this category. In rehearsing the piece with

107
more than 30 minutes prior rehearsal (Valdres, by Hansen), he referred
to the elements 48 times for a total of 7.02 minutes, or 62.2 percent of
the total verbal interaction occurring during the rehearsal of that
composition. While rehearsing the composition with more than 60 minutes
of prior rehearsal (Jupiter, by Hoist), he referred to the elements six
times for a total of 21.5 seconds, or 34.9 percent of the total verbal
interaction occurring during the rehearsal of that selection. The data
appear in Table 26.
rehearsal (Second Suite in F), Conductor B referred most frequently to
rhythm and phrasing/dynamics. Articulation and pitch also received
important emphasis, though lesser in time and frequency. The greatest
amount of time was expended on phrasing/dynamics, with rhythm and pitch
each receiving only about two-thirds of the time devoted to
phrasing/dynamics. Though articulation was addressed almost as often as
phrasing/dynamics, it received less than one-third as much time.
This was the second rehearsal of this composition, and the
conductor seemed intent on clarifying phrasing/dynamic concepts early
on. In insisting on a certain level of volume, for instance, he would
explain why such a choice was necessary. References to rhythm and
articulation followed the same pattern. Though references to
articulation were frequent, they were usually short and to the point.
His references to pitch took two forms: correction of basic
intonation problems and correction of wrong notes due to fingering
errors. Approximately 40 percent of the references to pitch concerned

TABLE 26
CONDUCTOR B: ANALYSIS BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
Elem. 30- 30+ 60+

# % min. % min. % min.
Pitch 15 17.7 1.85 21.5 7 14.6 .59 8.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rhythm 22 25.9 1.82 21.1 10 20.8 1.08 15.2 2 33.3 .04 11.7
Artie. 18 21.2 .91 10.5 8 16.7 .87 12.3 3 50.0 .25 69.6
Phr/Dyn 22 25.9 2.80 32.5 12 25.0 1.90 26.9 1 16.7 .07 18.7
Tone Q 1 1.2 .13 1.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Style 5 5.9 .85 9.9 3 6.3 1.48 21.0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0
Tone P 2 2.4 .26 3.0 1 2.1 .1 1.4 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Balance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 14.6 1.1 14.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 85 8.62 48 7.02 6 36
109
wrong notes. Predictably, in selections having had more rehearsal time,
such references were rare.
In the composition with more than 30 minutes prior rehearsal
(Valdres), Conductor B referred most frequently to phrasing/dynamics and
rhythm. The greatest amount of time was spent on phrasing/dynamics,
followed closely by style. Although he referred to style only three
times, he spoke at length each time. He evidently considered a thorough
explanation of the composition's style necessary to achieve a correct
interpretation.
Conductor B rehearsed for only five minutes that composition
which had received more than 60 minutes of prior rehearsal. With such a
short amount of time devoted to this selection, the time and frequency
figures are a fragile foundation for the inference of rehearsal
priorities based on previous rehearsal time. There were but six
references, for a total of 15 seconds. The most frequent reference was
to articulation.
If the rehearsal of the composition in the category of more than
60 minutes is therefore discounted because of its brevity, Conductor B's
attention to the elements varied little in terms of prior rehearsal
time. On the basis of time and frequency his greatest concern was for
phrasing/dynamics. Rhythm, articulation, and pitch also received
emphasis, though the order varied in time and frequency across
categories. The unusually large amount of time given to style and
balance in the more than 30 minutes category was due to a single
protracted explanation of the style of the Swedish march, Valdrea, and

110
to an imbalance in the trumpet parts not indicated in the conductor's
3Core. This latter instance required an inordinate amount of attention
to correct, and the data should not be construed as an overall concern
for balance during the rehearsal.
On the basis of difficulty, by far the greatest amount of time
was expended on the selections rated as "3" in difficulty. The very
small amount of time (4.75 minutes, or less than seven percent of the
total rehearsal time) devoted to the single composition in the "5"
classification does not indicate an overall rehearsal pattern. The data
based on difficulty appear in Table 27.
In the rehearsals of those selections ranked "3" in difficulty
(Second Suite and Valdres), Conductor B dealt most extensively with the
element of phrpsing/dynamics. Rhythm, pitch, articulation, and style
followed in that order. Since the time expenditure on style resulted
principally from the lengthy explanation of Valdres, an overall concern
for style during the rehearsals should not be inferred. This pattern,
then, is essentially the same as that in the analysis based on prior
rehearsal times.
Conductor C
In rehearsing the composition with less than 30 minutes rehearsal
time (the concluding section of Sebastian Ballet, by Menotti), Conductor
C referred to the elements 71 times for a total of 4.13 minutes, or 43.4
percent of the total verbal interaction during the rehearsals of that
number. While rehearsing those compositions with more than 30 minutes

111
TABLE 27
CONDUCTOR B: ANALYSIS BASED ON DIFFICULTY
3 5
Elem. Frequency Time Frequency Time
# % min. % if % min. %
Pitch ZZ 16.5 2.44 15.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rhythm 32 25.1 2.90 18.5 2 33.3 .04 11.7
Artie. 26 19.6 1.78 11.3 3 50.0 .25 69.6
Phr/Dyn 34 25.6 4.7 30.0 1 16.7 .07 18.7
Tone Q 1 .8 .13 .8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Style 8 6.0 2.33 14.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tone P 3 2.3 .36 2.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Balance 7 5.3 1.10 6.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 133 15.64 6 .36

112
prior rehearsal (Seventeen Come Sunday, by Vaughn-Williams; the
beginning section of Sebastian Ballet, by Menotti; and the finale of
Symphony #3, °y Giannini), he referred to the elements 63 times for a
total of 5.55 minutes, or 47.8 percent of the total verbal interaction
during the rehearsals of those compositions. The data based on prior
rehearsal time appear in Table 28.
TABLE 28
CONDUCTOR C: ANALYSIS BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
30- 30+
if % min. % if % min. %
Pitch 1 1.4 .03 .8 5 7.9 .23 4.2
Rhythm 22 31.0 1.13 27.4 15 23.8 1.23 22.2
Artie. 4 5.6 .25 6.1 11 17.5 .71 12.8
Phr/Dyn 21 29.6 .97 23.4 16 25.4 1.87 33.6
Tone Q 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.6 .02 .3
Style 23 32.4 1.75 42.3 12 19.1 1.27 22.8
Tone P 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Balance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 4.8 .23 4.1
Total 71 4.13 63 5.56
The main emphasis during the r e h e a r s a l s of the composition with
less than 30 minutes prior rehearsal time (the c l o s i n g section of
S e b a s t i a n B a l l e t , by Menotti) was on style. Although the frequency
count was nearly i d e n t i c a l f o r s t y l e , rhythm, and phrasing/dynamics (23,
2 2 , and 2 1 ) , the conductor expended the major amount of time on style.
This was due to h i s d e t a i l e d explanations of s t y l i s t i c nuances. Though

113
he Indicated t h a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n of t h e composition (Sebastian
Ballet) had received l e s s than 30 minutes of previous r e h e a r s a l , i t was
evident t h a t the t e c h n i c a l problems had been solved previously, e n a b l i n g
him to concentrate on the musically s u b t l e a r e a of s t y l e .
In r e h e a r s i n g those compositions with more than 30 minutes prior
rehearsal (Seventeen Come Sunday, the beginning of Sebastian, and
Symphony #3), Conductor C placed e s p e c i a l s t r e s s on phrasing/dynamics,
rhythm, and style. Though he made only one more reference to
phrasing/dynamics than to rhythm, he spent 11 percent more time
discussing the former. His references t o rhythm were generally short
reminders, while h i s explanations of the volume of a c e r t a i n passage or
t h e shape of a phrase were more p r o t r a c t e d . Likewise, though he r e f e r r e d
t o s t y l e l e s s often than t o rhythm, h i s time expenditure for style was
slightly g r e a t e r . A r t i c u l a t i o n received a minor emphasis, the r e s u l t of
t h e conductor's s t r e s s on separation of notes in this section of
Sebastian and in t h e Symphony.
In g e n e r a l , Conductor C s t r e s s e d the same three areas in both
rehearsal categories. Though his emphasis varied slightly, the
d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t . The order of emphasis in the less than
30 minutes category ( s t y l e , rhythm, and phrasing/dynamics) was reversed
i n the more than 30 minutes r ^tegory.
When the compositions &i#e grouped according to difficulty, a
slightly different pattern emerges. In t h e " 3 " category, s t y l e and
phrasing/dynamics received 60 percent of the references and over 60
percent of the time. Though style had but one more reference than
114
phrasing/dynamics, It received almost 11 percent more time. As

previously n o t e d , t h i s was due to t h e c o n d u c t o r ' s longer e x p l a n a t i o n s of
s t y l i s t i c nuances. The d a t a based on d i f f i c u l t y appear in Table 2 9 .
TABLE 29
CONDUCTOR C: ANALYSIS BASED ON DIFFICULTY
3 5
if % min. % if % min. %
Pitch 2 5.7 .15 4.6 4 4.0 .12 1.8
Rhythm 4 11.4 .52 15.9 33 33.3 1.85 28.8
Artie. 4 11.4 .25 7.7 11 11.1 .71 11.0
Phr/Dyn 10 28.6 .88 26.9 27 27.3 1.96 30.4
Tone Q 1 2.9 .02 .5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Style 11 31.4 1.22 37.4 24 24.2 1.8 28.0
Tone P 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Balance 3 8.6 .23 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 35 3.27 99 6.44
In the "5" category Conductor C stressed rhythm,
phrasing/dynamics, and style. His tendency to spend more time on
references t o phrasing/dynamics and style than to rhythm was also
evident in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
A p a t t e r n can be observed i n Conductor C's groupings based on
difficulty. In both l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y t h e musically s u b t l e elements
of phrasing/dynamics and s t y l e r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n , but on t h e less
difficult s e l e c t i o n the conductor d e a l t mainly with these two e l e m e n t s .

115
In the more difficult numbers, however, he also stressed more technical

elements, referring most frequently to rhythm and emphasizing
a r t i c u l a t i o n to greater degree than in the less d i f f i c u l t compositions.
Conductor D

rehearsal (1st rehearsal, Elsa's Procession), Conductor D referred to
the elements nine times for a t o t a l of 1.17 minutes. This accounted for
73.7 percent of the total verbal interaction occurring during the rather
short rehearsal of the single composition in this category. During the
rehearsals of those compositions with more than 60 minutes previous
rehearsal (Concertino for Woodwind Quintet and Band; Elsa's Procession,
second rehearsal), he made 136 such references for a t o t a l of 17.2
minutes, or 44.1 percent of the t o t a l verbal interaction during that
time. The data appear in Tables 30 and 31.
Work on the composition which had received l e s s than 30 minutes

previous rehearsal (Elsa's Procession, f i r s t rehearsal) occupied 5.6
minutes of the final part of the first rehearsal. Six of the nine
references were to phrasing/dynamics. This time sample i s quite small
t o support the inference of a pattern, but it does indicate the
conductor's principal concern in t h i s piece. The greatest potential for
problems in this composition l i e s In this area.
The remaining rehearsal time was used to rehearse compositions in

the more than 60 minutes category. His major emphases were pitch,
rhythm, and phrasing/dynamics. Although he referred most frequently to
116
TABLE 30
CONDUCTOR D: ANALYSIS BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
30- 60+
it % min. % if % min. %
Pitch 1 11.1 .11 9.3 50 36.8 5.92 34.5
Rhythm 1 11.1 .28 23.6 43 31.6 6.68 39.0
Artie. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 6.6 1.33 7.7
Phr/Dyn 6 66.7 .75 64.9 26 19.1 2.03 11.8
Tone Q 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.5 .18 1.0
Style 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.5 .33 1.9
Tone P 1 11.1 .03 2.9 1 .7 .02 .1
Balance 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2.2 .68 4.0
Total 9 1.17 136 17.17

TABLE 31
CONDUCTOR D: ANALYSIS BASED ON DIFFICULTY
Elem. Frequency Time
Pitch 51 35.2 6.03 32.9
Rhythm 44 30.3 7.0 38.0
Artie. 9 6.2 1.33 7.2
Phr/Dyn 32 22.1 2.78 15.1
Tone Q 2 1.4 .18 1.0

Style 2 1.4 .33 1.8
Tone P 2 1.4 .05 .27
Balance 3 2.1 .68 3.7
145 18.38
118
p i t c h and spent over 34 percent of his verbal i n t e r a c t i o n s on i t , rhythm
received more t o t a l time. Phrasing/dynamics ranked t h i r d in both time
and frequency.
An a n a l y s i s of the t y p e s c r i p t s i n d i c a t e s that this pattern of
emphasis is probably not typical of Conductor D's r e h e a r s a l s . The
s t r e s s on p i t c h was a consequence of poor tuning in the lower voices
prior to the second r e h e a r s a l , which resulted i n a prolonged session of
correction. Likewise, the emphasis on rhythm, which occurred
principally during the first r e h e a r s a l , was occasioned by d i f f i c u l t y
with a single rhythmic figure o c c u r r i n g in d i f f e r e n t voices throughout
the composition. These c o n d i t i o n s tend to skew t h e frequency and time
data, but the conclusion of a general pattern of concern for
phrasing/dynamics, p i t c h , and rhythm seems j u s t i f i e d . Phrasing/dynamics
was a 3trong concern i n both r e h e a r s a l c a t e g o r i e s .
Both compositions were r a t e d a "4" in d i f f i c u l t y by the panel of
college band directors. The pattern, therefore, i s e s s e n t i a l l y as
described in t h e more than 60 minutes category. The greatest emphasis
was on the elements of pitch, rhythm, and phrasing/dynamics.
Considerations of t h e s e three elements accounted for over 87 percent of
the references to t h e elements and 86 percent of t h e verbal i n t e r a c t i o n
time regarding the elements.
Conductor E
Conductor E's rehearsals were recorded immediately following and
just prior to major performances and therefore contained atypical

119
conditions. As an example, the first rehearsal consisted mainly of

announcements with only 7.5 minutes of actual performance
(sightreading). Nevertheless, the atypical conditions had l i t t l e or no
effect in t h i s subproblem, since his data were well within the range of
the other conductors' data.
In the first rehearsal (less than 30 minutes) Conductor E

referred to the elements 29 times for a total of 7.5 minutes, amounting
to 39.3 percent of the t o t a l verbal interaction during the rehearsal of
that composition. In the second rehearsal, (more than 60 minutes p r i o r
rehearsal) he referred to the elements 47 times for a total of 10.8
minutes, or 85.1 percent of the t o t a l verbal interaction during the
rehearsal of those compositions. The data based on prior rehearsal time
appear in Table 32.
120
TABLE 32
CONDUCTOR E: ANALYSIS BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
30- 60+
# % min. % if % min. %
Pitch 4 13.8 .61 8.1 2 4.3 .53 4.9
Rhythm 7 24.1 2.72 36.2 13 27.7 1.96 18.2
Artie. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 8.5 1.53 14.1
Phr/Dyn 11 37.9 2.28 30.4 12 25.5 3.18 29.4
Tone Q 2 6.9 .68 9.0 1 2.1 .06 .5
Style 3 10.3 .7 9.3 2 4.2 .29 2.7
Tone P 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 8.5 .69 6.4
Balance 2 6.9 .52 6.9 9 19.2 2.58 23.8
Total 29 7.51 47 10.82
During the sightreading rehearsal (less than 30 minutes prior
rehearsal), Conductor E's main concern was with phrasing/dynamics and
rhythm, which together accounted for over 60 percent of the references
and expended time. In the second rehearsal he emphasised the same two
elements , though with a minor reversal in the time and frequency
figures. He also stressed balance in this rehearsal, devoting more total
time to this element than to rhythm but making fewer references.
A definite shift of rehearsal priorities is evident between
Conductor E's prior rehearsal categories. In the first rehearsal he
addressed rather broad problems of rhythm and phrasing/dynamics, while
in the second his concern was for very exact rhythmic precision and
subtleties of phrasing/dynamics and balance. This pattern no doubt

121
resulted from the band's improved technical command during the second
rehearsal which made stress on the more musically refined points
possible.
When the selections are analyzed according to difficulty,
phrasing/dynamics and rhythm appear as major concerns in the composition
ranked "4" in difficulty. Conductor E also emphasized balance, but to a
le33er degree. The selection ranked "5" (Mars, by Hol3t) occupied
approximately nine and one -half minutes of the final rehearsal. His
most frequent references while rehearsing this composition were to the
elements of phrasing/dynamics, balance, and rhythm. This composition had
been prepared thoroughly and performed in concert earlier. As a result
these references were to subtleties of performance. The data based on
the compositions' difficulty appear in Table 33.

122
TABLE 33
CONDUCTOR E: ANALYSIS BASED ON DIFFICULTY
4 5
if % min. t if % min. %
Pitch 5 7.9 .78 5.2 1 7.7 .37 11.3

Rhythm 17 27.0 4.08 27.1 3 23.1 .6 18.5
Artie. 4 6.4 1.53 10.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Phr/Dyn 18 28.6 4.16 27.6 5 38.5 1.3 40.0
Tone Q 3 4.8 .73 4.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Style 5 7.9 .99 6.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Tone P 4 6.4 .69 4.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Balance 7 11.1 2.11 14.0 4 30.8 .98 30.3
Total 63 15.07 13 3.25
Summary
The objective of this subproblem was to determine if the
conductors' a t t e n t i o n to the various elements varied with the amount of
p r i o r r e h e a r s a l time on the composition and w i t h the d i f f i c u l t y of the
compositions. This question was not addressed i n any of t h e s t u d i e s
surveyed in Chapter Two.
Each c o n d u c t o r ' s r e h e a r s a l priorities tended to shift across
prior rehearsal categories and d i f f i c u l t y groupings. Viewed from t h e
perspective of p r i o r r e h e a r s a l , the data show a general stress on
phrasing/dynamics with a s l i g h t l y l e s s e r s t r e s s on rhythm. In t h e p r i o r
r e h e a r s a l c a t e g o r i e s of less than 30 minutes and more than 30 minutes,

phrasing/dynamics accounted for the most references and time
e x p e n d i t u r e , followed by rhythm. In the over sixty-minute category,
rhythm and pitch both received more emphasis than phrasing/dynamics,
although the d i f f e r e n c e was not great. Summary d a t a based on prior
r e h e a r s a l time and d i f f i c u l t y appear i n Tables 34 and 35.
T h i s s h i f t in t h e over s i x t y minute category can be traced to
Conductor D's preoccupation with a single rhythmic figure i n the
Concertino and t h e tuning problems in t h e second rehearsal of Elsa's
Procession. Without these conditions, which must be considered
a t y p i c a l , phrasing/dynamics would have received the g r e a t e s t stress in
t h i s category a s well.
When considered in terms of difficulty rankings, a similar
p a t t e r n a p p e a r s . The only composition t o r e c e i v e a d i f f i c u l t y ranking of
" 2 " was r e h e a r s e d but a short t i m e , during which only ten references
were made to t h e elements. Since such a small sample r e p r e s e n t s a poor
b a s i s f o r the inference of r e h e a r s a l priorities, these data were of
little value. During rehearsals of the compositions ranked " 3 " in
difficulty, phrasing/dynamics received over thirty percent of the
references and the time expended. Rhythm and p i t c h received the next
greatest stress.
The effect of Conductor D's emphasis on rhythm and p i t c h can be
observed in the data under t h e d i f f i c u l t y ranking of " 4 " . Over t h i r t y
percent of the r e f e r e n c e s and time were devoted rhythm. Pitch and
phrasing/dynamics ranked next i n importance.

TABLE 34
SUMMARY DATA BASED ON PRIOR REHEARSAL TIME
Elem. 30- 30+ 60+

# % min. * # % min. * # % min. *
Pitch 21 10.7 2.61 12.2 17 10.1 1.48 5.8 57 24.7 8.39 22.8
Rhythm 52 26.5 5.94 27.7 40 23.7 5.11 20.0 66 28.6 10.53 28.7
Artie. 22 11.2 1.16 5.4 28 16.6 3.56 13.9 19 8.2 3.27 8.9
Phr/Dyn 60 30.6 6.80 31.7 42 24.9 7.47 29.2 55 23.8 7.0 19.0
Tone Q 3 1.5 .81 3.8 5 3.0 .80 3.1 5 2.2 .38 1.0
Style 31 15.8 3.3 15.4 18 10.7 3.17 12.4 7 3.0 .96 2.6
Tone P 3 1.5 .29 1.4 2 1.2 .49 1.9 5 Z.Z .71 1.9
Balance 2 1.0 .52 2.4 17 10.1 3.53 13.8 17 7.4 5.53 15.1
Total 194 21.43 169 25.61 231 36.77
TABLE 35
SUMMARY DATA BASED ON DIFFICULTY
Elem. 2 3 4 5
Frequency Time Frequency Time Frequency Time Frequency Time
# % min. % # % min. % if % min. % % min.
Pitch 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 14.8 5.18 16.8 56 23.7 6.80 17.0 5 4.2 .48 4.8
Rhythm 3 30.0 .63 21.3 44 19.1 5.35 17.4 73 30.9 13.11 32.8 38 32.2 2.49 24.8
Artie. 1 10.0 .12 3.9 32 13.9 2.08 6.7 22 9.3 4.83 12.1 14 11.9 .96 9.5
Phr/Dyn 2 20.0 .18 5.9 70 30.4 9.92 32.2 52 22.0 7.85 19.6 33 28.0 3.33 33.1
Tone Q 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 3.0 .65 2.1 6 2.5 1.33 3.3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Style 1 10.0 .03 .8 24 10.4 4.28 13.9 7 3.0 1.32 3.3 24 20.3 1.8 17.9
Tone P 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1.3 .36 1.2 7 3.0 1.13 2.8 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Balance 3 30.0 2.02 68.0 16 7.0 2.98 9.7 13 5.5 3.61 9.0 4 3.4 .98 9.8
Total 10 2.98 220 30.80 236 39.98 118 10.04
126
Under the difficulty ranking of "5", rhythm again received the
greatest number of references, although the most time was expended on
phrasing/dynamics. An analysis of the typescripts showo the prominence
of references to rhythm to be the result of Conductor C's numerous
reminders to the band of the need for a faster tempo in Sebastian.
A careful examination of the typescripts indicate that certain
problems inherent in the rehearsal situations or In the compositions had
the greatest influence on the rehearsal priorities of the conductors. In
highly rhythmic compositions rhythm and articulation were emphasized. In
slower pieces, balance and pitch dominated. In general, however, from
both the perspective of prior rehearsal and difficulty, the greatest
amount of time and references were expended on phrasing/dynamics,
followed closely by rhythm.
A pattern which was apparent (and expected) from a study of the
typescripts was the change in the nature of the conductors' references
with more prior rehearsal time. Almost without exception the references
were to more refined points and nuances of performance with greater
prior rehearsal. This was true In references to all the elements.
Subproblem Four
What is the frequency of conductor talk during rehearsal and the
ratio of conductor talk to rehearsal time?
The points of interest in this subproblem concerned verbal
Interactions used by the conductors to effect desired changes in
performance during rehearsal. The time consumed by warming-up and by

127
administrative announcements i s therefore not included in the data.
As previously noted, Conductor E's two rehearsals immediately

followed or preceded performances. Since they did not meet the stated
c r i t e r i a of a typical rehearsal, and since his data were not within the
range of the other conductors' data, his rehearsals were not considered
in t h i s subproblem.
Conductor A
Conductor A's rehearsals totaled 82 minutes and 23 seconds,
exclusive of announcements. The total count of his verbal interaction
was 133, with a mean time per interaction of 16 seconds. He averaged
48.4 interactions per 30 minutes of active rehearsal. The total
Interaction consumed 35 minutes and 30 seconds, or 43.1 percent of the
active rehearsal.
Conductor B
Conductor B's rehearsals totaled 65 minutes and 11.5 seconds,
exclusive of announcements. He interacted verbally with his students 98
times, with a mean time of 18.3 seconds per interaction. He averaged
45.1 Interactions per 30 minutes of active rehearsal. The total
interaction occupied 29 minutes and 54 seconds, or 45.9 percent of the
active rehearsal.
Conductor C
Conductor C rehearsed a total of 66 minutes and 12 seconds,
exclusive of announcements. He communicated verbally with his students

128
113 times with a mean time per interaction of 11.9 seconds. He averaged
51.2 Interactions per 30 minutes of active rehearsal. His communication
totaled ZZ minutes and 21.5 seconds, or 33.8 percent of the active
rehearsal.
Conductor D
Conductor D's r e h e a r s a l s amounted to 86 minutes and 55 seconds
without announcements. The frequency count of h i s verbal interactions
was 145, with a mean of 16.1 seconds per interaction. He averaged 50
interactions per 30 minutes of active rehearsal. His interaction
amounted t o 38 minutes and 52 s e c o n d s , or 44.7 percent of the active
rehearsal.
Summary
The four conductors were videotaped for a total of 300 minutes
and 42 seconds, during which time they interacted verbally 489 times.
They averaged 48.8 interactions per 30 minutes of active rehearsal with
a mean of 15.5 seconds for each communication. The percentage of active
rehearsal time used in verbal communication ranged from 33.8 percent to
45.9 percent, for a mean of 42.1 percent. The complete data appear in
Table 36.
129
TABLE 36
VERBAL INTERACTION DATA DURING ACTIVE REHEARSAL
Cond. Active Verbal Time per VI % VI Freq.

