MENC: The National Association for Music Education

The Effects of Live Accompaniment, Intelligent Digital Accompaniment, and No

Accompaniment on Musicians' Performance Quality
Author(s): Deborah A. Sheldon, Sam Reese and John Grashel
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 251-265
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of MENC: The National Association for
Music Education
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3345783
Accessed: 12-04-2019 10:31 UTC

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

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

Sage Publications, Inc., MENC: The National Association for Music Education are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Research in
Music Education

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 1999, VOLUME 47, NUMBER 3, 251-265 251

This study is an investigation of differences in performance-quality ratings among

college-age instrumentalists grouped in three solo preparation conditions using (a)
no accompaniment, (b) live accompaniment, or (c) intelligent digital accompani-
ment. After a 6-week practice period, participants performed an intermediate level
solo on a secondary wind instrument in two conditions: (1) without accompani-
ment, and (2) within prescribed accompaniment mode. Data from the first (unac-
companied) and second (assigned accompaniment mode) performance ratings were
compared. Highest ratings across all groups in both performances were achieved in
Rhythm, Technique, and Articulation. Lowest ratings were shown in Intonation,
Tone Quality, and Interpretation. The second performance ratings declined in the
Accompaniment groups but rose for the No Accompaniment group. Groups demon-
strated different performance outcomes in each of six category ratings with Rhythm
being the highest rated category among all groups. Different effects of practice and
performance circumstances on musical outcomes were demonstrated.

Deborah A. Sheldon, Sam Reese, and John Grashel

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The Effects of Live

Accompaniment,
Intelligent Digital
Accompaniment, and
No Accompaniment on
Musicians'
Performance Quality

Solo performance can be a key factor in developing skills of mus

cal expression, sensitivity, and style. It can bolster musical inde

Deborah A. Sheldon is an assistant professor of music education in the Schoo

Music at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Sam Reese is an assistan
fessor of music education and John Grashel is an associate professor of music
tion at the same institution. Copyright @ 1999 by MENC-The National Assoc
for Music Education.

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
252 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

dence by supplementing the ensemble experience (see The School

Music Program, MENC, 1994). Confirmation of these beliefs is evident
in the large numbers of school-age students who participate in solo
performance events.
Instrumental solos are often performed with the assistance of
musical accompaniment. Interaction between accompanist and
soloist is necessary in the performance experience, but limited
accompaniment availability sometimes inhibits this interactivity.
Time spent working with accompanists may be restricted due to
financial constraints and the availability of competent accompanists.
Severe limitations in available time or keyboard abilities of the
accompanist may result in poor musical performance or necessitate
selection of music that requires no accompaniment (Sheldon, Reese,
& Grashel, 1998).
Soloists can augment solitary practice by simulating work with a
live accompanist or ensemble through the use of accompaniment
recordings devoid of the solo voice. Such recordings can be some-
what limiting. Intonation of the accompaniment is generally not
manipulable, forcing the soloist to conform to the intonation of the
recording. Tempos are predetermined by the recorded accompanist
and are unalterable by the soloist for practice purposes or to develop
independence in temporal expressiveness. In spite of these limita-
tions, the recordings provide the opportunity for practice with
accompaniment when an accompanist might not be otherwise avail-
able.

With the historical and contemporary prevalence of accompani-

ment in solo music performance, it is remarkable that very little
research exists in regard to the effects of accompaniment on solo
performance by instrumentalists or vocalists. That which is extant
focuses on traditional (keyboard) accompaniment as a variable in
solists' tuning and solo festival ratings. High and low pitch register
placement of the accompaniment in relationship to the pitch regis-
ter placement of the solo line has been shown to have an effect on
the solo performers' intonation and subsequent pitch corrections
(Brittin, 1993; Kantorski, 1986). The frequency of rehearsals
between soloist and accompanist has also been shown to affect adju-
dicator ratings at solo and ensemble festivals (Hamann & Banister,
1991), with those meeting more frequently with accompanists gener-
ally receiving higher mean adjudication scores compared to ratings
of those who met less frequently. Other issues of accompaniment
effects on solo performance are still open to systematic investigation.
As a result of technological advances, inquiry regarding accompa-
niment and solo music performance may now involve questions con-
cerning the efficacy of different accompaniment tools available to

