4.3 Article

Pitch discrimination and pitch matching abilities of adults who sing inaccurately

期刊

JOURNAL OF VOICE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 431-439

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.07.010

关键词

inaccurate singers; pitch discrimination; pitch production; singing; singing teaching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Past research regarding singing ability has provided evidence that both supports and refutes a relationship between pitch discrimination ability and pitch production ability. Researchers have suggested that these skills improve with age. Despite this suggestion, most investigators studying singing ability have included only children as participants. Additionally, although many researchers have studied accurate singers, few have directly studied persons who do not sing accurately. We designed this study to examine the relationship between pitch discrimination ability and pitch production ability in inaccurate adult singers. Fifteen adults, aged 18 to 40 years, that met specific criteria qualified as inaccurate singers. Each participated in two tasks, a pitch discrimination task and a pitch production task. We used the Multi-Dimensional Voice Profile-Advanced (Kay Elemetrics Corporation, Lincoln Park, NJ) to determine the frequency of each participant's vocal productions during the pitch production task. We also used a Pearson product moment correlation to analyze the relationship between pitch discrimination and pitch production accuracy within a semitone of the target frequency. No meaningful relationship was found, and results were not statistically significant. However, the inaccurate singers in this study could be classified into two separate categories, those who discriminated pitches accurately, but produced pitches inaccurately, and those who discriminated pitches inaccurately and produced pitches inaccurately. These findings may be of great importance to music educators and impact the focus of instruction when teaching an inaccurate singer to sing more accurately.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据