Reh. Frequency Interaction Reference of Reh. per 30
(min.) (min.) minutes
A 82731 i"33 35751 ToTo 4171 40
B 65.20 98 29.90 18.3 45.9 45.1
C 66.2 113 22.36 11.9 33.8 51.2
D 86.9 145 38.9 16.1 44.7 50.1
Total 300.7 489 126.62
Average 15.5 42.1 48.8
Only two s t u d i e s which d e a l with the r a t i o of verbal interaction
to active r e h e a r s a l time are known to the i n v e s t i g a t o r . Thurman, whose
r e s e a r c h d e a l t with f i v e choral conductors in varying situations (high
school, professional, clinic, college), found that 40 p e r c e n t of a
t y p i c a l r e h e a r s a l was spent in verbal interaction. Erbes analyzed
r e h e a r s a l s of 15 high school band and o r c h e s t r a conductors in Michigan
and found t h a t v e r b a l communication consumed 37.6 percent of t h e t y p i c a l

11
rehearsal. These values are c l o s e t o the f i n d i n g of the p r e s e n t study
(42.1 p e r c e n t ) .
Virgil Leon Thurman, "A Frequency and Time Description of

S e l e c t e d Rehearsal Behaviors Used by Five Choral Conductors,"
(Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s , 1977), p . 99.
11
Robert E r b e s , "A Study of Verbal Rehearsal Techniques, "
Michigan School Band and O r c h e s t r a Association Journal ( S p r i n g ,
1976); 18.
Conductor C devoted the least amount of his rehearsal time to
verbal interaction. He usually indicated his desired corrections quickly
and proceeded to effect the change In performance immediately. His
speech pattern was rapid, to the point of being unclear at times.
Furthermore, the students were fairly advanced in their technical
command of the compositions. As a result he often needed only short
reminders to correct playing errors.
Conductor B used the greatest amount of his rehearsal time in
verbal interaction. His rehearsal comments were usually quick and to the
point, but in both rehearsals he spoke at length on the style of a
composition being rehearsed.
Subproblem Five
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, do the rehearsal
techniques used by the conductors involve a) demonstration; b) verbal
explanation; and c) verbal imagery?
Conductor A
Conductor A employed two of the t h r e e techniques 151 times for a
total of 23 minutes and 9 seconds. His use of verbal e x p l a n a t i o n was
much g r e a t e r than demonstration i n both time and frequency. He u t i l i z e d
this technique more than 92 percent of t h e time and i n more than 72
percent of h i s r e f e r e n c e s . His average time per instance of verbal
explanation was the h i g h e s t of a l l t h e c o n d u c t o r s , as was h i s o v e r a l l
time per i n s t a n c e .
131
He sang 33 percent of his demonstrations on p i t c h . The remaining
67 percent were monotone v o c a l i z a t i o n s or unpitohed rhythmic counting.
Eighty-two percent of all his demonstrations concerned rhythm and
a r t i c u l a t i o n problems. There were no i n s t a n c e s of imagery. The data f o r
Conductor A appear in Table 37.
TABLE 37
CONDUCTOR A: TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA FOR THE

THREE REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES
Time Frequency Time/Ref.

Technique min. % it % (sec.)
Demonstration 1.77 7.6 32 21.9 3.3
V. Expl. 21.38 92.4 119 78.8 10.8
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 2372! 151 Ave.s 9.2
Conductor B
Conductor B used two of the t h r e e techniques 153 times for a
total of 18 minutes and 8 seconds. His extensive use of verbal
e x p l a n a t i o n , second only to Conductor A, reflected his protracted
explanations of style in both rehearsals. His time per instance of
verbal explanation and h i s o v e r a l l time per instance were both higher
than t h e average but l e s s than Conductor A.
He sang 26 percent of h i s demonstrations on p i t c h . The remaining
74 percent were monotone vocalizations, with one i n s t a n c e each of
rhythmic counting and clapping. Seventy-six percent of all the
demonstrations concerned rhythm and a r t i c u l a t i o n problems. He used no

132
imagery. The data for Conductor B appear in Table 38.
Conductor C
Conductor C u t i l i z e d t h e t h r e e techniques 145 times for a total
of ten minutes and 13.5 s e c o n d s . More than 80 percent of the time and
over t w o - t h i r d s of the i n s t a n c e s devoted to the three techniques were
spent on v e r b a l explanation. S l i g h t l y l e s s than a t h i r d of the i n s t a n c e s
of technique usage involved demonstration.
He sang 55 percent of his demonstrations on pitch, while 45
percent were monotone or unpitched v o c a l i z a t i o n s . Seventy-three percent
of a l l t h e demonstrations concerned rhythm and a r t i c u l a t i o n problems. He
used imagery only twice. His time per i n s t a n c e was q u i t e low for a l l
techniques, i n d i c a t i n g a tendency f o r succinct explanations. The data
f o r Conductor C appear i n Table 39.
Conductor D
Conductor D u t i l i z e d two of the three techniques 176 t i m e s , f o r a
total of 16 minutes and 33 s e c o n d s . Verbal e x p l a n a t i o n occupied two-
t h i r d s of t h e technique time and accounted for over half of the
instances of technique usage. Like Conductor C, h i s time per i n s t a n c e
for t h i s technique was r e l a t i v e l y low.
He sang 71 percent of h i s demonstrations on p i t c h . The remaining
29 percent were monotone v o c a l i z a t i o n s and unpitched rhythmic c o u n t i n g .
Eighty-five percent of all his demonstrations concerned rhythm and
articulation problems. He used no imagery in e i t h e r r e h e a r s a l . The d a t a

133
TABLE 38
CONDUCTOR B: TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA FOR THE

Technique min. % if % (sec.)
Demonstration 1.79 9.9 46 30.1 2.3

V. Expl. 16.34 90.1 107 69.9 9.2
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 18*713 153 Ave.: 7.2

134
TABLE 39
CONDUCTOR C: TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA FOR THE

Technique min. % if % (sec.)
Demonstration 1.77 17.3 44 30.3 2.4
V. Expl. 8.35 81.7 99 68.3 5.1
V. Imag. .11 1.1 2 1.4 3.2
Total T6721 145 Ave.: 4.2

135
for Conductor D appear in Table 40.
Conductor E
Conductor E used the three techniques 119 times, totaling 17
minutes and 32 seconds. Over three-fourths of the time devoted to these
techniques and over half of the instances of technique usage consisted
of verbal explanation.
He sang 51 percent of his demonstrations on pitch. Forty-three
percent were monotone vocalizations or rhythmic counting. Fifty-two
percent of all his demonstrations concerned rhythm and articulation
problems. His seven instances of imagery totaled slightly over one
percent of the time spent on the three techniques. His tendency for
verbosity is indicated by the high time per instance of technique usage,
especially for verbal explanation. The data for Conductor E appear in
Table 41.
Comparative Interpretation
The summary data for this subproblem appear in Table 42, 43, and
44.
Conductor A's time and frequently percentages for verbal
explanation were the highest of the group. His rehearsal Interactions
were oriented less toward giving the students a direct, immediate
solution of the rehearsal problems than toward providing them a thorough
grasp of the reasons for the corrections, thereby enabling them to
generalize the principles to other situations. As a consequence , his

136
TABLE 40
CONDUCTOR D: TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA FOR THE

Demonstration 5.22 31.5 71 40.3 4.4

V. Expl. 11.33 68.5 105 59.7 6.5
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Total 16.55 176 Ave.: 5.6

TABLE 41
CONDUCTOR E: TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA FOR THE


Demonstration 4.08 23.2 47 39.5 5.2
V. Expl. 13.25 75.6 65 54.6 12.2
V. Imag. .22 1.2 7 5.9 1.0
Total 17.55 V~9 Ave.: 8.8

TABLE 42
PERCENTAGE OF TIME PER TECHNIQUE

BASED ON TOTAL TECHNIQUE TIME
Conductor Ave.
Technique A B C D E
Demonstration 77" 9~9 TT~3 3T75 2372 TT7T
V. Expl. 92.4 90.1 81.7 68.5 75.6 82.6
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 .4

139
TABLE 43
PERCENTAGE OF REFERENCES PER TECHNIQUE

BASED ON TOTAL REFERENCES
-7
Technique Conductor Ave.
Demon-
stration 21.2 30.1 30.3 40.3 39.5 32.2
V. Expl. 78.8 69.9 68.3 59.7 54.6 66.5
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.9 1.2

mean time per instance of verbal explanation was the highest of all the
conductors, as was his overall mean time per instance.
Conductor B also relied heavily on verbal explanation, but
slightly less than Conductor A. His most lengthy instances of verbal
explanation occurred during his explanation of the styles of Valdres and
Second Suite in F_. Except for those instances, his verbal explanations
were succinct. One might Infer that these rehearsals do not reflect his
normal use of verbal explanation. His time per instance of verbal
explanation was greater than the mean, but was slightly less than the
mean in demonstration. His mean time per instance of all techniques was
just slightly greater than the mean of all the conductors.
Though verbal explanation also dominated Conductor C's use of the
three techniques, his percentages for both this technique and for
demonstration were the closest to the mean values for all the
conductors. His rehearsals tended to be fast-paced, with only short
pauses for directions. While correcting performance problems, he often
continued to beat time, thereby keeping the students ready to resume
rehearsing. This very business-like approach to the rehearsal and his
sparing use of corrective comments are reflected in his data in Table
39. His time per reference of verbal explanation and of demonstration,
as well as his mean time per instance, was the lowest of all the
conductors. He very rarely used imagery.
Conductor D used demonstration more often and for a longer period
of time than the other conductors. Although he also used verbal
explanation much more than demonstration, his time and frequency

141
percentages were below the mean figures for that technique.
Two seemingly atypical factors influenced Conductor D's data.
His preoccupation with the dotted-eighth-slxteenth rhythm in the first
rehearsal accounted for the extensive use of demonstration. In the
second rehearsal his stress on tuning problems during the rehearsal
resulted in an extended series of short corrective comments, thereby
lowering his time per instance for verbal explanation as well as his
overall mean time per reference (Table 40).
Conductor E's time and frequency data for demonstration were
within the range of the other conductors* data but were greater than the
average, second to Conductor D. His time per instance was likewise
greater than the average for this technique. Verbal explanation
percentages were below the average, but his time per instance was
markedly higher, indicating a tendency for verbosity. He made more use
of imagery than Conductor C, but the investment of time was quite small
for both conductors. His overall time per reference was greater than the
mean, though less than Conductor A.
Summary
Thurman's r e s e a r c h i s the only study known t o the i n v e s t i g a t o r in
which the use of demonstration, v e r b a l imagery, and verbal e x p l a n a t i o n
as r e h e a r s a l techniques i s analyzed. He found that t h e choral conductors
In h i s study used demonstration most f r e q u e n t l y (64 p e r c e n t ) and f o r the
g r e a t e s t amount of time (58 p e r c e n t ) . Although verbal imagery was used
twice as often as explanation (24 v s . 11.8 p e r c e n t ) , more time was

142
TABLE 44
AVERAGE TIME PER REFERENCE
Conductor Ave.
Technique A B C D E
Demonstration 373 273 274 474 5~2 3.7
V. Expl. 10.9 9.2 5.1 6.5 12.2 8.6
V. Imag. 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.8 2.2

expended on explanation than imagery (27 vs. 15 percent).
In contrast, the band conductors In the present study used verbal
explanation more often and for a longer period of time than either
verbal imagery or demonstration. Two-thirds of the instances and 82.5
percent of the time involving the three techniques were devoted to
verbal explanation. This decided emphasis indicates either that the
conductors felt this to be the most effective technique for correcting
the majority of performance problems; or that they were more oriented to
this technique and employed it in a reflexive manner.
Although the conductors used demonstration much less than verbal
explanation, its importance as an explicative technique is indicated by
their heavy reliance on it for solving rhythm and articulation problems.
The percentage of time in verbal explanation Is higher than the
percentage of instances, Indicating the greater amount of time used in
this technique. This may indicate that in those instances when
demonstration could effect a solution as well as verbal explanation,
demonstration would be a more efficient choice.
Verbal imagery was used by only two of the conductors, and then
only slightly over one percent of the time. Its use was limited to
problems involving tone quality or style. By contrast, the choral
conductors in Thurman's study employed imagery twice as often as verbal
explanation.
Thurman, p. 126.
144
Subproblem Six
To what e x t e n t , i n terms of time and frequency, do t h e conductors
conduct and/or monitor r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s ?
The concern of this subproblem was the conductor behavior
occurring during the p e r i o d of a c t u a l r e h e a r s i n g . The time consumed by
warming-up and by administrative announcements is therefore not
r e f l e c t e d in t h e d a t a .
As p r e v i o u s l y noted i n Subproblems One and Four, Conductor E's
rehearsals were not typical r e h e a r s a l s . His data for t h i s subproblem
were well o u t s i d e the range of the other conductors' data and were
t h e r e f o r e not included In t h i s subproblem.
Conductor A initiated 133 rehearsal trials for a total
expenditure of 48 minutes and 25.5 seconds, or 58.8 percent of t h e
a c t i v e r e h e a r s a l . His mean time per t r i a l was 2 1 . 8 seconds.
Conductor B initiated 97 rehearsal trials for a total
expenditure of 34 minutes and 21 s e c o n d s , or 52.7 percent of the a c t i v e
r e h e a r s a l . His mean time per t r i a l was 21.3 s e c o n d s .
Conductor C i n i t i a t e d 111 r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s , consuming 45 minutes
and 56.5 seconds or 69.4 percent of t h e active r e h e a r s a l . His mean time
per t r i a l was 25.8 seconds.
Conductor D i n i t i a t e d r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s 145 times f o r a total of
49 minutes and 44.5 s e c o n d s , or 5 4 . 9 percent of the a c t i v e r e h e a r s a l .
His mean time per t r i a l was 19.8 s e c o n d s .

The complete data f o r Subproblem Six appear in Table 45.
Comparative I n t e r p r e t a t i o n
Conductor A's percentage of time used in rehearsal trials was
nearest to the mean of all the conductors. Although his verbal
i n s t r u c t i o n s were e f f i c i e n t and to t h e point, he spent an unusual amount
of time explaining concepts of balance and rhythm. This prevented h i s
r e h e a r s a l s from being f a s t e r paced. His time per rehearsal trial was
a l s o nearest t o the mean f o r a l l conductors.
Conductor B
Of the f o u r conductors Conductor B used the smallest percentage
of time for rehearsal trials. Like Conductor A, his rehearsal
c o r r e c t i o n s were concise, but his protracted explanations of style in
both rehearsals decreased the amount of time a v a i l a b l e for r e h e a r s a l
t r i a l s . Since such explanations would not normally occur in each
rehearsal, one may assume that h i s percentage of r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s i s
usually greater. His time per r e h e a r s a l t r i a l was slightly less than
the mean for a l l conductors.
Conductor C
Conductor C's percentage of time devoted to r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s was
the highest of a l l the conductors. His c o r r e c t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s were
s h o r t , a t times t e r s e , and were u s u a l l y delivered in a quick, clipped
style-, Thus, more time was used in a c t u a l r e h e a r s a l . His time per
r e h e a r s a l t r i a l was also t h e highest of a l l t h e conductors.

146
TABLE 45
FREQUENCY AND TIME DATA FOR REHEARSAL TRIALS
Cond. Active Reh. No. of Total Time % Active Mean Time

Time (min.) Reh. T r i a l s of Reh. T r i a l s Reh. used in Per T r i a l
Trials (min.) Trials (sec.)
A 82.38 133 48.43 58.7 21.8
B 65.20 97 34.35 52.7 21.3
C 66.20 111 45.94 69.4 24.8
D 86.92 145 47.74 54.9 19.8
Total 300.70 486 176.46
Mean 75.18 121.5 44.12 58.7 21.8

147
Conductor D
Conductor D expended a lower percentage of his rehearsals in
rehearsal trials than Conductors A and C, but slightly more than
Conductor B. This lower percentage resulted partially from his extended
explanations of the rhythm problem in the first rehearsal and the
intonation difficulties in the second. Another cause was his relatively
slow-paced speech pattern. His mean time per trial was the lowest of the
conductors. This was due to the extremely short rehearsal trials during
his correction of the rhythm and intonation problems.
Summary
The four conductors were videotaped for a total of 300 minutes
and 42 seconds, during which time they initiated 486 rehearsal trials.
The mean time for each trial was 21.8 seconds. The percentage of active
rehearsal time used in the trials ranged from 52.7 percent to 69.4
percent, for a mean of 58.7 percent. This value is close to that

1^
reported by Thurman (57.3) in his study, -> the only research surveyed by
the investigator which considered this dimension of the rehearsal
setting.
Subproblem Seven
To what extent, in terms of time and frequency, do the conductors

concern themselves with a) a single performer; b) a single section; c)
more than a section, but not a l l ; and d) a l l performers?
3
Thurman, p . 143.
148
Since Conductor E's r e h e a r s a l s were a t y p i c a l , those data were not
considered i n the conclusions of t h i s subproblem.
Conductor A
Although Conductor A concerned himself with a l l four groupings in
his rehearsal t r i a l s , he expended 72 percent of h i s t r i a l s and over 94
percent of t h e t r i a l time on the f u l l ensemble. His only t r i a l s w i t h a
single performer occurred in his first r e h e a r s a l , when he d e a l t In
d e t a i l with the t i m p a n i s t ' s t u n i n g . His t r i a l s w i t h s i n g l e s e c t i o n s and
more than a section but not a l l were f a i r l y s i m i l a r In both time and
frequency. His rehearsals were taped a week apart during contest
p r e p a r a t i o n , the second but a week p r i o r t o the c o n t e s t performance. As
might be expected, there were fewer trials Involving the smaller
groupings during t h e second r e h e a r s a l . His mean time per t r i a l ranged
from 4.4 seconds f o r a s i n g l e performer t o 45.7 seconds for the full
ensemble. The data for Conductor A appear in Table 46.
Conductor B
Conductor B u t i l i z e d over 54 percent of t h e t r i a l s and 89 percent
of the trial time in f u l l ensemble r e h e a r s a l . He gave somewhat more
a t t e n t i o n t o groupings of more than one s e c t i o n than to s i n g l e s e c t i o n s ,
but he conducted no r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s with i n d i v i d u a l s during e i t h e r
rehearsal. His mean time p e r t r i a l ranged from 4.2 seconds for more
than one section to 54.6 seconds for t h e e n t i r e group. The d a t a for
Conductor B appear i n Table 47.
The composition in Conductor B's second r e h e a r s a l had had less

TABLE 46
CONDUCTOR A: REHEARSAL TRIAL TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA

Single Performer Single Section More Than a Section All Performers
Reh. it min. % # % min. % it % min. % # % min. %
A 5 6.9 .53 2.0 13 17.8 •99 3.8 8.2 .44 1.7 24.49 92.6
1 49 67.1
A 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 8.3 .21 •9 8 13.3 .42 1.9 21.40 97.2
2 47 78.3
Total 5 .53 18 1.2 14 .86 45.86
96
Time/
Trial 6.3 sec. 4.0 sec. 3.7 sec. 28.7 see.
TABLE 47
CONDUCTOR B: REHEARSAL TRIAL TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA