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 253

the soloist. The development of intelligent digital accompaniment

systems has raised the sophistication level of accompaniment simula-
tion. These microcomputer-based MIDI (musical instrument digital
interface) systems address challenges of recorded accompaniment
and provide the student musician with an interactive environment
that allows for the development of musical skillfulness (J. Croft, per-
sonal communication, March 1996; D. Kaiser, personal communica-
tion, February, 1996; Rudolph, 1996; R. Sheldon, personal commu-
nication, March, 1996). It is likely that this form of technology-based
music instruction will provide a favorable supplement to traditional
music instruction, give music students access to high-quality accom-
paniment, and allow solo literature to endure as a prominent com-
plement in the development of young musicians. As another musical
accompaniment resource, its effectiveness in practice and perfor-
mance should be evaluated.

As is the case concerning the efficacy of traditional accom

ment in solo performance, information obtained from research
cerning the use of digital accompaniment is scant. A limited
study involving four collegiate flute students suggested that in
gent digital accompaniment might be useful for study in areas of
mony, theory, music history, and composition, with the assum
that conceptual information would lead to greater musical un
standing by other flute students. Participants' tendencies toward
ter intonation, pitch discrimination acuity, and accelerated pa
learning provide impetus for continued inquiry (Tseng, 1996).
Similar trends were noted with a small group of junior high school
students; players' performance abilities improved somewhat after a
brief period of work with digital accompaniment that may have func-
tioned as a source of motivation for practice (Ouren, 1997).
Likewise, teachers reporting the use of intelligent digital accompani-
ment as a supplemental tool for solo and ensemble festival prepara-
tion indicated that their students tended to practice more and were
therefore better prepared and more confident in performance
(Snapp, 1997).
Questions concerning the effects of solitary solo performance and
different methods of accompaniment in practice and performance
remain unstudied. We sought to explore issues surrounding the com-
mon practice of solo/accompaniment performance skills among
music learners. In this study, we examined differences in perfor-
mance quality ratings between instrumentalists who prepared solo
music selections in three different conditions (with no accompani-
ment, with live accompaniment, and with intelligent digital accom-
paniment) and gave subsequent performances in two different con-
ditions (without accompaniment and within the prescribed accom-
paniment mode). A subsidiary intent was to begin to establish a foun-

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

dation of empirical evidence concerning the value of intelligent dig-

ital accompaniment as a supplemental practice tool.

METHOD

Participants

Participants (N= 45) were undergraduate instrumental music edu-

cation majors at a major institution who volunteered for this study.
From a large list of volunteers, the group of 45 was chosen, and stu-
dents were assigned a secondary wind instrument (i.e., not their pri-
mary instrument of study) based on these criteria: (1) the student
studied the instrument for only one academic semester in a group
instrument class; (2) the instrument is not in the same instrument
family as the primary instrument of study; (3) the student does not
play the secondary instrument in an ensemble, and (4) the student
does not regularly practice the secondary instrument. Meeting these
criteria functioned to equalize the level of skillfulness that students
brought to the required task. After these selection criteria were met,
instrumentation became a variable in selecting the final 45.
Instrumentation across the three subgroups was assigned by the
investigators in a way that allowed all instruments (and therefore solo
music) to be represented in equal numbers.
Because of the restrictive selection criteria, students chosen for the
study were in the third or fourth year of the undergraduate degree.
Wind instruments used in this study were flute, clarinet, alto saxo-
phone, trumpet, horn, and trombone. Students were randomly
assigned to one of three practice/performance groups: No
Accompaniment--NA (n = 15), Live Accompaniment-LA (n = 15),
and Intelligent Digital Accompaniment-DA (n = 15).