Reh. it % min. % it % min. % it % min. % it % min. %
B1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 26.3 1.3*1 9.2 8 21.1 1.28 8.8 20 52.6 11.98 82.0
B2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3.4 .18 .9 24 40.7 -97 4.9 33 55.9 18.60 94.2
Total 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 1.53 4.4 32 2.25 53 30.58
Time/
Trial 0 7.6 sec. 4.2 sec. 34.6 sec.
151
preparation than those in the f i r s t , and he appeared to avoid single

section t r i a l s on i t , concentrating instead on the full group. By
contrast, in the first rehearsal, in which the compositions had more
prior rehearsal, over one-fourth of his rehearsal t r i a l s involved single
sections.
Conductor C
Conductor C devoted over 52 percent of the rehearsal trials and
more than 85 percent of the trial time to the full ensemble. He spent
more time on more than one section than on a single section or a single
performer, but the total time spent on the smaller groupings was
considerably less than for the full group. The band had had more
preparation on the compositions in the second rehearsal, and he gave
more time during this rehearsal to the full ensemble than in the first
rehearsal. His mean time per trial ranged from 2.5 seconds for a single
performer to 40.7 seconds for the full ensemble. The data for Conductor
C appear In Table 48.
Conductor D
Although Conductor D expended only one-third of his rehearsal

t r i a l s on the f u l l ensemble, he concentrated s l i g h t l y over 78 percent of
the t r i a l time on this grouping. His emphasis on single performers was
the greatest of a l l the conductors, the result of intonation problems
in certain sections. Of a l l the conductors his rehearsal trials were
most evenly distributed among the four groupings, although his time was
heavily invested in the f u l l ensemble. His time per t r i a l ranged from
TABLE 48
CONDUCTOR C: REHEARSAL TRIAL TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA
Reh. it % min. $ it % min. % it % min. % it % min. %
DC 1 1.6 .04 .2 9 14.5 .63 2.4 ZZ 35.5 4.0 15.2 30 48.4 21.7 82.2
1
C
2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 14.3 .44 2.3 14 28.6 1.5 7.4 28 57.1 17.7 90.3
Total .04 16 1.07 36 5.5 58 39.4
Time/
Trial 2.5 sec. 4.0 sec. 9.1 sec. 40.7 sec.
153
4.4 seconds for s i n g l e performers to more than 45 seconds for the f u l l
group. The data f o r Conductor D appear in Table 49.
Summary
The only interaction analysis research which considered the
categories in this subproblem was the s t u d y by Thurman. The c h o r a l
conductors he observed devoted 75 percent of t h e i r r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s and

14
92 p e r c e n t of t h e i r r e h e a r s a l t r i a l time to the full ensemble. By
comparison, the conductors i n t h e present study expended fewer than 53
percent of t h e i r t r i a l s and l e s s than 87 percent of the t r i a l time in
full band rehearsal. The more than one s e c t i o n grouping received t h e
next g r e a t e s t emphasis, followed by the single section and single
performer categories. The time per trial averaged 4 . 8 seconds f o r
s i n g l e performers and ranged upwards to 35.9 seconds for the full
ensemble. The complete data appear in Table 50.
The g r e a t e r use of s e c t i o n a l rehearsal trials in the present
study, in comparison to Thurman's f i n d i n g s , i s not unexpected. The
l a r g e r number of s e c t i o n s within the band and the more technically
complex nature of band music require more s e c t i o n a l d r i l l than i s
necessary i n the c h o r a l r e h e a r s a l .
A careful a n a l y s i s of t h e video tapes and typescripts suggests
that the stage of preparation of a given composition was the major
v a r i a b l e Influencing the amount of time the conductor devoted to the
Thurman, p . 151.
TABLE 49
• • . . . . • •
CONDUCTOR D: REHEARSAL TRIAL TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA
Single Performer Single Section More Than a Section All P srformers
Reh. # % min. % it % min. % it % min. % it % min. %
D 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 31.3 3.23 16.4 26 31.3 3.14 16.0 31 37.3 13.29 67.6
1
D
2 13 21.0 .94 3.4 16 25.8 1.17 4.2 15 24.2 1.98 7.1 18 29.0 23.99 78.1
Total 13 .94 42 4.40 41 5.12 49 37.28
Time/
Trial 4.4 sec. 6.3 sec. 7.5 sec. 45.,7 sec.
TABLE 50
SUMMARY: REHEARSAL TRIAL TIME AND FREQUENCY DATA

Reh. # % min. I if % min. % » % min. % it % mm. %
All Con-
ductors 19 3.9 1.51 .86 88 18.1 8.19 4.6 123 25.3 13.7 7.8 256 52.7 153-1 86.7
Time/
Trial 4.8 sec. 5.6 sec. 6.7 sec. 35.9 sec.
156
v a r i o u s ensemble g r o u p i n g s . If the compositions were in the early
stages of preparation, as in Conductor B's second r e h e a r s a l , a h i g h e r
percentage of time and t r i a l s were expended in f u l l ensemble rehearsal.
The same situation obtained In Conductor D's r e h e a r s a l of the second
composition in h i s second rehearsal (Elsa's Procession). In these
instances Intonation and technical problems were not dissected and
rehearsed as in more thoroughly prepared compositions.
In l a t e r s t a g e s of p r e p a r a t i o n , as i n the first rehearsals of
Conductors A, C, and D, more time was used i n smaller group r e h e a r s a l i n
an attempt to c l a r i f y and correct d e t a i l s of performance. Intonation,
rhythm, and technique problems were the focus of many of the t r i a l s a t
this point.
In the f i n a l phases of p r e p a r a t i o n , such as Conductor A's final
rehearsal, almost all of the r e h e a r s a l time was devoted to the f u l l
group. Any t r i a l s i n v o l v i n g single s e c t i o n s and more than a section
were always directed t o an isolated problem and were q u i t e s h o r t .
An extreme example of t h i s tendency for conductors to spend the
greatest amount of t i m e with the f u l l ensemble during t h e e a r l i e s t and
f i n a l t a g e s of p r e p a r a t i o n of a composition was seen In Conductor E's
rehearsals (which were not considered in t h i s subproblem). Hi3 two
rehearsals, a sight-reading session and a final rehearsal before
c o n t e s t , consisted only of f u l l ensemble r e h e a r s a l t r i a l s .
Subproblem Eight
To what e x t e n t , i n terms of time and frequency, do the conductors

157
concern themselves with a) less than a musical phrase; and b) a musical
phrase or more?
Since Conductor E's rehearsals were atypical, his data were not
considered In the conclusions of this subproblem.
Although Conductor A divided his total rehearsal trials fairly
evenly between less than a musical phrase and a musical phrase or more,
the individual rehearsals varied somewhat In this respect. In the first
rehearsal he dealt with a phrase or more in more than 53 percent of the
trials, while in the second rehearsal he expended only 40 percent of the
trials on this category. In both rehearsals, however, he invested
virtually the same percentage of time on a musical phrase or more. The
data for Conductor A appear in Table 51.
His percentages of rehearsal trials and of total time expended on
the two categories were the closest to the mean value for these data for
all the conductors. Hi3 time per trial was much greater for a musical
phrase or more than for less than a musical phrase.
Conductor B was fairly consistent during the rehearsals both in
the percentage of rehearsal trials devoted to the two categories and in
the percentage of time expended on each. In the first rehearsal he used
50 percent of the trials for each category, while in the second 55+
percent of the trials dealt with less than a musical phrase. In both
rehearsals he invested between 91 and 92 percent of the trial time on a
musical phrase or more. His percentages of rehearsal trials and of
total time expended on the two categories were close to the mean for all
TABLE 51
CONDUCTOR A: DATA ON REHEARSAL TRIALS OF

LESS THAN A PHRASE AND A PHRASE OR MORE
Rehearsal Trial Frequency Time Time/Trial

it % min. t (sec.)
A
1
Less Than Phrase 34 46.6 2.08 7.9 3.7
Phrase or More 39 53.4 24.37 92.1 37.5
Total 73 26/45 Mean: 21.7
A2
Less Than Phrase 30 60.0 1.59 8.2 3.2
Phrase or More 20 40.0 17.80 91.8 53.4
Total 50 19.39 Mean: 23.3
Less Than Phrase 64 52.0 3.68 8.0 3.5

Phrase or More 59 48.0 42.20 92.0 42.9
Total 123 45.88 Mean: 22.4
159
conductors. His mean time per trial was much greater for a phrase or
more than for less than a phrase. The data for Conductor B appear in
Table 52.
Conductor C devoted considerably more trials to a phrase or more
than to less than a phrase, and his percentage of trials in each
category was consistent across the two rehearsals. His investment of
time in the two categories was likewise similar in both rehearsals. His
data for both the number of trials and total time expended on more than
a phrase were the highest for all the conductors. His mean time per
trial was much greater for a phrase or more than for less than a phrase.
The data for Conductor C appear in Table 53.
Conductor D varied considerably across the two rehearsals in the
number of trials he expended In the two categories. While the number of
trials were evenly divided between the categories during the first
rehearsal, he spent twice as many trials on less than a phrase than on
more than a phrase during the second rehearsal. His time committment to
the two categories also varied somewhat between the two rehearsals. It
is interesting that in the second rehearsal his time investment on a
phrase or more was larger than in the first, even though he spent fewer
trials on a phrase or more. The data for Conductor D appear in Table
54.
His time and frequency data indicate that he expended less
attention on a musical phrase or more than the other conductors.
Although his mean time per trial was much greater for a phrase or more
than for less than a phrase, it was the lowest value for this category
TABLE 52
CONDUCTOR B: DATA ON REHEARSAL TRIALS OF

Rehearsal T r i a l Frequency Time Time/Trial

it % min. % (sec.)
B
1
Less Than Phrase 18 50.0 1.12 8.1 3.7
Phrase or More 18 50.0 12.76 91.9 42.5
Total 36 13.88 Mean: 23.1
B
2
Less Than Phrase 31 55.4 1.37 7.9 2.7
Phrase or More 25 44.6 16.09 92.2 38.6
Total 56 17.46 Mean: 18.7
Less Than Phrase 49 53.3 2.49 7.9 3.1

Phrase or More 43 46.7 28.9 92.1 40.3
Total 92 31.39 Mean: 20.4
161
TABLE 53
CONDUCTOR C: DATA ON REHEARSAL TRIALS OF

Rehearsal T r i a l Frequency Time Time/Trial

it $ min. % (sec.)
Less Than Phrase 26 41.9 1.45 5.5 3.5

Phrase or More 36 58.1 24.9 95.5 41.5
Total 62 26.35 Mean: 25.5
Less Than Phrase 19 38.8 1.5 7.7 4.8

Phrase or More 30 61.2 18.09 92.3 36.2
Total 49 19.59 Mean: 24.0
C. ++ C,
1 ^2
Less Than PTirase 45 40.5 2.95 6.4 3.9
Phrase or More 66 59.5 43.0 93.6 39.1
Total 111 45.95 Mean: 24.8
162
TABLE 54
CONDUCTOR S: DATA ON REHEARSAL TRIALS OF


if % min. % (sec.)
Less Than Phrase 41 49.4 3.5 17.8 5.1

Phrase or More 42 50.6 16.16 82.2 23.1
Total 83 19.66 Mean: 14.2
D
Less Than2 Phrase 41 66.1 3.4 12.1 5.0
Phrase or More 21 33.9 24.68 87.9 70.5
Total 62 28.8 Mean: 27.2
Les3 Than Phrase 82 56.6 6.9 14.5 5.1

Phrase or More 63 43.5 40.84 85.6 Mean: 38.9
Total 145 47.74 Mean: 19.8
163
of a l l t h e conductors. These two points a r e p a r t i a l l y explained by the
extended period of s h o r t i n t o n a t i o n c o r r e c t i o n s which occurred d u r i n g
t h e second r e h e a r s a l .
Summary
The only research surveyed by the investigator which considered
the rehearsal trial categories of this subproblem Is the study by
Thurman. The conductors in his study spent 66.7 peroent of their
rehearsal trials and 94 percent of their trial time on a musical phrase

15
or more. The conductors in the present study spent slightly more
trials (51 percent) on less than a phrase but expended almost 91 percent
of the time on a musical phrase or more. The time per trial averaged
four seconds for less than a phrase to 40.2 seconds for a phrase or
more. The summary data appear in Table 55.
As stated in Subproblem Seven, the difference between Thurman's
data and those of the present study is due in large part to the nature
of the ensembles. The greater need for analysis in the rehearsal of
most band compositions than in the rehearsal of choral compositions
accounts for the band conductors' greater investment of attention in
smaller musical segments.
A careful analysis of the videotapes Indicated a relationship
between the length of the segments rehearsed and the nature of the
problems being addressed. The conductors utilized trials involving a
Thurman, pp. 152-153.

164
TABLE 55
SUMMARY DATA ON REHEARSAL TRIALS OF LESS

THAN A PHRASE AND A PHRASE OR MORE

# J min. % (sec.)
Less Than Phrase 240 51.0 16.01 9.4 4.0

Phrase or More 231 49.0 154.85 90.6 40.2
Total 471 170.86 Mean: 21.8

165
phrase or more to correct extended aspects of phrasing/dynamics and to

give a broader perspective of the different sections of the composition.
Problems involving the other elements of instrumental performance
(pitch, rhythm, articulation, tone production, s t y l e , tone quality,
balance) were corrected with short rehearsal t r i a l s that concentrated on
the p a r t i c u l a r point in question.
Subproblem Nine
Do the rehearsals form a pattern of synthesis-analysis-synthesis

as advocated by Leonhard and House?
The process of teaching music advocated by Leonhard and House

consists of 1) Synthesis: presenting an overview of the composition to
the students, either through performance, listening, or both; 2)
Analysis: identifying and rehearsing isolated rhythmic, technical,
and/or musical problems encountered during the synthesis phase; and 3)
Synthesis: performing the composition again in i t s e n t i r e t y . In t h i s
last phase the student gains a greater understanding of the
composition's overall musical import through an increased awareness of
the d e t a i l s of the structure and the s t y l e gained through the analysis
phase.
The most obvious instance of synthesis would be the performance

of an entire composition or of major units within i t . Synthesis also
Leonhard and house, pp. 287-288.

166
occurs when a problem area, after correction through explanation and/or
drill, is performed within the context of a larger unit.
The most common instances of analysis are verbal explanations and
descriptions of performance problems; verbal and non-verbal
demonstration by the conductors; and drilling of single persons,
sections of the band, or the entire ensemble on a specific problem.
Conductor A
Conductor A's rehearsal pattern was consistent in both
rehearsals. His procedure was to start at a given point and continue
until mistakes occurred which he deemed important enough to correct. A
verbal analysis and instructions for correction of the problem followed,
after which the conductor usually rehearsed the area in question in an
explanation-rehearsal cycle until the problem was solved. If the
problem was confined to a single section within the band, he drilled
that group alone. For those problems that could be corrected with a
simple explanation, he would 1) make verbal corrections; 2) start the
band at a point prior to the area in question; and 3) proceed onward
until another mistake was deemed critical enough for analysis and
correction.
He followed the same procedure in the second rehearsal, although
there were fewer Instances of concentrated rehearsal involving single
sections or small groups. The mistakes In this rehearsal tended to be
more general problems which involved the entire band. In neither
rehearsal was there a complete synthesis, either before or after

167
analysis.
Conductor B
Conductor B began both rehearsals with analysis. At the
beginning of the f i r s t rehearsal he s t a t e d his i n t e n t t o d r i l l the f i r s t
composition (Valdres) i n parts and then perform I t from the beginning.
This he proceeded t o do, although the synthesis phase was i n t e r r u p t e d by
i n c i d e n t a l errors which he f e l t needed c o r r e c t i o n . His p a t t e r n In this
phase was to stop, correct the e r r o r v e r b a l l y , and rehearse e i t h e r
s m a l l e r groups and/or the f u l l ensemble in an explanation-performance
cycle until the problem area was performed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . He would
then s t a r t a t a p o i n t p r i o r to the problem area and proceed until
another e r r o r forced a r e p e t i t i o n of the cycle. The second composition
( J u p i t e r ) was more f a m i l i a r and was played from t h e beginning, stopping
for a n a l y s i s and c o r r e c t i o n as i t seemed necessary.
He began t h e second r e h e a r s a l with a thorough a n a l y s i s and drill
of the problems In the opening of the f i r s t movement ( S u i t e i n F ) .
Following t h i s he conducted the composition from t h e beginning, stopping
for mistakes as t h e y occurred, analyzing them v e r b a l l y , and proceeding
onward a f t e r c o r r e c t i o n in the same manner as the f i r s t r e h e a r s a l . This
pattern was maintained for the remainder of the r e h e a r s a l . Although in
both r e h e a r s a l s each problem area was synthesized following correction
of t h e problem, t h e r e was no f i n a l s y n t h e s i s of t h e e n t i r e composition.
Conductor C
Conductor C began his f i r s t r e h e a r s a l by s t a t i n g at the outset

168
his desire to concentrate on analysis and drill. His procedure was to
1) play until a problem arose; 2) analyze and drill the area until it
was correct; and 3) begin at a point prior to that area and play until
the next problem was encountered. He ended the first part of the
rehearsal with a synthesis of the entire composition.
The second composition (Sebastian Ballet) was rehearsed in a
similar manner, concentrating on musical detail and Investing much time
on sectional drill. A synthesis of the problem area by the full
ensemble usually followed. There was no final synthesis.
He utilized a slightly different approach to this composition in
the second rehearsal. He began the rehearsal in the final section,
stopping, analyzing, and correcting mistakes as they occurred. Upon
completing that section of the composition, he began at an earlier point
in the work and rehearsed that section, using the same analysis and
correction cycle as before. In this manner he methodically worked
backwards, finally synthesizing the entire composition.
The second selection was rehearsed differently, probably because
it had been rehearsed much more than the first and needed less detailed
rehearsal. He began conducting from the beginning and continued until
significant errors were encountered. A short verbal analysis and
performance of the area followed. He continued past the problem area
until mistakes again caused him to stop. This pattern was maintained to
the end of the rehearsal. Although each problem area was synthesized
immediately following correction, there was no final synthsis of this
compostion.
169
Conductor D
Conductor D began the first rehearsal at about the midpoint
(measure 116) of the first composition (Concertino). After verbal
analysis and demonstration of a specific rhythmic problem at this point,
he drilled the various sections of the band on the area until they
performed it to his satisfaction. He then synthesized this section of
the composition, using the entire ensemble. During the remainder of the
rehearsal his procedure was to conduct the band until a problem was
encountered, at which time he analyzed and demonstrated the problem
verbally and drilled various sections of the band and/or the entire
group until the problem was corrected. Then, with the full ensemble, he
began at a point prior to the problem area and continued until another
problem was encountered, at which point the procedure was repeated.
This pattern was maintained during rehearsal of the second composition.
In the second rehearsal he utilized this same procedure for the
first composition. He was especially concerned with intonation in this
rehearsal and expended much time analyzing and correcting Individual
intonation problems.
His approach to the second composition differed somewhat. He
conducted it in its entirety without correction. He t.ien commenced
again at the beginning, this time stopping for analysis and drill as
needed. Following a correction he would start the band at a point prior
to the problem area so that the corrected area was performed In context.
This pattern was repeated as each problem area was encountered.

170
Conductor E
Conductor E ' s f i r s t r e h e a r s a l was r e s t r i c t e d to s i g h t r e a d i n g and
was marked by extended periods of performance without stopping for
drill. Stops were made only for mistakes which he deemed significant.
At t h a t time he would analyze and demonstrate the problem v e r b a l l y , then
begin p r i o r t o the problem area and continue performing. No drilling
was done. A s y n t h e s i s of the composition was obviously t h e conductor's
main purpose.
His second r e h e a r s a l was t h e f i n a l r e h e a r s a l prior to contest,
and here, too, h i s purpose was a s y n t h e s i s of t h e e n t i r e composition.
When mistakes occurred, he used t h e same procedure as in the first
rehearsal: verbal analysis and demonstration, followed by performance
u n t i l another mistake occurred.
Summary
None of the s t u d i e s surveyed by the i n v e s t i g a t o r considered the
use of the synthesis-analysis-synthesis pattern in the rehearsal
situation. Educational l i t e r a t u r e g e n e r a l l y recommends the whole-part
technique of instruction, but, to the I n v e s t i g a t o r ' s knowledge, no
r e s e a r c h e r has studied i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to t h e performance group.
Complete s y n t h e s i s of compositions prior to analysis occurred
only once. In h i s second r e h e a r s a l Conductor D performed one s e l e c t i o n
in Its entirety, then began a careful analysis of the problems
encountered. The compositions in a l l the conductors' r e h e a r s a l s (except
Conductor E ' s ) had been performed a t l e a s t once In prior rehearsals.

171
The students therefore had a concept of the composition as a whole, and,
in these rehearsals, the conductors proceeded directly to detection,
analysis, and correction of problems.
The analysis phase usually occurred in the rehearsal procedure
described earlier, with the conductors reacting to the mistakes of the
moment. However, Conductor B began both rehearsals by focusing on
particular problems encountered in previous rehearsals. Conductor D
also began his first rehearsal with a verbal analysis and drill of a
rhythm problem. This obvious preplanning gave a focus and sense of
purpose to this section of the rehearsal that contrasted with the more
general approach to the compositions and the reflexive reaction to
errors that typified most of the rehearsals.
Only Conductor C synthesized an entire composition after analysis
of individual problems. In both rehearsals he analyzed the first
compositions thoroughly and then conducted them from the beginning
without stopping.
As previously stated, the use of the synthesis-analysis-synthesis
cycle was evident in all the conductors' rehearsals. There were,
however, no instances of a complete three-phase pattern in any single
rehearsal. Since this study specifically excluded sightreading
rehearsals, the initial synthesis of a composition may have occurred
prior to the rehearsals selected for analysis. The students'
foreknowledge of the composition was therefore assumed, and the
conductors concentrated immediately on the analysis phase. The mistakes
which were encountered were analyzed and drilled, then placed back into
172
their Immediate musical context. A complete synthesis following

analysis occurred only once, although a l l conductors synthesized large
sections of compositions after analysis.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of t h i s study was to analyze and c l a s s i f y i n terms of
time and frequency selected components of t h e r e h e a r s a l behaviors of
successful band conductors. The problem involved determining a) the
affective nature of the rehearsal; b) the elements of instrumental
performance which concerned the conductors; and c) the conductors'
behaviors which were used to r e s o l v e t h o s e concerns. Nine subproblems
were derived from these considerations in order to describe the
following a s p e c t s of the r e h e a r s a l .
1. The a f f e c t i v e n a t u r e of t h e c o n d u c t o r s ' r e h e a r s a l i n t e r a c t i o n ;
2 . The conductors' r e f e r e n c e s to e i g h t elements of instrumental
performance: pitch; rhythm; articulation; phrasing/dynamics; tone
q u a l i t y ; s t y l e ; tone production; and balance;
3 . The influence of t h e compositions' d i f f i c u l t y and the amount
of previous rehearsal on the c o n d u c t o r s ' concern for the elements of
instrumental performance;
4 . The r a t i o of conductor speech t o t o t a l performance t i m e ;
5 . The extent to which the conductors used demonstration, verbal
explanation, and verbal imagery;

173
174
6. The extent to which the conductors directed and/or monitored

rehearsal t r i a l s ;
7 . The conductors' concern with a single performer, a single

section, more than a section, or the e n t i r e ensemble;
8. The conductors' concern with l e s s than a musical phrase and

more than a musical phrase;
9. The extent to which the conductors utilized the synthesis-

analysis-synthesis pattern in rehearsal.
Five outstanding band conductors, selected by an expert panel of

college band directors from a l i s t of conductors judged to be successful
on the basi3 of achievement, agreed to participate in the study.
Videotapes were made of two rehearsals of each conductor, and verbatim
typescripts of the videotapes were made for analysis. The nature of the
rehearsal was analyzed using the Rehearsal Interaction Observation
System (RIOS), an instrument designed by Robert Erbes for analyzing
verbal interaction in the rehearsal situation. The remaining
subproblems were investigated through a time and frequency analysis of
the typescripts and videotapes. From these data a profile of rehearsal
techniques was obtained for each conductor.
Conclusions
1. The conductors devoted 8.6 percent of t h e i r interaction time

to indirect, or supportive, behavior and 78.1 percent to d i r e c t , or
non-supportive, behavior. The main areas of non-supportive behavior
175
were Categories 4 (Informing) and 6 ( D i r e c t i n g ) , with values of 2 6 . 3 and
34.3 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The a r e a of g r e a t e s t concentration in the
supportive categories was Category 3 (Questioning), with 5 percent of
the i n t e r a c t i o n t i m e .
Other r e s e a r c h e r s have al3o noted that music instructors are
predominantly direct In t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n . Snapp and Pagano noted t h a t
the g e n e r a l music teachers in their studies were more direct than
classroom teachers. Nolin and Kirkwood found a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between a d i r e c t teaching s t y l e and teacher effectiveness and student
achievement. In a study i n 1976 of 15 instrumental conductors, Erbes
found t h a t they i n t e r a c t e d d i r e c t l y nearly 79 percent of the total
i n t e r a c t i o n &Lrae.
2 . Almost 50 percent of the conductors' verbal communication
concerned the elements of performance, w i t h over 75 percent of t h i s
communication devoted to f o u r of the eight elements of performance.
More than 25 percent of both the time and r e f e r e n c e s d e a l t with
phrasing/dynamics, while s l i g h t l y l e s s was expended on rhythm. Pitch
received more than 15 percent of the time and references, and
a r t i c u l a t i o n was given approximately ten percent of the time and more
than 11 percent of the r e f e r e n c e s . The remaining 21 t o 24 percent of
the time and references were devoted to s t y l e , balance, tone quality,
and tone production.
Of the studies surveyed which dealt with analysis of the
rehearsal situation, only three contained c a t e g o r i e s for classifying
r e f e r e n c e s to t h e elements of performance. Although two of these were

176
studies of choral performance, some aspects of the findings are similar
to those of the present study.
In her investigation of singing in the elementary classroom
Froelich noted that teaching patterns dealing with phrasing and rhythm
were positively related to effective singing instruction. Ervin found
that conductor behaviors dealing with pitch, time (rhythm), and volume
(dynamics) were among 11 variables related to conductor effectiveness.
In a rehearsal profile of choral conductors, Thurman found that
58 percent of their interaction was concerned with the elements of
choral performance, with the greatest investment of time on
phrasing/dynamics and time(rhythm). Style and vocal production received
much more attention in Thurman's study (16 and 10 percent) than did
style and tone production (9 and 2 percent) in the present study.
3. Although each conductor's rehearsal priorities shifted
somewhat across prior rehearsal categories and difficulty groupings, no
consistent pattern of variation was observed. Instead, phrasing/dynamics
dominated the conductors' attention in all prior rehearsal and
difficulty categories, although unusual circumstances In two rehearsals
altered this pattern. Rhythm was the next greatest concern. Shifts in
the emphasis given the other elements varied with the problems inherent
in the compositions (style, rhythm, tempo) or in the rehearsal
conditions (poor tuning).
One apparent effect of prior rehearsal was that more refined
nuances and points of performance were stressed as prior rehearsal time

177
increased.
4 . The conductors devoted approximately 42 percent of their
active rehearsal time to verbal I n t e r a c t i o n . The percentages ranged
from 33.8 percent to 45.9 p e r c e n t . T h e i r mean number of interactions
p e r 30 minutes of r e h e a r s a l time was approximately 49. The average time
p e r i n t e r a c t i o n was 5.5 s e c o n d s .
Of the s t u d i e s surveyed, only two d e a l t with the r a t i o of verbal
interaction to active rehearsal time. Thurman observed f i v e choral
conductors and found t h a t 40 percent of their typical rehearsal was
s p e n t in verbal i n t e r a c t i o n . Erbes found t h a t t h e conductors he studied
communicated v e r b a l l y 37.6 percent of their rehearsal time. These
v a l u e s are c l o s e t o the f i n d i n g of the present study (42.1 p e r c e n t ) .
5 . All t h e conductors used verbal explanation more often and
expended more time on t h i s technique than on e i t h e r demonstration or
v e r b a l imagery. Over 82 percent of t h e time and more than 66 percent of
the total instances involving the three techniques were devoted to
verbal explanation. Demonstration was used in l e s s than one-third of
the instances and received but 17 percent of t h e t i m e . Verbal imagery
was used by only two conductors, and then quite s p a r i n g l y .
Verbal imagery and demonstration averaged s l i g h t l y more than two
and three seconds per i n s t a n c e , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The average f o r verbal
e x p l a n a t i o n was e i g h t and one-half seconds. While verbal explanation
was used in reference t o a l l the elements, demonstration and imagery
were u t i l i z e d only i n problems of s t y l e , rhythm, and a r t i c u l a t i o n . This

178
may indicate that these techniques were perceived by the conductors as

the most efficient and appropriate means of solving problems Involving
these elements.
In contrast to these findings, the choral conductors in Thurman's

study used demonstration most frequently and for the greatest amount of
time. Verbal imagery was used twice as often as explanation, but more
time was spent in explanation.
An explanation of the difference in the findings of these studies

may well l i e in the different nature of the performing medium. Much of
the vocal process i s controlled by non-kinesthetic nerves, which means
that in some cases demonstration and imagery may be more efficient in
effecting a desired change than explanation.
6. The conductors utilized over 58 percent of their active

rehearsal time in rehearsal t r i a l s . Their individual percentages ranged
from 52 to 69 percent. The mean time per t r i a l was 21 seconds.
The conductor who was the most succinct in his verbal

corrections utilized the highest percentage of time in rehearsal t r i a l s .
The other conductors, who were also concise in their corrections, gave
extended explanations on points of balance, style, p i t c h , and rhythm.
Their percentage of time In rehearsal was understandably lower, but it
should be noted that this lower percentage does not indicate t h e i r
rehearsals were l e s s efficient. Often the best method of clarifying
concepts involves a thorough explanation instead of r e p e t i t i v e rehearsal
trials.
179
In his study of the rehearsals of choral conductors, Thurman

found that the conductors devoted 57 percent of t h e i r rehearsals to
rehearsal t r i a l s . Erbes found the conductors in his study expended
nearly 38 percent of their rehearsals in verbal interaction. By
inference, approximately 62 percent of rehearsal time was spent in
rehearsal trials. These figures are close to the findings of t h i s
study (58 percent).
7. The conductors used over 52 percent of their rehearsal trials

and 86 percent of the t r i a l time rehearsing the full ensemble. The more
than a section category received the next greatest s t r e s s , followed by
the single section and single performer categories.
A pattern was observed which suggested that the stage of

preparation of a given composition was the major variable influencing
the amount of time devoted to the different ensemble groupings. In the
primary and final stages of preparation a higher percentage of time and
t r i a l s were expended in full ensemble rehearsal than In the secondary
stage.
In the secondary stage of preparation (over 30 minutes of prior

rehearsal) as the conductors concentrated on correcting details of
performance, more use was made of smaller group rehearsals which
isolated the particular problem.
In contrast to the findings of this study, the conductors in

Thurman's research devoted 75 percent of t h e i r rehearsal t r i a l s and 92
percent of the t r i a l time to f u l l ensemble rehearsal. The difference in
180
these findings may be explained by t h e d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e of the groups
and of the music they perform.
8. With the exception of Conductor C, all of the conductors
focused on less than a phrase more frequently than on more than a
phrase. S l i g h t l y more than 50 percent of t h e t r i a l s involved l e s s than
a phrase, while 49 percent were devoted to a phrase or more. The
conductors expended more t r i a l time (90 percent) when rehearsing a
phrase or more. Trials involving l e s s than a phrase consumed o n l y 9
percent of the time.
On t h e average the conductors spent more time per trial when
r e h e a r s i n g a phrase or more. The average time for t r i a l s involving l e s s
than a phrase was four s e c o n d s .
The conductors observed by Thurman spent almost the same amount
of time (94 percent) r e h e a r s i n g a phrase or more, but the conductors in
t h e present study used more rehearsal t r i a l s on less than a musical
phrase. As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , these d i f f e r e n c e s may be due i n large p a r t
t o the greater need for analysis in the rehearsal of most band
compositions.
9. The conductors a l l employed a s i m i l a r r e h e a r s a l pattern which
utilized the synthesis-analysis-synthesis technique. Except f o r two
i n s t a n c e s of complete s y n t h e s i s , however, t h e conductors limited t h e use
of this technique to smaller segments of the compositions. The
r e h e a r s a l p a t t e r n used by t h e conductors was to stop when mistakes
occurred; analyze the problem verbally and/or through d r i l l ; and,

181
starting at a point prior to the problem, synthesize the problem area
back into its musical context.
There were no instances of a complete three-phase synthesis-
analysis-synthesis pattern in any single rehearsal. This is
understandable, since the performance of a single composition twice and
the analysis of all the problems in depth would have been too time
consuming for a single rehearsal. Instead, the conductors chose to
concentrate on selected problems in depth in smaller segments of the
composition.
None of the studies surveyed by the investigator contained
references to the use of the synthesis-analysis-synthesis pattern in the
rehearsal situation. Although educational writers recommend the whole-
part technique of instruction, to the investigator's knowledge no
researcher has studied its application to the performance group.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study was descriptive in nature and was limited to a small,
fairly homogeneous sample of conductors. As such it fulfills only part
of the descriptive-correlational-experimental loop recommended by
researchers In the social sciences. Its contribution has been the
establishment of a direction and technique for research into the
rehearsal effectiveness of band conductors. Further research should
consider the following steps:
1. The enlargement of the scope of such descriptive
investigation to Include conductors of smaller schools, less successful

182
conductors, and bands of lesser ability.
2. The enlargement of both the number of schools investigated
and the number of rehearsals.
3. The establishment of a climate index for the rehearsal
situation by correlating the I/D ratio of Erbes' RIOS with the findings
of a sociometric instrument administered to the band students post-
rehearsal .
4. A study of the climate index and rehearsal techniques of
successful and less successful band conductors in order to establish
predictors of conductor success.
5. A study of the relationship between the climate index and
student achievement.
6. A longitudinal study of successful conductors' preparation of
a concert, from sight-reading to final rehearsal.

183
APPENDIX A
Sample of I n i t i a l Letter
Requesting Information
184
2310 Juniper Drive

Peru, IL 61354
November 11, 1977
Director of Bands
Addison Trail High School
213 Lombard Rd.
Addison, IL 60101
Dear sir:
I am presently involved in a research project related to ray doctoral

study at the University of I l l i n o i s . A preliminary aspect of the project
involves a determination of the number of years that the directors of
bands in certain selected high schools have held their present posi-
tions .
This l e t t e r i s to request your assistance. Your cooperation in f i l l i n g
out the enclosed postcard and returning i t to me at your early conveni-
ence would be of immense help in forwarding t h i s project.
Thanks in advance for your a s s i s t a n c e .
Sincerely,
Mel-Pontious, Director of Bands

La Salle-Peru Twp. High School
185
APPENDIX B
Sample of Return Postcard

In Initial Letter
SCHOOL
BAND DIRECTOR
NO. OF YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION

187
APPENDIX C
Sample Letter to Panel Selectees

Description of Study and Permission Request
188
2310 Juniper Dr.

Peru, IL 61354
January 3» 1978
Dear
This letter is a request for your participation in a research project

related to my doctoral program, to be undertaken early in the second
semester of 1977-78. I am seeking the cooperation of five school dis-
tricts in northern Illinois. The results of the project will be used In
the training of undergraduate music education students and for in-
service training of music educators.
I need to obtain videotapes of normal rehearsal situations of success-

ful, experienced band conductors. The criteria for selection of names
were 1) a minimum of five years' experience in the present position and
2) Division I ratings at State Contest in three of the past five years.
From the list of those who met those criteria, five names, including
yours, were selected by a panel of three college band directors.
The tapes will not be used to judge the musical worth of the organiza-
tion or the rehearsal techniques used. Only myself and a secretary will
have access to the tapes. Following the project the tapes will be des-
troyed. The tapings can be made by the participating teachers or by
myself.
I hope you will agree to participate in the proposed project. Please

complete and return the attached card at your early convenience. If you
have any questions, please contact me by phone at 815/223-1721 (school)
or 815/223-8194 (residence). If you agree to participate, you will be
notified and given further information. Your school administrator will
also be contacted and informed of the nature of the study.
Sincerely,
Mel Pontious, Director of Bands

189
APPENDIX D
Sample of Return Postcard

in Selectee Letter
Rehearsal Research Project
1. Do you agree to participate? Yes No
2. If yes, do you have access to videotaping equipment

in your school which could be used in preparing the
tapes? Yes No
3. If yes, is it a reel-to-reel or a cassette model,

and what is the width of the tape required?
Reel-to-reel ; cassette tape width
4. Would you prefer to have the taping done by me, or

would you prefer to do it yourself?
Name School
191
APPENDIX E
Sample Letter to Selectees Who Agreed

to Do the Videotaping Themselves
192
2310 Juniper Dr.

Peru, IL 61354
February 1, 1978
Dear
I would like to thank you for your response to my previous letter and
phone calls regarding participation in the research project. The well-
known fact that band directors are among the busiest people in the edu-
cation profession makes your response especially gratifying.
Basically what is needed is a videotape of two of your normal rehear-

sals, with a total maximum time of 100 minutes. The rehearsals should
be about a week part at a time relatively unaffected by concerts (either
imminent or Just completed), work on sight-reading, school events, or
other conditions which would preclude a normal rehearsal situation.
Since you have indicated that you will do the taping yourself, I am
sending the tapes under separate cover. Enclosed with the tapes are
stamps for the return mailing. The following suggestions are made to
insure a good audio and video reproduction.
» « « « «
An i n t e l l i g i b l e voice r e c o r d i n g of the t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t communication

occurring d u r i n g a normal r e h e a r s a l I s t h e b a s i c goal of t h i s p o r t i o n of
t h e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . For t h i s reason t h e recording procedures w i l l
vary from t h o s e normally used in r e c o r d i n g the musical portion of a
rehearsal.
1. If a v a i l a b l e , two microphones should be used, placed as i n d i c a t e d

below. The microphone f o r the t e a c h e r should be no f u r t h e r than s i x
f e e t from t h e podium. If only one microphone i s a v a i l a b l e , place it
midway back a s i n d i c a t e d . This mike should be o m n i d i r e c t i o n a l .
2 . If the microphones are d i r e c t i o n a l , s e t t h e one c l o s e s t to the con-

ductor so t h a t h i s voice can be e a s i l y recorded. The other one should
be s i t u a t e d on a low stand in an upward d i r e c t i o n or suspended from a
high stand t o obtain t h e maximum amount of student communication. I f
a v a i l a b l e , o m n i d i r e c t i o n a l microphones would be the most d e s i r a b l e .
193
3. Set the recording level so that a single loud voice occasionally

peaks into overmodulatlon. The musical portion of the recording will
then be distorted, but this is not the primary concern of the recording
procedure.
4. Please record the rehearsal in its entirety or until the tape runs
out. Start the recording as soon as the bell rings and stop it when the
dismissal bell rings. Set the camera so that all normal movement from
the podium will be easily discernible. The camera should follow the
conductor if he leaves the podium to work with separate sections.
Recording level and a check on the function of the equipment should be
made prior to the rehearsal.
5. After recording, please check the tape to see if the equipment was
functioning and if voices are clearly audible. If not, please record
another rehearsal.
6. Following the taping of the second rehearsal, please package the

tapes and send them to the address below. If you have any questions
whatever, call me collect any evening at the following number:
(815/223/8194).
Thanks for your assistance!

541 Chartres St.
La Salle, IL 61301
194
APPENDIX F
Sample L e t t e r to S e l e c t e e s
Who Asked to be Taped by t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r
195
2310 Juniper Dr.

P e r u , IL 616354
February 1, 1978
Dear
I would l i k e t o thank you f o r your response to my previous l e t t e r and
phone c a l l s r e g a r d i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e research p r o j e c t . The w e l l -
known fact t h a t band d i r e c t o r s are among the b u s i e s t people in t h e edu-
c a t i o n profession makes your response e s p e c i a l l y g r a t i f y i n g .
B a s i c a l l y what i s needed i s a videotape of two of your normal r e h e a r -

s a l s , with a t o t a l maximum time of 100 minutes. The r e h e a r s a l s would be
about a week a p a r t at a time r e l a t i v e l y unaffected by concerts ( e i t h e r
imminent or j u s t completed), work on s i g h t - r e a d i n g , school e v e n t s , or
o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s which would preclude a normal r e h e a r s a l s i t u a t i o n .
S i n c e you have indicated t h a t you wish me to do the t a p i n g , p l e a s e

s e l e c t s e v e r a l r e h e a r s a l d a t e s during t h e next 30 days t h a t would be
convenient f o r you and would follow the guidelines l i s t e d above. I w i l l
c o n t a c t you w i t h i n the next week to e s t a b l i s h a mutually a c c e p t a b l e
time.
Thanks for your a s s i s t a n c e !
Sincerely,

196
APPENDIX G
Erbes' RIOS Categories

ERBES' REHEARSAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM
1. Uses: Conductor used, clarifies, or repeats ideas, performance, behavior, or feel-

ings suggested by the students.
2. Encourages: Conductor encourages, praises, or accepts student ideas, performance, or

behavior.
3. Informs: Conductor gives information, lectures, or states opinions based on his own
ideas or those other than the students'. Short responses to student questions and
rhetorical questions are included in Ifk.
5. Demonstrates: - Conductor demonstrates the manner in which an act is or should be

performed or accomplished. (Generally nonverbal In nature.)
6. Directs: Conductor directs or commands student with intent that he comply.
7. Criticizes: Conductor criticizes, rejects, or challenges student ideas, perfor-

mances, behavior, or feelings.
8. Corrects: Conductor checks or corrects student ideas, performance, or behavior in an

obvious manner.
9. Responds: Student responds or questions in a manner structured by the conductor.
10. Initiates: Student initiates communication or questions In a manner unstructured by

the conductor.
11. Silence or Confusion: Periods in which verbal communication cannot be understood.

Constructive periods should be indicated by 11+ and nonconstructive periods by 11-.
-Nonverbal Demonstration (x). When demonstration by the conductor or student is

nonverbal in nature, an "x" code should be added to Category #5. Demonstration of
this type is an extension of verbal categories and would include singing, whistling,
or other oral sounds, clapping, tapping, or playing an instrument to illustrate an
idea or opinion.
198
APPENDIX H
The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System

Training Manual
199
THE REHEARSAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM

TRAINING MANUAL
I.
Rehearsal Interaction
The communication that exists between the director and performers

in the rehearsal of large musical organizations can take many forms.
This vital aspect of learning experience can be represented by the
director's attempts to invoke a performer response or it can be a result
of communication received from the student. This communication, often
referred to as interaction, can be in the form of both verbal and
nonverbal behaviors. Recent developments In educational research have
produced a variety of Interaction analysis systems for reporting and
analyzing this aspect of teaching. The systems generally record the in-
teraction by noting the frequency of the various teacher and student
behaviors. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System represents an
instrument specifically designed for use in the field of music. It is
based on the prevalent forms of verbal and nonverbal interaction found
in the rehearsals of large musical organizations.
Research has indicated that Interaction can have a bearing on the

attitudes and emotional tone of the classroom. Teachers who are recep-
tive to and encourage student coramunicaton tend to produce more positive
student attitudes toward classroom content and the teacher himself.
Assumptions of Classroom Interaction
The development of the various interaction analysis systems has

been based on the following assumptions:
1. A teacher's behavior can be considered consistent to a certain

degree.
2. His verbal behavior is consistent with his total pattern of

behavior.
3. The verbal behavior of teachers and student is the most impor-

tant indicator of the emotional tone of the classroom.
4. The verbal behaviors of a teacher are observable, distinguish-

able, and can be classified qualitatively and quantitatively.
Objectives of the Manual
The system described In this manual will enable the teacher-

training or conducting student or experienced teacher to objectively
assess his teaching in terms of verbal and certain nonverbal forms
of communication. The analysis can be made from audio or video tape
recordings or from live rehearsal situations with the aid of a per-
200
son trained in RIOS. The manual will list and describe the various
categories into which all of the prevalent forms of verbal and
nonverbal rehearsal communication can be placed.
Examples taken from actual rehearsal situations will illustrate

these categories. The basic procedures and rules governing the use
of the analysis system will also be explained. The methods for
display and analysis of the data obtained from rehearsal observa-
tions will complete the manual.
II.
The RIOS Categories
RIOS focuses on three aspects of the rehearsal: the director's

communication, performer communication, and any periods of silence
or confusion. The director's communication is further divided into
two classes: that which supports or reinforces performer ideas, per-
formance, behavior, or feelings; and that which controls or is non-
supportive of these performer responses. The complete categories
are shown in Table I of this manual.
The categories within RIOS are described in the following manner:
Conductor Supportive Behavior
1. Uses- The conductor responds to performer ideas, performance,

behavior, feelings, or emotions by (a) utilizing and/or ex-
panding (b)summarizing (c) clarifying (d) repeating verbatim
(e) accepting student communicaton. These forms of supportive
behavior are often more subtle than Encourages (#2). This
behavior will often shift to Informs (#4).
2. Encourages- The conductor reponds to performer ideas, perfor-

mance, or behavior by direct encouragement, praise, or accep-
tance. By thi3 behavior, the conductor indicates to the stu-
dent that his form of communication is correct and should con-
tinue In the same manner. Short one or two word exclamations
of encouragement that are a consistent part of a conductor's
behavior can be coded be a single ItZ if the recorder can keep
pace. If an extremely high amount of this behavior continues,
it should not be coded.
3. Questions- The conductor questions or calls on performer with

the intent that he participate or respond. The nature of the
questioning can be extensive or it may consist only of the
name of the student he wishes to have respond. Conductor
questions may also occur in any of the eight teacher
categories. In these situations the question should be
recorded in that particular category.
PLEASE NOTE:
Duplicate page numbers. Text

follows. Filmed as received.
University Microfilms International

201
Conductor Nonsupportive Behavior

Informs- The conductor gives information, l e c t u r e s , or s t a t e s
opinions based on his ideas or those other than the performer.
In rehearsal s i t u a t i o n s , this behavior generally takes the
form of lecturing, indicating the manner in which the perfor-
mance should be accomplished, administrative announcements, or
statements of conductor feelings. Short responses, off-hand
comments, rhetorical questions may also be included in t h i s
category. Extended use of the other seven conductor
categories often shift to t h i s behavior.
Demonstrates- The conductor demonstrates the manner In which a
performance should be or Is accomplished. This demonstration
i s usually a nonverbal extension of verbal behavior and i s
done by singing or other oral sounds, clapping, tapping, or
playing an instrument. If the behavior is nonverbal, i t
should be coded 5x. The coding of t h i s category often in-
volves the shifting from 5x to one of the other seven teacher
categories and back to 5x.
Directs- The conductor directs or commands the performer with
the intent t h a t he comply. Directions may often consist of
one or two words of verbal counting at the beginning of or
during performance. This category i s one of the most f r e -
quently used conductor behaviors.
C r i t i c i z e s - The conductor c r i t i c i z e s , r e j e c t s , or challenges
the prformer's ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings. By
t h i s behavior, the conductor indicates to the student that
t h i s act should not be continued.
Corrects- The conductor checks and/or corrects in an extended
or obvious manner the performer's ideas, performance, or
behavior. The conductor describes the incorrectness i n a
manner that indicates to the student why i t i s incorrect and
the manner in which i t can be corrected. Less obvious forms
of t h i s behavior may require a shifting from category 8 to
other categories of conductor behavior.
Performer Behavior
Responds- The performer responds or questions in a manner
structured or controlled by the conductor. The response i s
usually of a predictable nature.
I n i t i a t e s - The performer i n i t i a t e s or questions in a manner
unstructured by the conductor. The behavior i s usually of an
unpredictable nature. An Interchange of communication between
performers would be included in this category.
201
Miscellaneous Categories
11. Silence or Confusion- Periods in which the verbal or nonver-
bal communication cannot be understood are included in this
category. If the silence, confusion, or laughter is essential
to the outcome or adds to the emotional tone of the rehearsal,
it is considered constructive and coded 11+. If the silence,
confusion, or laughter is nonessential or irrelevant to the
rehearsal, it is considered nonconstruotive and coded 11-.
III.
Coding Procedures
The analysis of r e h e a r s a l i n t e r a c t i o n from l i v e and audio or

video taped recordings can be obtained by studying a few simple cod-
ing procedures. The r e h e a r s a l i s coded by marking down the number
approximately every t h r e e seconds t h a t corresponds to the a p p r o p r i -
a t e category of behavior described In RIOS. This number can be
recorded on e i t h e r a Sequence Chart or Frequency Chart depending on
the e x t e n t of the data d e s i r e d . I f a change in behavior should o c -
cur during the t h r e e second p e r i o d , the s h i f t i n category number
should be noted. The coding of a r e h e a r s a l should always begin and
end with a code of 11+.
The following example from t h e f i r s t t h i r t y seconds of a r e h e a r -

s a l describes t h e method of recording on t h e two types of c h a r t s
u t i l i z e d i n RIOS.
Conductor: #3_
+
( ) (What key signature is that for the clarinets?)
Performer: shift to itZ
( E concert. Conductor: That's right, Allen.)
#1 Question
within #1
(Now If that's E concert for the clarinets.) (what is it for the
cornets?)
Performer: #9
(It will be E concert also.)
Conductor: itZ Shift to #6
(Fine! That's right. Let's start at letter E)
202
5x ( s i n g i n g ) #6
(and play i t ) (Ready, p l a y . )
( r e p r e s e n t s each 3 second r e c o r d i n g period)
Data obtained from the Sequence Chart w i l l produce a v a r i e t y of

information when p l o t t e d on a M a t r i x . The Frequency Chart produces
only t h e percentages of behaviors recorded. Table I I r e p r e s e n t s the
example above on both types of c h a r t s .
Table I I
Sequence Chart
11+ 5x
3 6
6
203
Frequency Chart
Category Frequency
1 11
2 11
3 1
6 11
9 11
10
11 1
Further recommendations for obtaining accurate tabulation of

rehearsal interacton include the following:
1. Keep a steady pace that will not vary too widely from the
basic three-second recording period.
2. If in doubt about how to code a behavior, place it in a

category consistent with the prevailing behavior at that time.
3. Be prepared for subtle shifts from an extended use of one

behavior to another behavior. Common shifts of this type are
1 to 4; 2 to 4; 4 to 6; 7 to 8; and 8 to 4, 5, or 7-
4. If a verbal and nonverbal behavior occur simultaneously,

record the verbal category.
5. Conductor indication of tuning and/or matching pitch consti-

tutes directing behavior unless obvious correcting behavior is
apparent.
204
6. Nonverbal behavior should be recorded as 5x.
Do not be overly concerned with misoategorizing the various

behaviors t h a t occur i n r e h e a r s a l s - as you become more experienced,
c e r t a i n common p a t t e r n s w i l l appear f r e q u e n t l y . The more d i f f i c u l t
and infrequent p a t t e r n s can be b e t t e r understood when considering
t h e encoding and a n a l y s i s p r o c e s s .
When coding a r e h e a r s a l , a s i n g l e record of the complete rehear-

s a l can be made on s e v e r a l Sequence C h a r t s . Each c h a r t r e p r e s e n t s
approximately t h i r t y minutes of coding t i m e . A s e p a r a t e record can
a l s o be made of d i f f e r e n t aspects w i t h i n the r e h e a r s a l . These a s -
p e c t s , termed e p i s o d e s , can include warm-up, tuning procedures,
s i g h t - r e a d i n g , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedures, r e h e a r s i n g , or periods of
performance in which l i t t l e rehearsing i s required. The o b j e c t i v e s
of the coding and a n a l y s i s procedures would determine which type of
record i s t o be obtained.
Sample Behaviors
The following examples of rehearsal interaction illustrate the

various c a t e g o r i e s of RIOS.
Conductor Behaviors
Category _1_ - Uses

«
C: You're r i g h t , c l a r i n e t s , Eb i s t h e correct key. Now that
w i l l put t h e a l t o saxophones in Bb.
«
"C" r e p r e s e n t s conductor verbal communication
C: T h a t ' s not quite r i g h t , but i f you keep trying a s hard as you

have been, you w i l l eventually get i t .
C: Eb, OK. (repeats s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e . )
C: Why c a n ' t you a l l a c t l i k e the percussion s e c t i o n ?
Category 2_ - Encourages
C: T h a t ' s an e x c e l l e n t answer, Allen.
C: You played that passage as well as I have ever heard it per-

formed .
C: Now t h a t ' s what I c a l l a great a t t i t u d e .
Category 3 - Questions
205
C: Can you tell me what the correct note should be, altos?
C: Is it above or below F?
Questions may occur in other categories if they are an indication

of that behavior. (Question number 4 in Category 1 is an ex-
ample).
Category 4^ - Informs
C: We will meet here in the band room at 7:00 A.M. Saturday morn-
ing to make the trip to contest.
C: Now if the clarinets are playing in the key of F major, the

alto saxes and alto clarinet will be in C major.
C: The composer undoubtedly intended that this passage be per-

formed at a much faster tempo.
C: I feel that this passage should be played with a more legato

style.
C: What do you think, should we try that again?
(A rhetorical question with no answer intended).
C: Right. (A short response).
Category 5_ - Demonstrates
C: That chord should be played with a "pow". (Examples of verbal

demonstration are quite unusual. Nonverbal examples are more
prevalent and should be coded 5x).
Category 6 - Directs
C: Let's start again at letter E.
C: All right: 1, 2, ready, sing.
C: Play the first note softly.
Category ]_ - Criticizes
C: That passage is played all wrong, clarinets.
C: Will you be quiet!
C: Can't you play that any better in tune? (A question denoting

criticism).
206
C: I d o n ' t l i k e the way you a c t , B i l l .

Category 8_ - Corrects
C: That passage i s too l e g a t o ; be sure t h a t you use very crisp

staccato.
C: Don't pinch t h a t note too much, S t e v e . I t has to be a bit

f l a t t e r In pitch.
C: L e t ' s see if t h a t n o t e is c o r r e c t . (Less obvious use of

c o r r e c t i n g w i l l o f t e n involve Categories 4 - Informs, 6 -
D i r e c t s , and o c c a s i o n a l l y 7 - C r i t i c i z e s ) .
Performer Behaviors
Category 9_ - Responds
C: What i s t h e key s i g n a t u r e f o r the c o r n e t s ?

«
S: We're i n Bb c o n c e r t .
N
"S" r e p r e s e n t s s t u d e n t verbal communication
C: That should be l e g a t o , f l u t e .
S: Do you want i t that smooth or s l i g h t l y separated?
Category 10 - I n i t i a t e s
S: Can we t r y singing t h a t again?
S: I ' d l i k e t o suggest t h a t we forget c o n t e s t s and t a k e a t r i p or

tour instead.
Confusion or S i l e n c e
Category 11- Any pause i n which there i s s i l e n c e , or confusion.
If t h i s r e s u l t s from a conductor q u e s t i o n , demonstration, c o r r e c -

t i o n , d i r e c t i o n , or c r i t i c i s m , the period would be c o n s t r u c t i v e .
I r r e l e v a n t or misbehaving confusion would be considered nonconstruc-
tive.
I n d i c a t i o n of Performance
When groups of i n d i v i d u a l s are performing, t h i s should be i n d i -

cated by a s l a s h mark(/). Any verbal or nonverbal behaviors occuring
during performance are to be marked on t h e top half of the slash
mark by i n d i c a t i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e category number. The following
207
s h o r t example i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s code:
C: (All r i g h t , l e t ' s go. 1, 2 , r e a d y , p l a y ) . ( . . / . ) ( . / . . ) (/...)
itZ
Fine
(./..) (./..) (./..) ( ... ) (./..) (/...) (OK, t h a t wasn't too

bad, c h o i r ) .
(Each ( . . . ) r e p r e s e n t s 3 seconds of performance).
Coded on Sequence Chart:
6 2/
/ /
/ /
6/ 2
The 6/ and 2/ i n d i c a t e that t h e conductor e x h i b i t e d some form of

v e r b a l behavior during the time t h a t t h e group was performing.
* "S" r e p r e s e n t s student v e r b a l communication.
How Can I_ Learn Basic I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis Coding Techniques?

Because i n t e r a c t i o n analysis focuses on r e h e a r s a l or classroom
v e r b a l communication, a s a t i s f a c t o r y recording of t h i s communication
must be obtained for a n a l y s i s procedures. Audio or videotape
r e c o r d i n g with proper microphone placement w i l l provide a s a t i s f a c -
t o r y record of t h e communication i n a normal classroom.
The a n a l y s i s of t h e tapes from your r e h e a r s a l i s performed by

n o t i n g each t h r e e seconds the t e a c h e r or student verbal behavior o c -
c u r i n g a t t h a t i n s t a n t . After n o t i n g t h e code number corresponding
t o c o r r e c t c a t e g o r y describe i n Appendix A, t h e observer then
proceeds t o note t h e behavior i n each succeeding t h r e e second
208
period. If a behavior changes during the three second period, the

appropriate code number i s recorded. By this coding process, ap-
proximately twenty codings are made each minute. The following
rules are suggested to develop proficiency in the technique:
1. Memorize the various categories, their descriptions, and code
numbers. Test yourself before moving to the next step.
2. Listen to the f i r s t few minutes of a classroom recording. As
you do this begin to formulate In your mind whether the teach-
er behaviors are supportive or non-supportive.
3. Follow this I n i t i a l listening session with successive play-
backs of the tape in which you begin to place the teacher
behaviors into the various categories.
4. To develop a feel for the three second coding period, use a
watch with a sweep second hand to note the frequency of cod-
ing. The phrase, "Mark, two, three," will also i l l u s t r a t e the
proper speed. (Remember that more than one coding per three
second period may be necessary when the behaviors change ra-
pidly.)
5. Practice coding short t h i r t y second to one minute periods of
the tape u n t i l you are satisfied that a reasonably normal pace
can be maintained. Check your codings against a playback of
the tape for accuracy In categorizing behaviors.
6. When not certain in which of two or more categories a s t a t e -
ment belongs, choose the category tha i s numerically furthest
from category 6.
7. If the primary tone of the teacher's behavior has been con-
s i s t e n t l y supportive or non-supportive, do not shift into the
opposite classification unless a clear indication of shift i s
given by the teacher.
8. The observer must not be overly concerned with his own biases
or with the teacher's i n t e n t .
9. If a silence i s longer than three seconds, i t i s recorded as
category 1111.
209
APPENDIX I
Sample RIOS Sequence Chart

210
RIOS SEQUENCE CHART
Rehearsal Episode
Category Description
1 Uses 4 Informs 9 Student Responds

2 Encourages 5 Demonstrates 10 Student Initiates
3 Questions 5xNonverbal Dem. 11+Silence-Confusion
6 Directs / Performs
7 Criticizes
8 Corrects
Conductor Episode
211
APPENDIX J
Frequency Charts for All Conductors

212
RIOS FREQUENCY CHARTS
Conductor A Episode 1
Category Category Frequency Total %
1 2 .318
2 32 5.096
3 32 5.096
4 2Z 35.191
5 12 1.911
35 5.573
6 185 29.459
7 28 4.459
8 37 5.892
9 4 .637
10 0 0
11 40 6.369
Category Totals 628 100.000
1 568
Total Codings 1196

Rehearsal Time
213
Conductor A Episode 2
1 5 .986
2 16 3.156
3 27 5.325
4 177 34.911
5 11 2.17
9 1.775
6 169 33.333
7 50 9.862
8 13 2.564
9 10 1.972
10 0 0
11 20 3.945
Category T o t a l s 507 100.000
1 474
Total Codings 981

Rehearsal Time
214
Conductor B Episode 1
1 1 .224
2 18 4.027
3 26 5.817
4 143 31.991
5 29 6.488
6 164 36.689
7 17 3.803
8 15 3.356
9 17 3.803
10 3 .671
11 14 3.132
1 321
Total Codings 768

Rehearsal Time
215
Conductor B Episode 2
1 11 2.273
2 15 3.099
3 30 6.198
4 182 37.603
5 28 5.785
6 137 28.306
7 27 5.579
8 29 5.992
9 16 3.306
10 1 .207
11 8 1.653
1 423
Total Codings 907

Rehearsal Time
216
Conductor C Episode 1
Category Category Frequency Total t

1 0 0.00
2 7 1.538
3 4 .879
4 84 18.462
5 33 7.253
6 215 47.253
7 12 2.637
8 34 7.473
9 0 0.00
10 9 1.978
11 91 20.00
1 548 50.09
Total Codings 1094

Rehearsal Time
217
Conductor C Episode 2
1 0 0.00
2 15 3.08
3 5 1.027
4 79 16.222
5 2 0.411
16 3.285
6 209 42.920
7 16 3.285
8 16 3.285
9 5 1.027
10 1 0.205
11 72 14.784
1 414
Total Codings 850

Rehearsal Time
218
RIOS FREQUENCY
Conductor D Episode 1
Category Category Frequency Total jf
1 19 1.868
2 8 0.787
3 48 4.720
4 216 21.239
5 206 20.256
6 304 29.892
7 26 2.559
8 46 4.523
9 16 1.573
10 15 1.475
11 113 11.111
1 429
Total Codings 1446

Rehearsal Time
Conductor D Episode 2
Category Category Frequency Total t

1 7 1.106
2 11 1.738
3 61 9.637
4 118 18.641
5 28 4.423
6 208 32.859
7 23 3.633
8 15 2.370
9 43 6.793
10 1 0.158
11 118 18.641
1 592
Total Codings 1254

Rehearsal Time
220
Conductor E Episode 1
Category Category Frequency Total

t
1 2 0.385
2 1 0.192
3 12 2.308
4 354 68.077
5 4 0.769
38 7.308
6 83 15.962
7 7 1.346
8 2 0.385
9 4 0.769
10 5 .962
11 8 1.538
1 153
Total Codings 673

Rehearsal Time
221
Conductor E Episode 2
Category Category Frequency Total i

1 5 1.362
2 1 0.272
3 17 4.632
4 148 40.327
5 2 0.545
58 15.804
6 100 27.248
7 14 3.815
8 3 0.817
9 4 1.090
10 8 2.180
11 7 1.907
1 348
T o t a l Codings 715
Rehearsal Time
222
APPENDIX K
Sample Unmarked Typescript

of Conductor B's Second Rehearsal
223
CONDUCTOR B
REHEARSAL No. 2
T: Okay. S o l o , s o i l . . . L e t ' s s t a r t on F Major.
Band: (Cues d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s , performers as band plays. "Chromatic"
"Same" "Eb")
T: L e t ' s go t o G minor harmonic...G minor, harmonic.
Band: (cues performers a3 band plays) ("You're on")
T: Getting back Into t h i s , what's i t been, about a month or so? Harmon-
i c minor. What degre of t h e scale i s a l t e r e d in a harmonic minor scale?
(student) Seventh degree, r i g h t ? So somebody who is playing natural
minor, which means no altered p i t c h e s , so t h e seventh degree of the
s c a l e is what'' I t ' s a whole step away from the tonic, right? And,
um...somebody's playing melodic minor, and if w e ' r e i n . . . m e l o d i c minor,
cause w e ' l l be in t h e r e , uh, what a r e t h e a l t e r e d p i t c h e s in a melodic
minor? (student) Sixth and seventh...fine. And going down
i t ' s . . . ( s t u d e n t ) . . . i n n a t u r a l minor. Okay, so let's start again.,.G
harmonic minor. Okay, here we go.
Band: (cues changes as band plays: "Melodic, melodic." "Novak"
T: Every day get used t o i t cause w e ' l l go back t o i t . Okay? Second
Suite? Second Suite. (#11+) Okay. When we s i g h t r e a d t h i s t h i n g I
t h i n k I got a l i t t l e b i t of t h e , uh, f l a v o r of t h e tune to ya, but I

224
wannna g e t more i n t o t h a t today, i f we p o s s i b l y can. The march has uh,
folk t u n e s in i t . . . a n d are those marked on your parts?...The names of
the f o l k tunes? (student) I d i d n ' t think they were. U h . . . a s we get t o
these w e ' l l — w e ' l l mention l i k e a t l e t t e r E, t h e baritone s o l o . By the
way, t h i 3 i s a p r e t t y well known b a r i t o n e s o l o . I t covers a wide range
of your Instrument, and i t ' s , uh, i t ' s , i t ' s kind of a model for good
baritone players, f o r , f o r , . . . f o r musicianship, timbre, t h i n g s of t h a t
nature. Um, um, i t ' s c a l l e d Swansea Town. And Swansea Town is in
Wales, i f you know where Wales i s . I don't, particularly. I f you f i n d
out, l e t me know. Uh, the other t u n e , called Claudy Banks, comes in at
H, and these are j u s t folk, f o l k - t y p e tunes, and we'll g e t i n t o t h a t a
little bit. If I can f i n d . . . w h a t I ' v e not been able to f i n d out i s the
names to the-er, the words to t h e s e t u n e s . I j u s t h a v e n ' t found o u t
what t h a t i s y e t . But as soon as I do, I w i l l . Um, that March s e c t i o n ,
uh, I ' d l i k e to do t h e f i r s t two b a r s . . . s e p a r a t e , put t o g e t h e r , and j u s t
t o get t h e tempo to go from one, two to t h r e e . And, l i k e we were tal-
kin' about when we sightread t h i s thing. Tubas and, uh, b a r i , l e t ' s
play t h a t f i r s t b a r . . . o n l y . Now I t i s f o r t e . . . y o u know? So a s much as
you can g e t out of t h a t . One, two, one, two.
Baritone and tuba:
T: S h o r t e r . . . a s s h o r t as you can g o . Short a s can be. One, two, one,
two.
B a r i t i o n e , tuba:
T: Again, two, ready, and.

225
Baritone, tuba:
T: OK. Here's how you practice that. Let's take it in four, and play
the notes as short as you can at this tempo here...Like this, 3 notes,
one, and two and three. All right? And!
Baritone, tuba:
T: No, no, no. Eighth notes in four-four, so we're gonna go half as
fast with short notes. Two, play, and!
Baritone, tuba:
T: Again. Ready, and.
Tuba, baritone:
T: OK. Two, three, four.
Tuba, baritone:
T: Stay in that tempo. Two, three, four.
Tuba, baritone:
T: Same. One, two, three, four.
Tuba, baritone:
T: Short, one, two, three, four.
Tuba, baritone:
226
T: Short, o n e , two, t h r e e , f o u r .
Tuba, b a r i t o n e :
T: Again, o n e , two, t h r e e , f o u r .
T: Ready, and. (snaps)
T: Like s o . All r i g h t . L e t ' s see i f you can get from 4/4 to cut
time...and stay s h o r t . . . y o u see the idea? Now i f you p r a c t i c e i t l i k e
t h a t . . . a n d d o n . . . y o u know, d o n ' t say " I ' v e got i t , " . . . y o u know, when you
really never do...right on the i n s t r u m e n t . I t ' s , i t ' s c o n s t a n t prac-
tice. If you would p r a c t i c e i t l i k e t h i s every t i m e . . . t h e n i t should be
OK. We should be OK. All r i g h t , now l e t ' s t r y the people in the
second b a r . . . T w o , ready, and!
Upper Woodwinds:
T: Short as you can p l a y . Two, ready, and!
Upper Woodwinds:
T: All r i g h t . . . n o w . Group, I wanna h e a r t h a t as Da-da-da-da-da-Da-da-
da-da-da—. OK? F i r s t two bars only. One, two, one, two.
Upper Woodwind:
T: You could hear t h a t was very sloppy, r i g h t ? Let's try it again.