Music

Participants were asked to prepare a solo of moderate difficulty.

Selections were chosen from the Vivace (now known as Smart Music)
Junior High Starter Package and ranged in difficulty from grade II to III
(based on a 6-level scale). The selected solos were typical of junior
high school solo literature; they were included in the Vivace Junior
High Starter Package because of their repeated use in solo festivals
throughout the United States. A review of solo literature festival lists
from several states confirmed our opinion that these selections were
of moderate difficulty. Each solo gave students opportunities to dis-
play technical and expressive performance capabilities. The inter-
mediate level of difficulty for the selections matched the skillfulness
of the players. Additionally, by limiting the skill level of the players

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 255

and difficulty level of the musical selections, this design approximat-

ed school music program circumstances.

Practice Instructions

Assuming the real-time constraints in school music program situa-

tions, the time allotted for practice in this project was limited to 6
weeks. Those in the NA group were instructed to practice the musi
in whatever manner seemed comfortable and familiar for 1.5 hours
per week, without accompaniment. The LA group was instructe
practice the same amount of time with an assigned accompani
music education undergraduate whose major performance med
was the piano. They practiced with the accompanist at any time
ing the practice period; total time allotment with the accompan
did not exceed two hours. The DA group was instructed to prac
the music using the digital accompaniment in whatever mann
seemed comfortable and familiar for 1.5 hours per week. Students
this group were instructed to use the accompaniment system w
ever they wished. Practice reminders were given to everyone
spaced intervals three times each week for the duration of the
ject. Participants' practice time was not strictly monitored; w
assumed their honesty in answering truthfully when asked if they
used the allotted practice time. Data derived from Mueller (19
indicate this was a valid assumption. All participants indicated t
they used the entire allotted practice time and reinforced the
answer by reminding investigators that since they were perform
on a secondary instrument, they felt compelled to use the time
vided.

Prior to the practice period, DA players were given group instruc-

tion on the use of the digital accompaniment system. They were per-
mitted to participate in the project upon demonstrating understand
ing of the digital accompaniment operating procedures.
Additionally, a set of sequential instructions remained at the practice
site for reference during the practice period, and copies of these
instructions were given to each person in this group.

Intelligent Digital Accompaniment System

The Vivace intelligent digital accompaniment system used in this

project offered accompaniments for a variety of instruments. Using
this system, students had the ability to manipulate several parameters
of performance. They could opt either to practice with the accom-
paniment only (without hearing the solo part playing along) or with
the accompaniment plus the solo. The amount of reverberation in
the playback was adjustable to the preference of the player. Students

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

could elect to program repeats or practice loops into their session in

order to continually work on a certain segment, or they could elect
to practice the work without repeating sections. They could set strict
tempos for their accompaniment or allow the accompaniment sys-
tem to "listen to" and follow the variability in their playing. The sys-
tem also permitted players to customize their accompaniment play-
back by setting a variety of tempos throughout the work in order to
maximize expressiveness, and it allowed the insertion of brief pauses
for breathing or phrasing. Participants were given instruction on the
various ways in which they might use the capabilities of the accom-
paniment system, but no particular approach was required. We
allowed individual students to determine how they would use the
potential of the system.

Final Performance

At the conclusion of the practice period, each participant record-

ed his or her solo twice, once with no accompaniment and then in
the designated accompaniment mode. The NA group recorded
again without accompaniment, the LA group recorded again with
the accompanist, and the DA group recorded again using the intelli-
gent digital accompaniment system. All recordings were made in a
sound recording studio using professional recording equipment.