227
Two, ready, and!
Upper ww., tuba, bar.,:
T: OK. Can you play that, then, as short as that? Does anybody
remember...I want to tell you what this was called...but does any
would anybody have a guess, as...we've had this in other things, and we
did it on the Winter Concert. We had a name for what we're doing here.
Does anybody remember what it is? The compositional device that we
were...listen to this and see if we can figure. First two bars again.
See if you can tell me what this is, all right? Two, ready, and!
Upper ww., tuba, bar.,:
T: They play, then they play, (student) I can't hear you. (student)
We'll, it's not really...counterpoint, (student) All right, you tried.
That's good. It's a lot simpler than what you're trying to think of.
It's simply imitation, which is a real important device. A lot of it in
that 2nd Symphony that we talked about is right here, and this is what
this is. You play...you play it. They play it down here while you play
it three octaves higher or something. All right now, when your're play-
ing in imitation, you have to do that sort of...you have to set up the
correct style at the beginning, playing as short as you can...so that
when they imitate that, they're imitating the right style. Cause if
they would have been right now, they would have played ta-ta-ta-ta-ta.
Cause really they didn't really hear ta-ta-ta-ta-ta. OK, so you see how
important that is. Now, let's go from the first, to 2nd, to the 3rd
bar. First, second, and third bar. (snaps) All the way in. One, two,
228
one, two.
Band:
T: OK. You see what...how important you are in the first bar. You
people set up the whole first movement. Everything that happens is all,
all up to you. OK? All right, let's go from the top. Everybody play.
Band:
T: What did we t a l k about the trombone section a b o u t , oh, a week ago?
(student) Loud enough. Plenty loud, r i g h t ? Less...better. OK, t h a t ' s
what we need here. You might start thinking about your mezzo
forte...right now, because that, that was so loud, and i t , it...the
louder you p l a y , the l o u d e r those guys play in the back. You know,
especially the baritones...just go bananas. Everybody j u s t back off,
play very l i g h t and s h o r t . OK? Beginning, once a g a i n . It's British,
right. We've a l l g o t t a be very B r i t i s h , very snooty, r i g h t now. I hate
t a say t h a t , but l e t ' s t h i n k of i t t h a t way. Nobody'3 B r i t i s h i n here,
anyway. Right? And!
Band:
T: Wow. J u s t not s h o r t .
Band:
T: I t was r i g h t when w e ' r e loud, but not so good when we're not loud.
At letter B, it's m a r k e d . . . piano, obviously. Really, it's a lot
s o f t e r . . . a l o t softer. Notice the c o n t r a s t between t h i s ( t a p s ) and then

229
letter B is this? You n o t i c e t h a t ? You did i t , but l e t ' s do i t even
more. Just l i s t e n : ba-da-da-da. And a l l t h i s . . . q u a r t e r note staccato
as short as you can p l a y , secco, which i s l i k e s t a c c a t i s s i m o , right?
S h o r t as p o s s i b l e . Letter A again. Letter A. Tempo's fine. Let's
keep i t t h e r e . Ready, and!
Band: (as band plays: "Horns .")
T: Uh, b a r i t o n e , a l o t s o f t e r . I'm s o r r y . Trombones a l o t softer at
E, and a l i t t l e b i t more of t h a t a t , and l e t i t . . . j u s t l e t i t r o l l out
of t h e r e , i t . . . ( s t u d e n t ) For r i g h t now why d o n ' t you both play, sure?
OK. Uh, f l u t e s , when you have t h a t C, what happens to the p i t c h as you
g e t towards E? I t ' s . . . i t kinda goes wherever. Ya know. Uh, l e t ' s take
it at letter D . . . l e t t e r D. And diminuendo before E a whole l o t more,
OK? Here we g o . D. Two, r e a d y , and.
Band:
T: All r i g h t . That, t h a t has to be s o l i d , and i t w a s n ' t t h e r e . Do ya
need a cue for that? B e t t e r cue, o r a r e you j u s t missing i t ? I f you
want some s e c u r i t y , fine w i t h me. I don't care. I can throw a cue on
ya i f ya want. All r i g h t , D a g a i n . D. S t i l l too l o u d . Ready, and!
Band: (#6~"Ab")
T: You, Mike, you s i g h t - r e a d i n g t h i s part? Mike...you sight-reading
this? Yeah. OK. Make sure t h a t t i e I s how many beats? (students)
Three. Great. OK, l e t ' s t a k e i t a t G, huh? G. Half notes a r e pretty
close. Slight separation. Slight separation. G, t h r e e , ready, and!

230
Band:
T: L e t ' s n o t h e s i t a t e t h e r e . L e t ' s not h e s i t a t e . I don't wanna stop
there all the time. I t ' s gonna be one of those spots where we always
s t o p , and we get used t o i t . That s h o u l d n ' t happen. And the b i g thing
at H is what, anybody? (student) All r i g h t , t h e r e ' s a key change?
F i n e , and what e l s e i s t h e r e ? ( s t u d e n t ) 6/8? (student) A page turn?
(laughter) Right. What e l s e happens now? ( s t u d e n t ) We did i t when we
s i g h t read i t r e a l l y w e l l . There's a big s t y l e change, there r e a l l y is.
Cause y o u ' r e gonna go from t h i s . . . f r o m t o t h i s . A l l right*? And t h e r e ' s
a big d i f f e r e n c e between two-f— cut time and 6 / 8 , obviously, t h a t 6 / 8 ' s
got that n i c e , smooth ( t a p p i n g ) type of r o t a t i o n sound. We've g o t t a get
i n t o that b e f o r e we h i t H. T h a t ' s why we had so much trouble j u s t now.
Let's not go way, way f a r back. L e t ' s j u s t take four before H. Bum-ba-
b a - p a - p a - p a - p a , zhump-bow! Yuh! Here we go...Two, ready, and!
Band: (as band plays:"Bb")
T: Either somebody's Bb down there i s way out of tune, or somebody's
trying to play B natural. I c a n ' t believe you'd do t h a t , but i t sure
was out of t u n e . Um..at l e t t e r I . . . we didn't get much contratrast
(sic).. I t ' s s t i l l marked piano, o t h e r than t h e melody, r i g h t ? Tongued
q u a r t e r n o t e s here a l i t t l e longer, t h a n you're playing them before.
Letter H? This has g o t t a be one of those pum! t h i n g s . One, two, one,
two.
Band: (as band plays: i n a u d i b l e #6)

231
T: Yeah. How many...do you guys have a page t u r n there? A few. Yeah. But
tubas are ready f o r i t , j u s t be even more a g g r e s s i v e , Uh.. l e t ' s play
i t r i g h t a t l e t t e r J , and Just give me the 8 t h n o t e s . Nobody with the
melodic line, at a l l . Just s t r a i g h t eight n o t e s on the downbeat. One,
two, o n e , two.
Group:
T: Short enough, but not soft enough. Again. One, two, one, two.
Group: (as band p l a y s : inaudible #6)
T: See what happens to the melodic l i n e . OK. Like , l i k e one, two, one,
two.
Group:
T: Even s o f t e r . One, two, ready.
Group:
T: OK. I'm sure we can play i t s o f t e r than t h i s . One, two, one, two.
Group: (inaudible #6)
T: Once we get into t h i s t h i n g , i t ' s gonna have to be r e a l l y s o f t , cause
we're playing forte before, ya know. Da-da,da-da-da-da- da-da. J . OK,
l e t ' s take i t at I . Forte? See what ya do a t J . I ? One, two, two, and.
Band: (inaudible #6) (That's an E n a t u r a l . , somebody played a concert
Eb..2 before E) (more inaudible #6)

232
T: OK. The l a s t (cymbal c r a s h e s ) . . , does i t say f i n e . , on your part?
(student) Does i t ? ( s t u d e n t ) You have i t c i r c l e d ? ( l a u g h t e r ) Yeah, she
t h i n k s i t means f i n e , t h a t ' s t h e problem. That l a s t note a b o u t . . b a h ! So
lets, J u s t , j u s t give me t h e l a s t p a r t s , w i l l you do t h i s . , do t h e l a s t
f o u r bars? Dee, pah-pah-pah-pah-pah-pah pom! Two, r e a d y , and!
Band:
T h a t ' s an E n a t u r a l . One of t h e trombones played an E b . . again. It's,
it's called t h e 2nd Suite i n F Major. T h e r e ' s a c l u e t h e r e , a l l right?
L e t ' s t r y i t a g a i n , one two, one, two.
Band:
T: T h a t ' s one. OK, second o n e . All r i g h t . L e t ' s t r y t o do this without
t o o many stops today, and g e t some cohesion t o the t h i n g . OK? Now i f you
h e a r d . . If y o u ' v e ever heard any l y r i c s t h a t d i d n ' t quite make sense,
it's "I'll Love My Love." That t h a t . , t h a t sounds OK. Ahh-h, what t h i s
song i s about i s , i s this f e l l o w who wants t o marry t h i s g i r l a n d . , she
thinks that's OK. But h e r father d o e s n ' t want t h i s fellow because he
e v i d e n t l y Is n o t e i t h e r a s . . I s not, ah, of the same b l o o d - l i n e , or you
know how t h a t i s In—and, u h , for some reason he, uh, doesn't want them
t o be married, and the guy ends up going f a r away... out to sea and
whatever, and she, uh, a s much as I could gather out of the l y r i c s of
t h i s thing, i s , i s there always waiting f o r 'im. Forever, waiting for
this fellow. Uhh-h, now a s w e . . . can I g e t a l l the words t o g e t h e r , I'll
r e a d i t off to you, cause i t ' s r e a l nice and very sad. And whatcha
don't know i s . , i s that he d o e s n ' t play t h i s r e a l l y q u i t e in minor. It

233
sounds., i t ' s not in major, obviously, i t ' s in Dorian mode, I don't
think you know what that is yet. And ah, next time we do t h i s , I'll
throw t h a t Dorian mode on t h e board and l e t c h a look a t i t and l i s t e n to
it. And it's, i t ' s , i t ' s r e a l l y e f f e c t i v e if you want to do something
and get t h i s kind of a f o r l o r n sound t o I t , ya know. She kinda has a
l o t of hope, but s h e ' s g r a s p i n g at s t r a w s here t o g e t 'im. And t h i s f e l -
low i s nowhere t o be s e e n , y'know. H e ' s out in no-man's l a n d . S o , she's
keeping the f a i t h , y'know, a t home w a i t i n g for t h i s guy. Ok, h e r e we go.
Band:
T:See how e v e r y t h i n g ' s g o t t a connect? That was OK. Not bad. Daniel,
t h a t low C down t h e r e . , a s much as you wanta g e t . Because you a r e it,OK?
T h e r e ' s nothing sadder, r e a l l y , than an oboe in t h e lower or middle re-
g i s t e r . And e s p e c i a l l y I n (laughter) . . I d o n ' t mean i t t h a t way. Begin-
n i n g once a g a i n . Beginning. What'd I j u s t say?
Band: (1st chord only)
T: Air f i r s t , tongue second. Not tongue f i r s t , a i r 2nd, right? We've
t a l k e d about t h a t for a a long time.
Band: (as band plays: # 6 , inaudible) ( c o r r e c t s tempo once, pitch once;
s i n g s melody o c c a s i o n a l l y )
T: L e t ' s see i f we can do t h i s without a grand p a u s e . OK? All r i g h t , now
let's., s i n c e we stopped, and I r e a l l y d i d n ' t i n t e n d t o , b u t , we had no
c h o i c e . Ahh-h.. At l e t t e r A i t says l i t t l e quicker, really, than the,
than the previous, uh, the, uh, opening tempo we used. Ah, t h e 8th
234
notes as smooth as p o s s i b l e without any tongued r e l e a s e s at all: Dee-
dah-dah. Not dee-dah-daht. OK? T h e r e ' s a horn chord, uh, I f I can
remember where the heck t h i s i s , and I knew we were gonna have some
problems there, and unfortunately, we did. And I f I . . i t ' s a l i t t l e
a f t e r A. Didja notice t h a t ? Yeah, i t ' s an i n t o n a t i o n t h i n g . L e t ' s s t a r t
at, uh, at letter A t h e n , uh, where we pick up t h e tempo. OK? If you
think as sad as p o s s i b l e , you d o n ' t wanta use a long v i b r a t o , you might
wanta s t a r t playing around with, w i t h , a h , s t r a i g h t t o n e s , s l i g h t vibra-
t o on the end. Things l i k e t h a t . See what you can do with t h a t . OK? All
r i g h t , h e r e we go. A, no pickups.
Band:
T: Bravo. OK, look, uh, volume., i n t o n a t i o n . . Right? The horns can r e a l -
ly take c a r e of j u s t about anybody i n s i g h t , i n t o n a t i o n - w i s e . Y' have
to be very careful. Y' know, a lot of
this, uh, t h e trumpets playing d o t t e d half notes i n t h a t p i a n i s s i m o . . y '
have to be very s o f t . T h e r e ' r e a l o t of D's . . fourth line D's around
here, and you can j u s t hear somebody's a l i t t l e f l a t t e r than somebody
e l s e on t h a t . We know i t ' s a bad f i f t h . Cindy, you can r e a l l y play out
on t h a t . Da-da-da-de-da-da-da. A whole bunch. OK. L e t ' s get r i g h t i n t o
t h e uh, Song of the B l a c k s m i t h , h e r e . . . S u p e r - s h o r t , I ' l l give you the
downbeat. Give you the tempo:2,3,4!
Band:
T: We're i n 4 / 4 - 3 / 4 . Hope you can c a t c h t h a t , cause y o u ' r e about a beat
away from u s . Ahh-h, people playing uh, t u h - d u h - d u t - d u t , d u t , d u t ; that

235
b u s i n e s s . , i t t a i l s down t o a piano, r i g h t ? I t t a i l s . , does t h a t around
the 8th bar, or so. Uh, you never d i d . And t h e melody comes in t e e -
duph-dup-pum-pee-duh-du p - p e e , with a l o t of French Horn. Y'know, y'
d i d n ' t do i t . Beginning, once again. 2 , 3 , 4 !
Band: (as band plays: "Here we go ( d e c r e s c . ) . . " Short!.. Hit it!..
Dotted n o t e ! " )
T: Once a g a i n you're away from u s . You never made i t . OK, l e t ' s take I t
1,2,3,4 b e f o r e l e t t e r A. I ' d r a t h e r you count, r a t h e r than me t e l l you
what y o u ' r e doing. J u s t count and you can get i t . Four before A. Tee-
duh-dee-duh-dump-pum (snaps f i n g e r s ) . Ready, and!
Band:
T: Quarter r e s t t h e r e , I remember we s i g h t - r e a d this, we had trouble
here, right? Dut-dut, t u h - d u h - d u t - d u t , 4,1,uh, and what happens before
B? Two before B I s we're rushing l i k e c r a z y . I defy anybody t o keep t h i s
thing straight. By time ya get t o B, i t ' s a l l o v e r . Cause t h e tempo i s
gone. L e t t e r A. I t ' s gonna happen in t h e accompaniment, off t h e b e a t . A.
2,3,4!
Band: ( s i n g s i n places)
T: Well, a t l e a s t when I go l i k e t h i s , h e ' s a l r e a d y shaking his head,
"Yeah, I d i d i t again." Yeah, you s u r e d i d . Ahh-h, trombones, we have to
p l a y piano. And h e ' s a l r e a d y got piano staccato w r i t t e n , ah, after B,
'bout 5-6 after B. And, wait to c r e s c e n d o . Pup-pup-pup-pu-pu- pu-pu-
pup-pup-pu-pu-pup, t h a t b u s i n e s s , OK? Will you p l a y t h a t uh, 4/4 time?

236
Starts on a D dotted half—dotted 8th note, (snaps) I'll give yuh 5
counts. 1,2,3,4,1! Trombones (stops after 4 notes)
T: That's it. So? 2,3,4,1'
Trb.:
T: Yeah, OK, fine. But yuh have (inaudible) a lot, lot, uh...well, let's
put it this way: D is in tune, but G is outa tune. So one of your, is..
your G's, and like , the old thing, 4th position changes by a fifth, ac-
cording to the note. Somebody didn't. I wonder who that was. Yeah. OK,
and , uh, y' have to play that down so we can hear the clarinets and the
oboes. Tah, dum-ta-dum-pum-pah-dah-dah-dah- dee, they really have what
we want, this contrapuntal thing, somebody mentioned that before, clar-
inets gotta sneak in, and then finally you start to get to forte. They
don't. 'Kay, let's take it at B... B . (snaps) Take the pickups, too,
not., in the first trumpet. 1,2,3,pahhrrump..
Band:
T: I n t o n a t i o n , h i t the r i g h t p i t c h , n o t so loud. Letter C. Letter C.
1,2, ready, now!
Band:
T: OK. We'll play with that, won't we? Let's go right through the last
one. 1,2,1,2!
Band:
237
T: Again, 1,2,1,2!
Band:
T: We have to decide on the quarter notes. You play tah-dee-tah-dah, we
play tah-dup-tah-dah. Well, which? Let's play, uh, dah-dee-dah-dah-dah-
dee-da-da-da-da-dee-dah-dah 1,2,1,2!
Band:
T: Ben, t h e problem I s , i f you're wondering, uh, Ben, i s the "Tee" will
tend to go flat. Down around h e r e . And when h e ' s down around here,
y'know, F ' s and C ' s , y ' know, y o u ' r e going to be playing around C and B.
Where it starts to get real funny. You're going to have t o r e a l l y
l i s t e n t o each o t h e r . OK?
Band: ( i n a u d i b l e #6 a s band plays)
T: I c a n ' t imagine why would play t h a t . Again, 1,2,1,2!
Band:
T: Y' got a pickup. I ' v e y e t to hear i t . The D t o the B natural. Y'
have to h e a r i t . Dah-dee-yat-tom. . u h , o h , y ' t r y i n g to play piano? now?
Play i t mezzo-forte r i g h t now, a l l r i g h t ? Play i t out.
Band: ( i n a d u d i b l e #6;)
T: L e t t e r C. Yeah. We're i n one. Go ahead. One. Number—Letter C. And!
Band:
238
T: Dah-dee-dah-dah-deee-dah-dah—. Not so deee-dah-dah-dah-dah. OK? I,
I hesitate to say it right now, to listen to that. Because they really
have the tempo: tah-dee-dah-dah-dah- dee-dah-dah-dah-dah. .They're in
6/8, two, and you're in one, 3/4. So it could get to be a little
complicated, .as long as you watch up here, and we get thi3 thing togeth-
er. Ahh-h, we're running out of time, next time we'll, we'll separate.
Let's s e e — wait a minute, tell you one thing.

239
APPENDIX L
Sample Unmarked Typescript
of Conductor E ' s Second Rehearsal
240
REHEARSAL NO. 1.
Comment: The d i r e c t o r elected to record t h i s himself, but he Ignored t h e
Instructions that i t should be a t l e a s t a week removed from a c o n c e r t ,
c o n t e s t , or o t h e r s p e c i a l e v e n t . S i g h t r e a d i n g was not an item of in-
t e r e s t in the s t u d y , but his f i r s t r e h e a r s a l was completely j u s t t h a t .
T: i n a u d i b l e r e h e a r s a l . We'll do our c h o r a l e as we normally do., we'll
do s c a l e s . ..uhh-h-h-h and j u s t r a t t l e through by s e c t i o n s . . .ah. .number
o n e : t h e deadline for the swimming party h a s been set for Wednesday.
All right, if anybody wants t o go o r . , t h e d e a d l i n e w i l l be s e t f o r
t h i s — t h i s coming Wednesday., s o , and a s of r i g h t now we've got enough
f o r ons bus, so i f we need t o h i r e us a n o t h e r bus w e ' r e going to have t o
do i t by 9:30 t o n i g h t . Ahh-h, P o p s ' Concert t i c k e t s : Again, I'm trying
to get them o u t . , and, and t h o s e of you who are hanging around t h e of-
f i c e a r e a when I ' m handing you s l i p s of p a p e r . . t h e only t h i n g I want to
encourage you t o do i s when i n f a c t I g i v e you the name of a person and
how many t i c k e t s they want, i f that's what they want, please follow
through. I ' v e been - ahh-h-h, I ' v e received q u i t e a few phone c a l l s t h e
l a s t couple d a y s . , people who have wanted t o purchase t i c k e t s , and I've
handed them out t o some of you and you h a v e n ' t followed u p . Those people
wnat a t l e a s t a phone c a l l , s o t h a t you can s e t u p . , when you in fact
are gonna get those t i c k e t s to them—I had a woman c a l l from R o s e l l e
t h i s morning, who s a i d , "I'm more than happy t o drive all the way to
Hersey High School t o get the t i c k e t s , " c a u s e s h e ' s got a block of about
s i x t e e n people coming...and I s a i d , "But you c a n ' t j u s t walk into Hersey

241
High School to g e t those t i c k e t s , because we don't have them h e r e . You
have t o give me some lead time so t h a t I can in fact t a k e some student
and say 'I need, you know, t i c k e t s . ' " Obviously, what we're t r y i n g t o
take c a r e of r i g h t now i s t r i p l e s and doubles, because t h a t s what we a l -
ways do. Most people have two t i c k e t s per family or t h r e e t i c k e t s per
family. OK. Ahh-h-h, i s there anything e l s e t h a t came out of that meet-
ing the other day that we need..? Tommorrow morning w e ' l l see t h e
second of the video t a p e s . 'Kay. Some of you, I understand, have a.,
ah..practice or something tomorrow, so I ' l l t e l l you what I ' l l do f o r
your s a k e , for t h o s e who.. cause I want you to see these tapes.
They're very important f o r you to see. Ahh-h and when you do come, I
want you to come t o see the t a p e s . I f you want to sit and shoot the
b r e e z e , with your neighbor, do so someplace e l s e , not h e r e . Other words,
I look a t these t a p e s in the morning, but you a r e coming here u n t i l you
are going to class, (pause) Ahh-h-h, very d i s t r a c t i n g f o r people who
want t o l i s t e n , t o concentrate on what's happened in t h e i r section, to
have someone next to them gabbing about something about I n a u d i b l e .
Ahh-h-h,anyway, I w i l l do—I w i l l then reshow t h a t tape next morning,
because a l o t of t h e tape i s nothing but the jazz band. T h a t ' s a l l t h e r e
i s on t h a t , so w e ' l l save t h a t f o r Friday, and it really isn't worth
seeing, if you wanta know t h e honest f a c t s . You—you guys did a good
job on i t , but o b v i o u s l y , i t did not go very w e l l . Ahhh, and of course,
we have some people here today, and I guess we're going t o be having a l l
t h i s week. Guys a r e j u s t going t o be popping i n , so a g a i n , very nice to
have you. Today we're going to be playing something we've never seen
b e f o r e . Now what you heard t h e o t h e r day were things t h a t we rehearsed.

242
That were ready. Now y o u ' r e going to h e a r i t a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t l y . All
r i g h t , ahh-h-h, could we do a chorale?
Band: (11+)
T: Mr. Forbes s a i d to say h e l l o , said h e ' s already heard great things
about your ABA performance. Mr. Halpin c a l l e d t h i s morning about your,
a b o u t — t h e music f o r the Kenosha Band Fest—Heard from t h r e e people al-
ready at the c o n c e r t F r i d a y , so I t ' s a l r e a d y spread o u t , and obviously
t h e people t h a t you played f o r a r e not people who are going to hold it
within themselves, they a r e going, I'm s u r e , t h e r e ' s going to be a l o t
of ahh-h, comment and bragging about what you people did. Ahh-h-h,
inaudible on Friday from an awful l o t of people. Ahh-h-h, t h e only
t h i n g t h a t ' s going to happen for you o b v i o u s l y , i s those of you who
l e a v e t h i s band program, who want to continue to do some playing, wheth-
e r you want to major or n o t , t h i s sure i s gonna open some doors. And
that—to perform a s well a s you did l a s t F r i d a y , you w i l l then probably
f i n d a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e towards you as you walk i n the doors as
soon as you mention you're from Hersey High School. And t h e f i r s t q u e s -
t i o n t h e y ' l l ask i s 'Did you play in t h a t band t h a t played a t the ABA?'
And so I t h i n k y o u ' l l find t h a t door w i l l be opened a l i t t l e b i t wider
than i t will be for someone who comes inaudible. He may even be a
better musician than you t h a t played in Podunk Band i n s t e a d of perform-
i n g f o r the ABA. All r i g h t , here we go—Number 9, p l e a s e . And—
Band: (as band p l a y s : i n a u d i b l e #6 behavior)
T: OK, l e t ' s d o — I ' l l t e l l you what w e ' l l d o . We'll go by s e c t i o n first,

243
and—then we'll go back..and pick up i n d i v i d u a l s . W e ' l l do two d i f -
ferent scales, a l l right? Ab Major by s e c t i o n s . .Ab M a j o r . . . t w o , ready,
and—
Band:
T: L e t ' s doo-o-o t h e G Major s c a l e . All r i g h t . Pick i t up j u s t a l i t t l e
bit in tempo, and we'll do it by individuals. 'Kay? G
Major, .two,ready,and—
Band:
T: As you know, t h i s i s the p i e c e - which i s the required piece for the
competition we're going t o . I ' m not saying t h a t I would not play Toccata
with t h i s band. I t ' s a very, very good p i e c e of l i t e r a t u r e . It's not
what we would normally p l a y f o r a given Pops' concert or the type of
performance that we did up i n Morehead. I t ' s ju3t a l i t t l e b i t . . ahh-h
too t r i t e , I guess you'd c a l l i t for t h a t t y p e . But i t ' s a very i n a u d i -
ble piece of music. I ' d l i k e t o give you a l i t t l e b i t of a backround on
it. Give you an idea of what-what to e x p e c t . 'Kay. F i r s t of a l l . . a h h - h -
h, you have..on your card..which I ..okay, you have the date of the
composer. .That in itself will tell you something about the piece of
music. Obviously, i t ' s not a oand piece. Because they did not have
bands in 1583. Frescobaldi was a church o r g a n i s t , and he was—ahh-h, he
made h i s l i v e l i h o o d as a church organist and composer. Ahh-h. .obviously
he was I t a l i a n , and I ' l l g i v e you just a l i t t l e bit of backround on the
p i e c e which you a r e about to p l a y . This, by the way, comes from a card
catalog, and you should be aware of these t h i n g s , some of you, uh, pos-
244
s i b l y be uh-h-h- i n t e r e s t e d i n band l i t e r a t u r e , there i3 a series of
r e c o r d s l i k e t h i s t h a t has almost every conceivable piece of music, name
of composition, i n a u d i b l e , f o r example, we studied, if you remember,
t h i s i s what t h e cover looked l i k e . There a r e r i g h t now over t h i r t y a l -
bums l i k e t h i s . Ahh-h, each one of them., f o r example, t h i s one has the
Massenet Phedre Overture, it has F a n t a s i a on a Folk Song, by Maddy;
Ralph Vaughn-Williams' Sea Songs; Robert R u s s e l l Bennett, Suite of Old
American Dances; and the F r e s c o b a l d i T o c c a t a . All r i g h t , they a r e on
t h i s album by v a r i o u s bands. Not one b a n d . . . a n d , and..we have never done
this. We have been asked t o do t h i s . . b y F i s h e r T u l L . w h e n we, when we
played the Midwest C l i n i c asked me l a t e r on, would we consider submit-
ting our recording of the., of h i s T o c c a t a . To be considered t o be
placed on t h i s s e r i e s , t h i s I s supposed t o be s o r t of l i k e a definitive
un, performance of that work. Along with t h i s s e r i e s , i f you sub—we,
by the way, we have a l l these i n the l i b r a r y . You know t h a t ? These are
available, we've got the whole s e r i e s in t h e l i b r a r y . I do have some i n
my o f f i c e , which I have checked out and never r e t u r n e d . About four al-
bums, but the r e s t of them, t h e r e are over t h i r t y of t h e s e in the l i -
b r a r y , i n our, i n our school l i b r a r y . With about anything, and they're
all strictly bands. Bands. B u t , anyway, a h , t h e . , t h e way i t ' s done i s
d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s i t y and high school bands w i l l submit t a p e s of a given
work. A screening committee l i s t e n s to t h o s e tapes and then they w i l l
s e l e c t the tape t h a t they f e e l a f t e r . , i f t h e composer, by the way, is
still alive, too, which in many they a r e . . . T h e y w i l l then contact t h e
composer and send maybe the t h r e e f i n a l t a p e s t o . , the composer and s a y ,
'Which of t h e s e t h r e e would you l i k e us t o include in t h i s Educational

245
Record S e r i e s ? ' All r i g h t , then a f t e r you subscribe t o t h i s then you r e -
ceive, you start a u t o m a t i c a l l y g e t t i n g the record d i s c , and then also
y o u . , you g e t a card f i l e . And on that card file it gives cross
reference..this one happens to be t h e t i t l e . All r i g h t , now t h e other
you also get t h e ahh-h, what band performed i t , and a l i t t l e bit of a
background about the band. This i s , you know, kind of i n t e r e s t i n g . But
anyhow, I ' l l read what i t says here a b o u t . . s a y s here about T o c c a t a . Toc-
cata, originally composed for organ. T h a t ' s l o g i c a l , since F r e s c o b a l d i
was an o r g a n i s t . Was arranged for band by Earl Slocum. Earl Slocum, by
the way, was i n your audience l a s t . . F r i d a y . I t i s highly r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of the Baroque Period, g i v e s the d a t e , obviously, Inaudible yet reflec-
tive of t h e chromatic s t y l e u t i l i z e d by F r e s c o b a l d i . A l i t t l e b i t dif-
f e r e n t than what you f i n d i n the standard Baroque l i t e r a t u r e . It opens
w i t h a slow 4/4 Grave.. Grave leading i n t o the A l l e g r o Fugue. Following
fugue i s a t r a n q u i l s e c t i o n c a l l i n g upon t h e resources of the woodwinds
bridged through the p e s a n t e , a l l e g r o , and another g r a v e , culminating in
a dramatic a l l e g r o i n a u d i b l e . All r i g h t . Ahh-h-h, the work is very
pure in n a t u r e . In o t h e r words, d o n ' t look for anything in h e r e , uhh-h-
h , business, any business whatsoever i s gonna be a very, very, very
clear, concise work. I t ' s an e x c e l l e n t required piece for t h a t reason.
Because you a l l know as well as I do, t h a t when you s t a r t f i n d i n g things
that line up harmonically, as simple as p o s s i b l e t h a t can be judged as
f a r as i n t o n a t i o n , balance, and blend, much e a s i e r than things t h a t are
dissonant. Now, the opening of the p i e c e . . y o u have t h e choice of taking
one of two ways. F i r s t of a l l , before we even get off t h i s opening fer-
mata.. I do not wanta hear a break. I'm gonna play the r e c o r d i n g of

246
t h i s , after we—we'll do i t t h e opposite t h i s time. Normally I play you
the recording of the piece f i r s t , and then we play i t . This time I ' m
gonna do i t d i f f e r e n t . I'm gonna have you play i t , then I ' m gonna play
you the r e c o r d i n g . I t ' s , by t h e way, the one r i g h t here i s t h e U n i v e r s i -
t y of I l l i n o i s Band—not Dr. Begian conducting, i t goes back t o ahh-h-h,
Mr. Hindsley, who was the conductor j u s t p r i o r to Begian. Who, by t h e
way, was in your audience on F r i d a y and who had some super things tc s a y
a b o u t you. Ahh-h-h (break between r e e l s )
T : inaudible Ahh-h, we w i l l a h , not break between the f e r m a t a s . Go r i g h t
into i t . Ahh-h, t h e tempo i s i n d i c a t e d as a —do you have an i n d i c a t i o n
on your part? (General s t u d e n t response) F o r t y - e i g h t b e a t s a minute! OK,
now hold t i g h t . I wanta-gonna s e t the timer up for you. And I want you
t o get an i d e a . This i s a b o u t . . . (snaps f i n g e r s ) . T h a t ' s 48 beats per
minute...if you can hear t h a t s o u n d . . . Very slow. All r i g h t . Now., t h e
way you must f e e l t h i s . , the reason t h a t ' s g r e a t about this thing, is
now I ' l l set up t h e eighth n o t e , and most conductors w i l l take the open-
i n g of this work i n 8, r a t h e r than in 4 . Now I d o n ' t know how I'm gonna
take it y e t , but i t ' s l i k e one-and-two-and three-and-four-and-one, and
some conductors w i l l a c t u a l l y one, two, t h r e e , f o u r , one, two, three,
four, one, two, t h r e e , f o u r , OK? (metronome c l i c k s ) T h a t ' s the e i g h t h
n o t e s now. Extremely slow. Very f a t , very mournful. There's another
n i c e thing about t h i s , when you see the 16th note p a t t e r n s t h a t you have
coming up, w e ' l l s e t them up f o r you with t h e timer. See here: dee-
dah-dee-dah-dee-dah-dah-dee, dee-dah-dah-dah-dee-dah-dah-dah-dura. Ya
g o t i t ? All r i g h t , now. Opening.. I n o t i c e d on the r e c o r d i n g it calls

247
for a cymbal crash, so, I wanta a very, very..lush, soft cymbal crash.
Don't give me..use the big cymbals, and just sort of a meeting of the
cymbals and just let'em ring. OK, here we go. Forte, no louder than. In
air. And!
Band:
T: Snare drum, now I do not want an a c c e n t . Now, i f I wanted that, Ju-
lie, I would have t o l d him, OK. Come in on t h a t r o l l . No a c c e n t a t a l l .
One more time. Clean n o t e , and.
Band: ( a s they play: counts and s i n g s o c c a s i o n a l l y )
T: You have to be v e r y , very c a r e f u l h e r e , because a t l e t t e r A, should
be aware of what's going on. One: The accompaniment i s very c l e a r l y
marked ' p i a n o ' . The melodic l i n e i s mezzo-forte. And he purposely marked
it t h a t way so t h a t the melodic l i n e would not be covered up by t h e ac-
companiment. All r i g h t , now, a n o t h e r t h i n g , you've got t o decide what's
going to be happening two bars b e f o r e l e t t e r A. I t ' s one-and-two- and-
er-one-and-two-puh-duh-dee-dura. OK? Then, pum, pum, (claps) a t the end
of that trip. L e t ' s a l l s t a r t t h e r e , p l e a s e , two before A. Up t o now,
how loud a r e you supposed t o be h e r e , do you have any Idea? (Student:
Don't know.) You don't know, r e a l l y . No. T h e r e ' s no dynamic marking
h e r e , you a l l come up to a —you came up from a c r e s c e n d o — t h a t ' l l only
be determined by u s . P l e a s e bear i n mind one t h i n g : This work i s w r i t t e n
t o be played by an o r g a n . There i s no o t h e r v e h i c l e a v a i l a b l e t o a com-
poser today to d u p l i c a t e the sound of an organ any b e t t e r than a band.
You're supposed to be able to d u p l i c a t e the sound of an organ better

248
than any o t h e r t h i n g . So t h i s i s why i n a u d i b l e some of the Bach t h i n g s
t h a t were w r i t t e n o r i g i n a l l y f o r the o r g a n . . f u g u e s , f a n t a s i a s , fantas-
tic writing, when t h e y ' r e done—very d i f f i c u l t . Same t h i n g here. Keep
t h a t in mind a l l the way t h r o u g h . What y o u ' r e trying t o d u p l i c a t e i s t h e
sound of an organ, pipe o r g a n . Here we g o , two bars b e f o r e A. Got if
And—
Band: (as they p l a y : counts o c c a s i o n a l l y , o t h e r #6 behavior)
T: Much bigger than t h a t r i g h t t h e r e . Those people a t t h a t whole cadence
must be much s t r o n g e r . Up t o a f u l l double f o r t e . This i s the climax of
t h e whole opening, r i g h t t h e r e on count t h r e e . Then we come back down,
again. All right, the o t h e r t h i n g . You must press t h o s e 16th n o t e s ,
d o n ' t j u s t ramble over them. It's one-pah-dah-dah-dee-dah-dee-dah-dah-
h-h-dum. Quarter notes a r e r e a l l y long a t t h i s tempo. A l l r i g h t , could
we s t a r t t h e r e , p l e a s e , b e f o r e . . o r a f t e r A. Four bars a f t e r A, here we
go. Remember that crescendo, four before A—or after A. Notice,
flutes—hunh? They, they could wipe us out on t h i s t h i n g on intonation,
can't they? We'll be very s e l e c t i v e about who's going to be p l a y i n g
where, and again w e ' l l probably be doing t h e same old thing: dropping
octaves in certain sections and so on and so f o r t h . Gonna have t o
do..What you're sounding l i k e r i g h t now i s a very shrill sound. We
don't want t h a t s h r i l l sound. Not supposed to be t h a t way. OK, here we
g o . Right on i t , 5-and—
Band:
T: This i s a — t h e typical t h i n g t h a t a l l musicians do, not only high

249
school musicians. What did you do? ( s t u d e n t ) You dropped down too soon.
You a n t i c i p a t e d a decrescendo was coming. Where did t h a t decrescendo a c -
tually start? (student) Count t h r e e ! C o r r e c t ? No sooner than t h a t . So
that—pahm-pah—by the way, anybody i n the b r a s s family, c o r n e t s , bari-
t o n e s , lead trombone, on those e i g h t h notes—pahm-pahm-pahm-pahm. Real-
ly going to be up t o you, to s u p p o r t t h a t f o r u s . All r i g h t , then, s t a y
up, a l l the way through t h e r e , and-an-an tend t o drop prematurely h e r e ,
why? What do you have on count 1 and 2 of t h e measure, y o u ' r e supposed
to b e - (student) OK. A descending s c a l e . Get t h e idea? So i t ' s g o t t a be
dee-dah-dee-dah-dah-h-h. Now you start your diminuendo. Ah-h-right.
Some of you are looking., vague, y ' k n o w . . ( s t u d e n t ) W e l l . , t h e r e ' s a
c e r t a i n v a l i d i t y , I would l i k e t o t h i n k . . h o p e f u l l y , h o p e f u l l y . , some of
you have changed, changed your o r i g i n a l concepts of the h a r p . . . I would
l i k e t o think you h a v e . None of us were r e a l l y t h a t shook up when we
heard it the f i r s t time. And now, a f t e r s e e i n g the video t a p e , a f t e r
t a k i n g the time t o work i t o u t , and, of c o u r s e , adding a harp solo to
it, which makes a—makes a l o t of s e n s e , I t h i n k now t h a t , t h a t you
should have enjoyed playing i t a l o t more and enjoyed l i s t e n i n g to it.
And maybe one of t h o s e numbers t h a t , a f t e r t h e album i s played, you may
find yourself going back to more frequently than you orginally thought
you might. It's your p r e r o g a t i v e , as far a s you . . . l a s t two b a r s ,
now, h e r e we go. Up! Double forte style, stress those 8th notes.
Okayy-y, l a s t two bars—and!
Band:
T: You're going t o have to work better. Awful lot. What you just
250
played right now, you'd g e t k i l l e d . . Next section! We go i n t o t h e .
. A l l e g r o s e c t i o n - - i t ' s not too f a s t , i t s t a r t s off with horns. Told
you about this when we, uhh-h-h, o r i g i n a l l y gonna do i t . I t ' s about
puh-duh-dup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup, puh-duh-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-
puh, puhduh-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup, pup-pup-puh-dun-pup-
pup-puh-duh-pup-pup-pup, pup-duh-pup. Why did they pick t h i s number, do
you think' I t ' s obvious, r i g h t here. What you J u s t got through p l a y -
i n g , i s that easy t o play? No way! 'Kay. Most bands, o r some bands, I
shouldn't say most, some bands are going to be a l r e a d y a second d i v i -
s i o n , and they haven't even g o t t e n , by t h e time they've reached this
point in the number. Before they've even gone any f u r t h e r than h e r e ,
t h e y ' v e a l r e a d y , t h e y ' r e a l r e a d y a second d i v i s i o n in t h a t competition.
Why? Because what are they gonna be, w h a t ' r e , what are you gonna be
judged by? Tone q u a l i t y , i n t o n a t i o n , b a l a n c e , l e n g t h , a l l these other
things. All right. I s t h a t not easy? You cannot t e l l a band i n t h a t
period of time? I think any one of you c o u l d , (student) Oh, no, no,
no. I don't know. Again, i t ' s . . the way I t ' s s e t u p , i t ' s a g a i n s t a
s t a n d a r d t h a t they w i l l s e t . All r i g h t . In other words, t h e r e i s .
there i s . . t h e r e may be no f i r s t d i v i s i o n s given. At a l l . Ok. Now,
I d o n ' t know t h e r a m i f i c a t i o n s of f i r s t p l a c e s , uhh-h, as opposed to
second p l a c e s , what breakdowns, i f they do go f i r s t , second and t h i r d in
e v e r y c a t e g o r y , I r e a l l y d o n ' t know. I n a u d i b l e I ' v e been t r y i n g to get
ahold of—Mr. Rich will a t t e s t — I ' v e been t r y i n g to g e t hold of t h i s
g u y , h e ' s a l l over the c o u n t r y , s e t t i n g up something. Setting up your
housing for you, your—he's got to. I think t h e r e ' s something over
e i g h t y bands t h i s y e a r . Means h e ' s gotta make hotel arrangements for

251
eighty bands, s e t t i n g up c o n t e s t s for eighty bands and a l l t h i s other.
I r e a l l y d o n ' t know how to answer t h a t . You are definitely competing
against e l e v e n . Yes, (student) Maybe, I d o n ' t know, I d o n ' t want to say
that y e t . I don't want to say t h a t . But they . . what I'm talking
about is this: They t r y to get t h e same Judges going from weekend to
weekend t o the d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s , so t h a t , in f a c t , there i s a l e v e l t h a t
is maintained from competition t o competition, and t h a t i s so t h a t one
competition doesn't end up to be e a s i e r than a n o t h e r competition. All
right, here we go! Horns . . how about i t i f I J u s t give you four for
nothing? See what happens g e t t i n g i n t o i t . But when we do do i t , it'll
be: 4, tuk-uh-dum-pum-pum-pum-pum. One, two, t h r e e , four— band: (as
they p l a y : s i n g s p a r t s , o t h e r #5 behavior)
T: OK. Now, what was t h e break i n t h e harmony there? Are you lost,
seconds and fourths? (student) We're going: tuk-uh 1, 2, 3 , 4 tuk-uh-
dum-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup. and then i t goes i n t o two part harmony.
Typical horn p a r t . OK. F i r s t and t h i r d only. 1, 2 , 3 , 4—
Band: ( a s they play; s i n g s horn theme w/band)
T: Hold i t . The second p a r t s a g a i n . 'Kay? Use t h i s the f i r s t two b a r s .
Pah-dah-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup-pup. Two part harmony. You got four up
against two r i g h t now. Which means r i g h t now I should be saying 'You
gotta play out louder, cause t h o s e four gonna wipe you r i g h t off the
map!' Obviously, four a g a i n s t two, t h a t ' s one combination. Cut it in
half. One more time. This is the tempo, by the way . . not much f a s t e r .
1, 2, 3 , 4-
252
Band: (as they p l a y : s i n g s p a r t s )
T: OK. Watch t h a t r i t a r d . . .See what I ' m t a l k i n g about? Very s t r a i g h t .
Very straight rhythmically . . Everything i s r i g h t — l i n e d up t h i s way.
I can hear w e ' r e going to have t o have s e c t i o n a l s . There's a lot of
things that are doubled on t h i s number between saxophones and h o r n s .
OK! C, one more time! Trombone solo coming up, by t h e way, thats—for
trombone, f i r s t — i n the f i r s t trombone p a r t , a t D. I ' l l warn you ahead
of time. All r i g h t ! Here we go. C, t w o , ready, and—
Band:
T: Much too loud, here, trumpets, Keep it mezzo-forte, inaudible. 1, 2,
ready, and—
Band:
T: Gotta be more than t h a t , bass drum and tympani. 'Kay, and—
Band:
T: T h a t ' s not Baroque s t y l e . You're t o keep i n mind what you're doing.
That might be a l l r i g h t f o r the B e n c r i s c u t t o Jazz S u i t e . Not for t h i s .
These things have got to be a l i t t l e more c o n f i d e n t i a l . I think what
I'm going to do, Mr. Rich and I t a l k e d about t h i s t h i s morning, and
what—you can convince me of going a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n , we are going
to be allowed to play one s e l e c t i o n of our own choice. In Denver. And
t h a t ' s all—one. Then we play t h i s , then we have s i g h t r e a d i n g , you all
are aware, now, OK? And probably tomorrow. 'Kay? Couple reasons! Now
253
g e t a l l , I'm not s a y i n g . . t h a t . I'm going by what I heard on the
tapes. I want something t h a t i s t o t a l c o n t r a s t to t h i s s t y l e . That
w i l l be—here w e ' r e going t o work f o r a much tighter.. .softer sound,
Baroque s t y l e sound. All r i g h t . Then t h e Mars opening i s gonna open up
c o n s i d e r a b l y more. OK? i n a u d i b l e t i t l e i s out and I ' l l tell you why:
We're not going to lug a l l t h a t percussion equipment a l l the way t o
Denver and back. T h e r e ' l l be no room on the buses. (student) Ahh-h,
Jupiter i s a good p o s s i b i l i t y , (student) W e l l , w e ' l l make up our mind,
( s t u d e n t ) All r i g h t , here we go, y' ready? (claps) Begin letter D
...Letter D...pickups..and—
Band:
T: Something strange right now. That you are playing entirely wrong,
and you might as well learn it right at the beginning. This passage has
too many, .too many sections at too many times. You have a phrase that
goes like this: pah-dah-pup-puh-pup-pup-pah, and too many of you (tape
ends)
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Amidon, Edmund, and F l a n d e r s , Ned A. The Role of t h e Teacher In t h e

Classroom. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association For Productive
Teaching, I n c . , 1963.
Amidon, Edmund, and Hough, John B., e d s . I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis: Theory,

Research, and A p p l i c a t i o n . Reading, Massachusetts: Addlson-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1967.
Bakaleinikoff, Vladimir. Elementary Rules of Conducting for O r c h e s t r a ,

Band and Chorus. New York: Boosey, Hawkes, Belwin, I n c . , 1938.
Bellack, A. A., et a l . The Language of the Classroom. New York:

Columbia University P r e s s , 1966.
Benner, C h a r l e s . "Teaching Performing Groups." From Research t o t h e

Classroom. Washington: Music Educators' N a t i o n a l Conference,
1972.
Boult, Adrian C. A Handbook on the Techniques of Conducting. London:

Goodwin and Tabb, L t d . , 1943.
Boyd, Jack. k_ Rehearsal Guide for the Choral D i r e c t o r . West Nyack, New
York: Parker P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970.
Davison, Archibald. Choral Conducting. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University P r e s s , 1954.
Decker, Harold and Hereford, J u l i u s , e d s . Choral Conducting: A_

Symposium. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, I n c . , 1972.
Ehmann, Wllhelm. Choral D i r e c t i n g . T r a n s l a t e d by George D. Weibe.

Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1968.
Flanders, Ned A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Massachusetts:

Addison-Wesley P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970.
Gage, Nathaniel L . , ed. Handbook on Research on Teaching. Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1963.
255
Gage, Nathaniel L . , e d . Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Education:

The Search f o r a S c i e n t i f i c B a s i s . Palo A l t o , C a l i f o r n i a : Pacific
Books, 1972.
Green, E l i z a b e t h . The Modern Conductor. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:

P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1961.
Green, Elizabeth and Malko, N i c o l a i . The Conductor and His Score.

Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1975.
Grosbayne, Benjamin. Techniques of Modern Orchestral Conducting.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1956.
H a l l , R. Vance. Managing Behavior. Vols. I - V I I I . Lawrence, Kansas: H

& H E n t e r p r i s e s , I n c . , 1974.
Henry, Nelson B . , e d . Basic Concepts i n Music Education. National

Society for t h e Study of Education, Fifty-Seventh Yearbook,
Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1959.
Hoffer, Charles R. Teaching Music i n the Secondary School, 2nd ed.

Belmont C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973.
Hough, John B., and Duncan, James K. Teaching: Description and

Analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
1970.
Jones, Archie N. Techniques in Choral Conducting. New York: Carl

F i s c h e r , I n c . , 1948.
K e r l l n g e r , Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt,

Rlnehart and Winston, 1964.
Leonhard, Charles, and House, Robert W. Foundations and P r i n c i p l e s of

Music Education, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
I n c . , 1972.
Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, E l l i o t . The Handbook of Social

Psychology. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
C o . , 1968.
Olson, M i l e s . Learning I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis: A_ Programmed Approach.

Englewood, Colorado: Educational Associates, I n c . , 1970.
256
Rudolf, Max. The Grammer of Conducting. New York: G. Schirmer and

Sons, 1958.
Simon, Anita and Boyer, E. G i l , e d s . M i r r o r s for Behavior: An

Anthology of Observation I n s t r u m e n t s . Fourteen Volumes and
Summary. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Research for B e t t e r Schools, I n c . , 1970.
Simon, Anita and Boyer, E. G i l . Mirrors for Behavior I I : An Anthology

of Observation Instruments—Special edition. Two Volumes.
P h i l a d e l p h i a : Research f o r B e t t e r Schools, I n c . , 1970.
T r a v e r s , Robert M. W., ed. The Second Handbook of Research on Teaching.

Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.
Van Bodegraven, P a u l . The School Music Conductor. Chicago: Hall and

McCreary Company, 1942.
Westbury, Ian and B e l l a c k , Arno A., eds. Research I n t o Classroom

Processes. New York: Teacher's College P r e s s , Columbia
U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
P u b l i c a t i o n s of Government and Other Organizations
Anderson, Harold H . , and Brewer, Helen. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom

P e r s o n a l i t i e s , I . " Applied Psychology Monographs, No. j6. Stanford,
C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press 1945.
Anderson, Harold H . , and Brewer J . E. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom

Personalities, II." Applied Psychology Monographs, No. 8_.
Stanford, C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1946.
Anderson, Harold H.; Brewer J . E . ; Reed, Mary Frances. " S t u d i e s of

Teachers' Classroom Personalities, I I I . " Applied Psychology
Monographs, No. 11. S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a : Stanford University
P r e s s , 1946.
Choate, Robert A., e d . Documentary Report of t h e Tanglewood Symposium.

Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1968.
F l a n d e r s , Ned A. Helping Teachers Change Their Behaviors. T i t l e VII

P r o j e c t , Numbers 1721012 and 7-32-0560-171.0. Washington: U.S.
Government P r i n t i n g Office, 1965.
257
F l a n d e r s , Ned A. Teacher I n f l u e n c e s , Pupil A t t i t u d e s , and Achievement.

Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12. Washington, D.C.: U . S .
Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . 1965.
Rosenshine, Barak. "Some C r i t e r i a for Evaluating Category Systems." AERA

Monograph S e r i e s on Curriculum E v a l u a t i o n , No. 6_. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1970, pp. 109-131.
Schneider, Erwin H., and Cady, Henry L. Evaluation and Synthesis of

Research S t u d i e s R e l a t i n g to Music Education. Co-op Research
Project No. E-016. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1965.
Smith, B.O., and Meux M.O. A^ Study of the Logic of Teaching.

Cooperative Research P r o j e c t No. 285. Urbana: University of
I l l i n o i s , 1962.
A l l o n , Nancy R. "Systems of Classroom I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis: A Discussion

of S t r u c t u r a l L i m i t a t i o n s . " Journal of Experimental Education, 38:
1-3, Winter, 1969.
Anderson, Harold H. "The Measurement of Domination and of S o c i a l l y

I n t e g r a t i v e Behavior i n Teachers' C o n t a c t s With C h i l d r e n . " Child
Development, 10:73-89, J u n e , 1939.
B e l l a c k , Arno A . , and Huebner, Dwayne. "Teaching." Review of Educational

Research, 55:246-57, February, 1960.
Benn, Oleta A. "Objectives and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s In Teacher Education."

Music Educators J o u r n a l , 5 3 : 4 2 - 5 , May, 1967.
B e n n e t t , L . , and Adams, J . "A Comparative Study of t h e Effects of

P o s i t i v e and Negative Reinforcements on t h e Efficiency of Musical
Learning." Council for Research i n Music Education, B u l l e t i n No.
10, pp. 39-46, 1967.
Cahn, Meyer M. "More Than Performance: Toward Human I n t e r a c t i o n . " Music

Educators J o u r n a l , 55:37-9, February, 1969.
C o a t s , W.D. "Research on the Behavior of T e a c h e r s : A New Phase." School

J o u r n a l , 14:238-243, 1964.
E r b e s , Robert. " A Study of Verbal Rehearsal Techniques." Michigan

School Band and Orchestra Association J o u r n a l , 17:19, Spring, 1976.
Gonzo, C a r r o l l . "Metamorphic Behavior in Choral Conducting." The Choral

258
Journal, 17:8-12, March,1977.
Hoffer, Eric. "Teaching Useful Knowledge in the Rehearsal." Music

Educators Journal, 52:49-51, April-May, 1966.
House, Robert W. "Developing an Educative Setting for Performance

Groups." Music Educators Journal, 53:54,5 144-9, September, 1966.
Leonhard, Charles. "Philosophy of Music Education," Music Educators

Journal, 52:58-61, 177, September-October, 1965.
Medley, Donald. " A Technique for Measuring Classroom Behavior." Journal

of Educational Psychology, 49:86-92, 1958.
Medley, Donald M., and MItzel, Harold E. "Some Behavioral Correlates of

Teacher Effectiveness' Journal of Educational Psychology, 50: 239-
246, December, 1959.
Moore, Ray. "What Gestalt Psychology Says to the Choral Conductor."

Music Educators Journal, 55:37-9, December, 1968.
Perkins, Hugh V. "A Procedure for Assessing the Classroom Behavior of

Students and Teachers." American Educational Research Journal,
1:249-260, November, 1964.
Saadeh, I.Q. "Teacher Effectiveness or Classroom Efficiency: A New

Direction in the Evolution of Teaching." The Journal of Teacher
Education, 21:72-91, 1970.
Sidnell, Robert. "Self-Instructional Drill Materials for Student

Conductors." Journal of Research in Music Education, 19:85-91,
1971.
Van Bodegraven, Paul. "The Development of Musical Understanding Through

Performance." Music Educators Journal, 41:29-30, April-May, 1955.
Withall, John. "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of

Social-Emotional Climate in the Classroom." Journal of Experimental
Education, 17:347-361, March, 1949.
Withall, John. "The Development of a Climate Index." Journal of

Educational Research, 45:93-99, 1951.
UnpuDlished Materials
259
Caldwell, William McCord, J r . "A Time Analysis of Selected Musical

Elements and Leadership Behaviors of Successful High School Choral
Conductors." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.
Carlson, James A. "The S t a t u s of Subject Matter Content of High School

Band Rehearsals i n the P u b l i c Schools of t h e United S t a t e s . " Mus.
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.
Cowden, Robert L. "A Comparison of t h e Effectiveness of F i r s t and Third

P o s i t i o n Approaches to V i o l i n I n s t r u c t i o n . " Unpublished Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
Daellenbach, C. C h a r l e s . " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Music

Learning Behaviors U t i l i z i n g Videotape Recording Techniques."
Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Eastman School of Music, 1970.
Dahlin. W. 0 . "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between the Conducting Needs of School

Music Teachers and Present P r a c t i c e in the Teaching of Conducting."
Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Colorado U n i v e r s i t y , 1951.
Erbes, Robert L. "The Development of an Observational System for the

Analysis of I n t e r a c t i o n in t h e Rehearsal of Musical O r g a n i z a t i o n s . "
Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s , 1972.
Ervin, Charles L. "Systematic Observation and Evaluation of Conductor

E f f e c t i v e n e s s . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of West
V i r g i n i a , 1975.
F r o e l i c h , Hildegard. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s h i p of Selected
Observational Variables t o t h e Teaching of Singing," Unpublished
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas at A u s t i n , 1976.
Gibbons, Rendol L. "The Formulation and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Secondary

School Chorus Objectives According t o Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational O b j e c t i v e s i n t h e Cognitive Domain." Unpublished Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado, 196*97
Grose, Gerald K. "A Study of the Effect of Use of the Video Taperecorder
in the Teaching of Beginning Conducting." Unpublished Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1970.
Hicks, Charles Eugene. "The Effect of Training i n I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis

on t h e Verbal Teaching Behaviors and A t t i t u d e s of Prospective
School Instrumental Music Education Students Studying Conducting."
260
Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978.
Jensen, Lloyd Soren. "Perceptions of Selected Band Conductors Concerning

Their Philosophical Concepts as Related t o Rehearsal Techniques
Which Contribute t o an A e s t h e t i c Performance." Unpublished Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , Colorado S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1965.
Kamerman, Jack B. "The Symphony O r c h e s t r a Conductor: A Study of the

Career of an Occupation." Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s s e r t a t l o n , New York
U n i v e r s i t y , 1979.
Kirkland, C. "Behavior Modification and Rehearsal Techniques."

Unpublished a r t i c l e , Music Therapy R e t r i e v a l Center, F l o r i d a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
Kirkland, C. "Observations of Overt Behaviors of Conductors of

Performance O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " Unpublished a r t i c l e , Music Therapy
R e t r i e v a l Center, F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
Kirkwood, Grace. "Teacher Behavior and Pupil Achievement in Selected

Elementary Music Classrooms." Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1974.
Leyden, Norman F . "A Study and Analysis of the Conducting P a t t e r n s of

Arturo Toscanini a s Demonstrated i n Kinescope Film." Unpublished
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1968.
L i p p i t t , Ronald. "An Analysis of Group Reaction to Three Types of

Experimentally Created Social Climates." Unpublished Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1940.
Matthews, Glenn T. "An Analysis and Evaluation of Methods for Training

S k i l l s In School Music Conducting." Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1963.
Maxwell, E v e r e t t B. "Personal T r a i t s and P r o f e s s i o n a l Competencies of

Band Directors Achieving Success as Measured by Contest R a t i n g s . "
Unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Texas Tech U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Maurer, J . M . "Percentages of Negative and P o s i t i v e Responses Used i n the

I n s t r u c t i o n of Tallahassee J u n i o r and Senior High School Bands."
Unpublished a r t i c l e , Music Therapy R e t r i e v a l Center, F l o r i d a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
McAdams, C h a r l e s D., J r . "A Comparison of Behavior Patterns of Music

261
Teachers i n Selected U n i v e r s i t i e s U t i l i z i n g I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis

and The Fundamental I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relations Orientation-Behavior
S c a l e . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , East Texas U n i v e r s i t y ,
1970.
Nolin, Wallace Henry. "Patterns of Teacher-Student I n t e r a c t i o n in

Selected Junior High School General Music C l a s s e s . " Unpublished
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
N u t h a l l , C.A. "Teacher Verbal Behavior and Pupil Learning." Unpublished

Manuscript, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1971.
Pagano, A l i c i a . "A Study of the Classroom I n t e r a c t i o n P a t t e r n s of

Selected Music Teachers in F i r s t Grade and Sixth Grade General
Music Classes." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, American
U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.
Papke, Richard Edward. "An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e Instrumental Music

D i r e c t o r s ' Rehearsal Behavior U t i l i z i n g an Evaluative Instrument
with Implications f o r Broadening Perspectives In Secondary School
Instrumental Music C u r r i c u l a . " Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
University of Minnesota, 1972.
Reynolds, Kay. "Modification of the Observational System for

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Analysis Focusing on Appraisal Behaviors." Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
Roshong, Jan C a r l . "An Exploratory Study of Nonverbal Communication

Behaviors of Instrumental Music Conductors." Unpublished Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978.
R u s s e l l , Timothy Wells. "Leadership Styles of High School Orchestra

Conductor-Educators." Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980.
Snapp, David. "A Study of the Accumulative Musical and Verbal Behaviors
of Teachers and Students i n F i f t h Grade Instrumental Music
C l a s s e s . " Unpublished Masters d i s s e r t a t i o n , The Ohio State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.
Spradling, R. L. "The Use of P o s i t i v e and Negative Reinforcement in a

Rehearsal S i t u a t i o n . " Unpublished a r t i c l e , Music Therapy R e t r i e v a l
Center, F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Thurman, V i r g i l Leon. "A Frequency and Time Description of Selected

262
Rehearsal Behaviors Used by F i v e Choral Conductors." Unpublished

Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of I l l i n o i s , 1977.
Van S i c k l e , Howard M. "An Exploratory and D e s c r i p t i v e Study of the
I n t e r p e r s o n a l F a c t o r s and Group Dynamics of Instrumental Groups."
Unpublished M.Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Roosevelt U n i v e r s i t y , 1955.
Vereen, William N. "A Study of Rehearsal Techniques for Symphonic Band."

Unpublished D.M.A. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Missouri a t Kansas
City, 1968.
V e r r a s t r o , Ralph E. "An Experimental I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Verbal Behavior

Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with Student Teachers of
Music." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Weise, Paul N. "Effective and E f f i c i e n t High School Chorus, O r c h e s t r a ,

and Band Rehearsal Techniques." Unpublished M.E. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio
U n i v e r s i t y , I960.
W h i t e h i l l , Charles D. "Evaluation of t h e Application of F l a n d e r s ' System

of I n t e r a c t i o n Analysis t o General Music Classroom Teaching."
Unpublished Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y of West V i r g i n i a ,
1970.
Yarberry, Glen Allen. "An Analysis of Five Exemplary College Band

Programs." Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
VITA
MELVIN FLOYD PONTIOUS
BORN; July 11, 1931, Chanute, Kansas
EDUCATION;
Parsons High School, Parsons, Kansas; Diploma 1948

Parsons Junior C o l l e g e , Parsons, Kansas; Associate
of A r t s , 1950
U n i v e r s i t y of Wichita, Wichita, Kansas:
Bachelor of Music Education, cum laude, 1956
Oberlin Conservatory, Oberlin, Ohio:
Master of Music Education, 1958 *
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, I l l i n o i s :
Doctor of Education in Music Education, 1977
HONORS:
F.E. Olds and Son S c h o l a r s h i p Award for r e s e a r c h

paper dealing w i t h brass tone production
Awarded t h e William R e v e l l i Conductors' Scholarship
d u r i n g the F i r s t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Music F e s t i v a l in
Vienna, Austria
Doctoral Conducting Fellowship, U n i v e r s i t y of
I l l i n o i s , 1975-76
Listed i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Who's Who i n Music and i n
D i c t i o n a r y of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Biography
PUBLICATIONS:
Music J o u r n a l , "Breath and the Brass"

I l l i n o i s Music Educator, a r t i c l e on breath support
TEACHING EXPERIENCE:
LakeVIlle Memorial School D i s t r i c t , O t i s v i l l e , Mich-

i g a n , Director of Bands, 1958-62
R.D. Chamberlin High School, Twinsburg, Ohio,
D i r e c t o r of Bands, 1962-63
LaSalle-Peru Township High School, LaSalle, I l l i n o i s ,
A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r of Bands, 1963-70
LaSalle-Peru Township High School, LaSalle, I l l i n o i s ,
D i r e c t o r of Bands, 1970-80
Bradley U n l v e r s t i y , P e o r i a , I l l i n o i s :
D i r e c t o r of Bands and A s s i s t a n t Professor of Music
and Trombone, 1980 to present
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
U.S. Army F i e l d Band, Washington, D.Cl
Saginaw (Michigan) Symphony Orchestra, f i r s t trombone
Shaker Heights (Ohio) Symphony Orchestra, f i r s t trombone
Teachers' Performance I n s t i t u t e a t Oberlin Conservatory,
f i r s t trombone
Presently:
Peoria Civic Opera O r c h e s t r a , p r i n c i p a l trombone
Peoria Symphony O r c h e s t r a , p r i n c i p a l trombone
Guest Conductor, R e c i t a l i s t , C l i n i c i a n , Adjudicator,
and Lecturer
EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
College Band D i r e c t o r ' s National Association

National Association of College Wind and Percussion
Instructors
American Association of U n i v e r s i t y Professors
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Trombone Association
Music Educators' National Conference
I l l i n o i s Music Educators' Association
Served a s : Editor, I l l i n o i s Music Educator;
President, District I I ;
presently State President-Elect
American School Band D i r e c t o r ' s Association
Phi Kappa Phi
Pi Kappa Lambda
Phi Beta Mu
Phi Delta Kappa

A Profile of Rehearsal Techniq

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A Profile of Rehearsal Techniq

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clanfy markings or

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an

4. Foi illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic

A PROFILE OF REHEARSAL TECHNIQUES AND INTERACTION OF

University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign ED.D. 1982

MELVIN FLOYD PONTIOUS

B.Mus.Ed., Wichita S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1956

Submitted in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the requirements

THE GRADUATE COLLEGE

WE HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS BY

MELVIN FLOYD POMTTOIIS

F.KTTTTT.F.n A PROFILE OF REHEARSAT. TRRHNrOIISS Attn TMTttR Ar.TTP L

OF SELECTED mim nnwnnr.TnBs

BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF.

Committeemen Final Examinatio

t Required foi doctor's degree but not for master's

Although only one name appears a s the a u t h o r , thi3 dissertation

represents the work and counsel of many. My family has supported me

ment is due my w i f e , Dorothy, not o n l y for m a t e r i a l a s s i s t a n c e in t h e

d i s s e r t a t i o n , but a l s o for t h e encouragement s h e has given and patience

she has shown during i t s g e s t a t i o n . The a s s i s t a n c e and s u p p o r t of my

cheering s e c t i o n , my daughters Linda and Karen, have also been vital.

The memory of my p a r e n t s , f o r the model of perseverance which was n e c e s -

s a r y for t h e completion of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , has been i n v a l u a b l e .

Most of a l l , c r e d i t must be given Dr. Charles Leonhard for the

counsel and guidance he has given, not only on this p a p e r , but

throughout my d o c t o r a l s t u d i e s . His influence on musl c education in

America is t r u l y beyond e s t i m a t e . I t has a l s o been my p r i v i l e g e t o work

w i t h Dr. Richard Colwell, whose enthusiasm, friendship, and keen in-

s i g h t s into problems of r e s e a r c h have been e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l .

I am indebted t o the f i v e high school band d i r e c t o r s , who must be

unnamed, for t h e i r g e n e r o s i t y and c o o p e r a t i o n in allowing me t o video-

t a p e t h e i r r e h e a r s a l s . Thanks also t o Dr. Dave Peters, for his last

I t r e a s u r e most deeply my work with Dr. Harry Begian, s u r e l y the

dean of band d i r e c t o r s in Araerioa. Band d i r e c t o r s everywhere owe him a

great d e a l for h i s musical s t a n d a r d s , which have c o n t r i b u t e d so much to

the s t a t u s of bands in America. I personally am g r e a t l y indebted t o him

for his f r i e n d s h i p , generosity* encouragement, and example of musician-

s h i p , which have been and continue t o be strong influences i n my l i f e .

F i n a l l y , I am grateful for my a s s o c i a t i o n with my very dear

friend, Dr. Tom Harris, with whom I shared the conducting i n t e r n s h i p

under Dr. Begian and whom I knew f o r a l l t o o short a period of time.

Description of the Study 4

Need for the Study 24

Organization of the Study 25

II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 26

Interaction Analysis in General Education 26

III. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA 67

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 173

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 254

1. Conductor A: Percentages of Total Behavior 70

2. Conductor B: Percentages of Total Behavior 72

3. Conductor C: Percentages of Total Behavior 73

4. Conductor D: Percentages of Total Behavior 75

5. Conductor E: Percentages of Total Behavior 77

6. Summary: Percentages of Total Bahavior 78

7. Conductor A: Frequency and Percentages of 81

8. Conductor A: Time and Percentages of 82

References to the Elements

9. Conductor A: Time per Reference in Seconds 83

10. Conductor B: Frequency and Percentages of 84