RESULTS

After the taping, the performances of all players were random

on a master tape and duplicated. The tape, musical scores, and a
dication sheets were given to five impartial judges. The judges
previous experience in preparing young players for performan
solo and ensemble festivals. Each was an experienced solo adjud
tor. Using categories (called "captions" in the original) found on th
National Federation High School Associations Adjudication Fo
(Solo), judges rated players' abilities in areas labeled Tone Qual
Intonation, Rhythm, Technique, Interpretation, and Articulat
Since these were blind adjudications, the category labeled Oth
Performance Factors (which included items such as appropria
appearance, poise, posture, conduct, mannerisms, and facial exp
sion) was omitted, as was the Sight-Reading Scales category. Ju
were given descriptions of what to listen for in each category;
procedure is specified by Federation guidelines. Using a 1 (poor pe
formance-unsatisfactory) to 5 (superior performance-outstand-
ing in nearly every detail) scale, the judges assigned a numerical rat-
ing for each category. Total scores for each category were derived by
summing the scores of all judges. Reliability among judges was fairly

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 257

strong, with coefficients for adjudication totals ranging from .75 to

.81.

Repeated-measures analysis of variance (three groups by two per-

formances by six performance categories) was used to determine dif-
ferences in performance outcomes among the three groups. Data
from first (unaccompanied) and second (using assigned accompani-
ment mode) performance ratings that included totals within each
performance catagory and across each group were compared. Group
means and standard deviations of these category scores for each per-
formance are included in Table 1.

Differences for main effect of group were not statistically sig

cant [F (2, 42) = .29, p = .75]. Neither were significant diffe
found for main effect of performance [F (1, 42) = .33, p = .57]. A
nificant difference in category scores was found [F (5, 42) = 5
= .0001], with the highest ratings achieved in Rhythm (M = 1
Technique (M = 15.00), and Articulation (M = 14.27). Lowest r
were shown in Intonation (M= 14.17), Tone Quality (M= 13.88
Interpretation (M = 13.86).
The interaction between performance (first or second) and
gory score was not statistically significant [F (1, 5) = 1.93, p = .0
results indicated significant two-way interactions for performan
group [F (1, 2) = 5.08, p = .01] and group by category score [F
= 4.52, p = .0001]. Figure 1 shows the significant performan
group interaction. In both Live and Digital Accompaniment g
performance ratings declined in the second recording. Conve
those in the No Accompaniment group received higher rating
performance two. Figure 2 shows the group by category score
action. Groups demonstrated different performance outcome
each of the six categories, with Rhythm clearly the highest-rate
egory among all groups.
A significant three-way interaction was found between grou
category scores and performance [F (10, 210) = .2.95, p = .001]
cating different effects of practice and performance circumstan
musical outcomes. This interaction is shown in Figure 3. In th
performance, the lowest score was assigned to the NA group
Tone Quality category (M = 12.60), whereas the highest scor
assigned to the DA group in the Rhythm category (M = 18.8
performers demonstrated their highest rating for the first p
mance in Rhythm (M = 15.73) and lowest in Tone Quality, as
ously mentioned. Performers in the LA group were also rated
est in Rhythm (M = 18.13) and lowest in Articulation (M = 13.
Rhythm was the highest-rated category for the DA group (M = 1
and the group was rated lowest in Intonation (M = 14.40).
In the second performance in which each group played in
assigned accompaniment mode, Rhythm remained the highest

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

Table 1

Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations of No Accompaniment (NA), Live Accompaniment

(LA), and Digital Accompaniment (DA) Groups, First and Second Performance, within
Categories

First Performance Group

NA LA DA

Category

Tone Quality 12.60 (3.46) 14.93 (3.49) 14.47 (2.95)

Intonation 13.13 (3.87) 16.20 (5.65) 14.40 (2.26)

Rhythm 15.73 (5.23) 18.13 (3.16) 18.87 (4.07)

Technique 14.40 (4.40) 15.33 (3.37) 15.80 (3.17)

Interpretation 13.00 (3.67) 14.07 (2.74) 14.60 (3.50)

Articulation 13.73 (3.83) 13.93 (3.31) 15.20 (2.83)

Second Performance Group

NA LA DA

Category

Tone Quality 14.40 (3.81) 13.40 (3.54) 13.47 (2.90)

Intonation 14.47 (3.89) 13.80 (2.96) 13.00 (2.27)

Rhythm 16.60 (5.19) 17.40 (4.45) 20.40 (6.74)

Technique 14.47 (4.27) 14.73 (3.71) 15.27 (3.24)

Interpretation 14.67 (4.44) 13.87 (3.56) 12.93 (3.54)

Articulation 14.60 (4.36) 13.80 (3.57) 14.33 (3.72)

category across all three groups (NA: M = 16.60; LA: M

M = 20.40). Lowest ratings for the NA and LA groups we
the Tone Quality category (NA: M= 14.40; LA: M= 13.4
est rating for the DA group was recorded in the Interpr

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 259

20 I

19 O Performance One
Cna Performance Two
.5 18

o 17

16

S 15

14

13

12 1
Digital Live None

Group

Figure 1. Performance-by-Group interaction.

gory (M = 12.93). This was the next to lowest rating among all groups
across both performances.
Since the use of intelligent digital accompaniment was a novel
form of accompaniment, informal comments were solicited from
participants who were asked to share thoughts about the experience.
Comments were largely positive, although some expressed a few con-
cerns. Most of the positive comments reflected the motivational
aspects of using the accompaniment system for individual private
practice. Nearly all stated that it was fun to use and it made practic-
ing more enjoyable. Other observations included the opinions that
the intelligent digital accompaniment was helpful in establishing cor-
rect pitches and tempo, offered a good intonation check, was rela-
tively easy to learn to use, helped teach continuity in performance,
helped players learn what the music should sound like as a whole,
offered the advantage of being able to play with accompaniment all

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
260 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

20 I

o ToQua
19 Into
A Rhy
* Tech

18* Interp
+ Artic

17

16

15

14

13

12
Digital Live None

Group

Figure 2. Group by Category Score interaction.

the time, was helpful to use at different stages of development dur-

ing the learning of the solo because the tempo could be manipulat-
ed, offered good sound quality, and made working on an unfamiliar
instrument seem fun. Negative comments included the observations
that there were initial difficulties in getting the microphone to
respond, frustration because the accompaniment would not "wait"
even if it had not been programmed to wait, and difficulties in know-
ing whether the accompaniment was going to begin when the instru-
mentalist began. One student also said that playing with the accom-
paniment was not fun until the solo was learned.

DISCUSSION

Results from this study showed that performers in all g

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 261

-utoN '.3.UV

It - eu.- 'a .,u 0

OU
- pota 'vui Q

3TII '=rCU, I

-~r."I 'dxouI
QUON tP UL
o
o

Q)

- oN ',%Txa
- wo H "Ad 0
0:
Qalrj 'MUI~
-A oI, 'AXuI
Q

TT2;%a , mui~

oAI" 'votL
Qn1oN c~niii

b T~a!. 'oo, T
4T2r[ 'Ienbo.
GUONh~ 'IUnbO1

as O 00 s~~n~~i~AV
- %O uCIoaoLua~
/ N
".i ".i

,= ,w , UH ,=JO31 U =g=&

accompaniment, Live accompaniment, or Digital Accompaniment)

were rated similarly when all scores were taken into account across
both performances. Different effects of practice and performance
circumstances on specific musical outcomes within performance cat-
egories were also demonstrated, suggesting a certain value to each
practice and performance condition.

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
262 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

When ratings were compared in relation to each performance,

those in the No Accompaniment group were rated higher in the sec-
ond performance compared to the first. It could be speculated that
students in this group improved from first to second try because their
performance procedures remained the same, whereas those of the
other groups changed. This rationale would justify matching practice
procedures with performance procedures in solo music study to raise
the probability of performance success. Extended research might
focus on determining whether similar results would come to bear in
ratings among participants who complete both performances using
the same mode of accompaniment.
In the first performance, players were solely responsible for the
musical outcome and did not have to interact with another musical
component, the accompaniment. The accompaniment variable in
the second performance placed responsibilities on the soloist tha
were not operative in the first performance, thereby altering th
nature of the second performance task for those in the LA and D
groups. These performers no longer played in isolation, but in syn-
chrony with another music source. The use of accompaniment al
changed the practice task. To develop competency in performing the
solo with and without accompaniment, performers needed to foc
on both forms of performance in their practice.
One might assume that practice and subsequent performance
with an accompaniment might raise the level of performance qua
ty. Results from the second performance show that this was the cas
in the Rhythm category only. That all other category ratings wors-
ened among those in the accompaniment groups may indicate a
need for continued work with the accompaniment form, with th
goal of increased performance quality. Musicians were limited to
weeks in performance preparation. Given additional preparatio
time, it is possible that participants in the accompaniment grou
might have been able to match accompanied performance outcom
to unaccompanied performance outcomes. Further research coul
isolate and more strictly control practice time to investigate it
impact.
It cannot be ignored that mean ratings for both accompaniment
groups were considerably better than the No Accompaniment group
in the initial performance. Practice with an accompaniment could
have helped performers gain a better grasp of the work as a whole so
that their solo performance was enhanced. Thus, the use of accom-
paniment can be regarded as a learning tool in practice.
An accompanying voice furnishes an additional means for listen-
ers and performers to make comparative judgments during the
music event. For example, when the player performs alone, compar-
isons about intonation are made within the solo performance, but an

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 263

accompaniment provides a distinct and fixed aural referent against

which the soloist's intonation can also be compared. While intona-
tion may be acceptable within performance of a singular instrument,
if it conflicts with the absolute of the accompaniment, it may be
judged more critically. Intonation ratings for both accompanied
groups in the accompanied performance seem to corroborate this
idea. The presence of a traditional keyboard accompaniment acts as
a constant to which the soloist's intonation must conform. For the
same reason, participants in this and a previous study (Tseng,
believed that digital accompaniment increased their ability to c
intonation. These results, however, suggest that players either did
or could not capitalize on this perceived benefit to accompanied
formance. There is also the possibility that the judges' percept
were negatively affected by the comparison of the soloists' intona
to an audible constant. Further inquiry may be beneficial concerni
the effects of accompaniment on intonation in solo perform
and its implications for objective solo performance evaluation w
unaccompanied performances are rated on a scale equivalent to
accompanied performances.
It was interesting to note the low rating achieved by the DA group
in the Interpretation category. Intelligent digital accompaniment
responds to the temporal variations of the performer. It is fair to
assume that the expressive freedom provided by this accompaniment
mode would have been manifested in better performance ratings in
this category. It would seem, however, that DA participants were less
capable of demonstrating acceptable interpretation using the accom-
paniment than they were in solitary performance. Further study to
investigate whether this result would be repeated could help define
the efficacy of this accompaniment tool in the expressive perfor-
mance of its users.

Given the brief amount of preparation time as allotted in this pro

ject, a student undertaking solo study for later performance may no
necessarily be hindered by the lack of availability of accompaniment
Equally positive is the fact that those students who practiced wi
either live or digital accompaniment performed well in the ini
performance, indicating that the use of accompaniment may h
served to enhance the performance preparation experience, part
ularly in the more technical aspects covered by the Rhythm,
Technique, and Articulation categories. Students using digital
accompaniment performed well in the initial unaccompanied
recording. Results among the two groups were mixed in the second
recording. These findings indicate that both forms of accompani-
ment have some positive effects on the performer. Poorer ratings
using the assigned accompaniment may indicate that soloists may
require more time to successfully alter performance behavior from

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 SHELDON/REESE/GRASHEL

an unaccompanied to an accompanied music event; an accompanied

performance may require attention to issues beyond those of solitary
performance.
Through intuition, experience, and research, we know that more
time in substantive practice results in more skillful performance. For
many, time is an inhibiting factor. In programs with large enrollment
and few teachers, it is difficult to adequately address the solo perfor-
mance needs of individuals. Time availability and finding skilled
accompanists may also be restricting factors. Intelligent digital
accompaniment was shown to be a viable tool in solo performance
practice. The availability of a system that provides instant, high-qual-
ity, and interactive musical companionship for student use makes
possible more frequent practice within an accompaniment circum-
stance. It might be assumed that, over a longer time, performance
skills would improve by supplying more practice opportunities using
accompaniment, regardless of the type of accompaniment. This out-
come has been suggested through research (Hamann & Banister,
1991; Ouren, 1997; Snapp, 1997) and should be examined in future
studies that focus on solo study and accompaniment variables.
Due to the novelty of digital accompaniment compared to tradi-
tional keyboard accompaniment, reactions about the system were
solicited from participants. Their commentary, along with the empir-
ical data, may help educators make decisions about digital accompa-
niment's usefulness as a performance practice tool. Students indi-
cated that they were largely motivated by it and that it functioned to
make practicing less boring and more fun. If the tool functions as
motivation for some, it is possible that players would be inspired to
spend more time on task, as was suggested by Ouren (1997) and
Snapp (1997). Conversely, a few students reported frustration over
certain aspects of the system and, although they complied with the
treatment procedures, admitted to having developed an aversion to
the practice sessions. Digital accompaniment may not be for every-
one. Music teachers must determine methods that provide the best
practice environment for the student soloist. Future research that
focuses specifically on benefits and disadvantages of intelligent digi-
tal accompaniment might address matters of its effect on motivation,
the amount of spent time in practice, and how practice time is used.
This was a preliminary, exploratory investigation that used a rela-
tively small, situationally limited sample, and caution should be used
in interpreting the findings. Studies using larger numbers of partici-
pants could yield different results. The amount of permitted practice
time was also limited in order to mirror factors one might find in
some school music situations. Obviously, there exist music programs
for which these parameters are too restrictive, and further investiga-
tion could modify this initial set of controls. Studies that include

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JRME 265

more practice time for students using each of the three accompani-
ment variables might well yield different results than those found
here.

Solo performance is an essential part of many school music per-

formance programs. Its existence provides a consequential perfor-
mance outlet different from large or chamber ensembles, and its
exclusion in school music programs would be unthinkable.
Continued investigation of performance outcomes by school musi-
cians at many levels of accomplishment, in a variety of accompani-
ment settings, and using different methodological approaches rang-
ing from naturalistic to more clinical will augment information about
optimizing the solo practice and performance experience in school
environments.

REFERENCES

Brittin, R. V. (1993). Effects of upper register and lower register ac

ment on intonation. Journal of Band Research, 29 (1), 43-50.
Hamann, D. L., & Banister, S. (1991). Factors contributing to hig
band students' ratings at solo and ensemble festival. Contributions
Education, 18, 57-65.
Kantorski, V.J. (1986). String instrument intonation in upper and lo
isters: The effects of accompaniment. Journal of Research in
Education, 34, 200-210.
Mueller, R. A. (1997). The development and pilot testing of a hypermedia program
to supplement undergraduate string techniques class instruction in upper string
vibrato. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Ouren, R. W. (1997). The influence of the Vivace accompaniment technol-
ogy on selected middle school instrumental students. (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Minnesota, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58,
2456A.
Rudolph, T. (1996). Teaching music with technology. Chicago: GIA.
Sheldon, D. A., Reese, S., & Grashel, J. (1998). The feasibility of digital accom-
paniment systems in school music programs. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Illinois Music Educators Association, Peoria, IL.
Snapp, D. R. (1997). The uses and effectiveness of the Vivace Intelligent
Accompaniment system in K-12 instrumental music programs. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59, 766A.
Music Educators National Conference. (1994). The school music program.
Reston, VA: Author.
Tseng, S. A. (1996). Solo accompaniment in instrumental music education:
The impact of the computer-controlled Vivace on flute student practice
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57, 1536A.

Submitted September 15, 1998; accepted June 14, 1999.

This content downloaded from 51.154.35.224 on Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:31:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms