five facets of musical expression: a psychologist's perspective on music performance

http://pom.sagepub.com/Psychology of Music

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/03057356030313003

2003 31: 273Psychology of MusicPatrik N. Juslin

Five Facets of Musical Expression: A Psychologist's Perspective on Music Performance

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at:Psychology of MusicAdditional services and information for

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2003Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pom.sagepub.com/


http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273



http://www.sempre.org.uk

http://www.sempre.org.uk

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.refs.html

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.refs.html

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.full.pdf

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/31/3/273.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Five facets of musical expression:a psychologist’s perspective onmusic performance

273A R T I C L E

Psychology of Music

Psychology of MusicCopyright ©

Society for Education,Music and Psychology

Researchvol (): ‒

[- ():; ‒; ]

PAT R I K N . J U S L I NU P P S A L A U N I V E R S I T Y

A B S T R A C T The aim of this article is to outline a psychological approach toexpression in music performance that could help to provide a solid foundation forthe teaching of expressive skills in music education. Drawing on previousresearch, the author suggests that performance expression is best conceptualizedas a multi-dimensional phenomenon consisting of five primary components: (a)Generative rules that function to clarify the musical structure; (b) Emotionalexpression that serves to convey intended emotions to listeners; (c) Random variations that reflect human limitations with regard to internal time-keepervariance and motor delays; (d) Motion principles that prescribe that some aspectsof the performance (e.g. timing) should be shaped in accordance with patterns ofbiological motion; and (e) Stylistic unexpectedness that involves local deviationsfrom performance conventions. An analysis of performance expression in termsof these five components – collectively referred to as the GERMS model – hasimportant implications for research and teaching of music performance.

K E Y W O R D S : computational modelling, emotion, expression, music education, musicperformance

He put the bow to his instrument . . . and then, the first notes, bold and fiery,sang through the hall. At once the spell began to work. Was this really themusic of a violin? What grandeur in these slurred notes, what absolute purity!There came roulades of double-stop harmonic notes, and a long run across fouroctaves, played staccato in a single stroke of the bow . . . Then came a noble,moving theme, which sounded as though a human voice was singing . . . Afterthe seemingly endless applause had subsided, Paganini began to play the secondmovement. It was an adagio, and showed the virtuoso from quite a differentangle. There were none of the devilish tricks that had stunned the audienceduring the first movement. A sublime, angelic song of great noblesse and sim-plicity touched the hearts of the listeners . . . The notes followed one another as

sempre :

at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on April 3, 2014pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from



though growing out of the instrument, and it seemed incredible . . . that thiswooden object was not an integral part of the man who played it, a part of hisvery soul . . . The audience sat as though paralysed until the rhythm of a grace-ful rondo changed their mood . . . an infinitely tender pizzicato accompanied themelody, and it finally soared away into a happy dance tune. (Farga, 1969:171–2)

In this description of a music performance by Nicolo Paganini in Vienna1828, many of the recurrent ideas about musical expression are included:the captivating experience, the voice-like quality of certain musical instru-ments, the idea that music may alter a listener’s moods, the close connectionbetween music and expression of emotions, the notion that expression isembodied in acoustic parameters of the performance, the belief that expres-sion ‘springs from the performer’s very soul’, the importance of the musicalpiece itself in shaping the expression, and the ‘devilish tricks’ commonlyattributed to the expressive virtuoso.1 Could researchers ever hope to explainthis seemingly inexplicable phenomenon? Judging from the comments bysome performers, we would be inclined to think not (Dubal, 1985). As notedby Sloboda (2000), ‘the folk psychology of the musical world can often seemto be designed to keep the answers shrouded in mystery’ (p. 398). Yet I believethat it is not only possible for psychologists to investigate musical expressionsuccessfully, it is a matter of responsibility. I argue that the primary aim of apsychological approach to music performance should be to explain perform-ance expression in order to provide a solid foundation for teaching of expres-sion in music education. To explain musical expression may be difficult, but itis no more difficult than many other problems that psychologists strugglewith every day (e.g. explaining consciousness). For much too long, psycholo-gists have deferred to philosophers in matters concerning expression. Ibelieve it is time for psychologists to reclaim the study of expression.2 Many, ifnot all, issues concerning expression are such that they can be resolvedempirically.

Why do I regard expression as the primary topic? Because expression islargely what makes music performance worthwhile. It is expression thatmakes people go through all sorts of trouble to hear human performancesrather than the ‘dead-pan’ renditions of computers; it is expression thatmakes possible new and insightful interpretations of familiar works; and it ison the basis of expressive features that we prefer one performer rather thananother. Moreover, questionnaire research indicates that most musicians andmusic teachers regard expression as the most important aspect of a per-former’s skills (Lindström et al., in press; Laukka, 2003). However, despite theimportance attributed to expression in music performance, there is evidencethat expressive skills are often ignored in teaching (e.g. Persson, 1993;Rostwall and West, 2001; Tait, 1992). As I have noted elsewhere (e.g. Juslinand Persson, 2002), one reason may be that teachers lack a theory of per-formance expression that can guide teaching. The problem is compounded by

274 Psychology of Music 31(3)




the fact that musical expression involves tacit knowledge that is difficult toconvey from teachers to students. Research on expression could help to ren-der the tacit knowledge explicit. Rather than surrender to individual differ-ences in expressive ability in the name of musical talent, we could addressthem through theoretically informed teaching. Thus, a proper and scientifi-cally grounded understanding of the mechanisms that underlie musicalexpression has scientific as well as social and educational implications(Sloboda, 2000).

In this article, I consider the role of the performer in musical expression. Iwant to convince the reader that performance expression is a problemamenable to empirical investigation, and that psychological theory is criticalto an understanding of this problem. Looking back, psychologists have tend-ed to approach performance expression mainly by measuring variousacoustic variables of music performances (e.g. Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, thisissue). Often, a purely descriptive approach has been taken, in accordancewith the tradition first established by Seashore (1938) and his co-workers. Asa consequence, the notion of expression has been poorly conceptualized.3

Matters of expression have largely been reduced to tables or graphs ofacoustic data, whereas the question of what these data actually tell us aboutthe origins of musical expression has somehow been lost. But perhaps psychology is uniquely suited to investigating expression? After all, psycholo-gy was right from the beginning studying the kinds of psychophysical relationships that seem to underlie musical expression (Leahey, 1987). Yet,psychology has arguably not fulfilled its potential role in helping to provide atheoretical organization of the field. In my view, a psychological approach toperformance expression should consider how this phenomenon reflects basichuman abilities and characteristics that are not necessarily unique to themusical domain. Recent research reviewed in this article will provide somesupport for this view.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: first, I provide working definitions of interpretation, expression and communication, andconsider problems in performance research that have prevented cumulativeprogress. Second, I outline a psychological approach to musical expressionthat distinguishes five aspects of expression. Unfortunately there are fewattempts to integrate these different aspects; and so, I outline a meta theory ofmusic performance, which is an attempt to integrate different aspects ofexpression. Not very surprisingly, empirical findings derived from this modelsuggest that emotion is a major aspect of expression. Therefore I brieflyreview findings about emotion in music performance. Finally, I consider various implications of a psychological approach for performance researchand music education, and also acknowledge some limitations of thisapproach.

Juslin: Five facets of musical expression 275




Working definitions

Interpretation, expression and communication are complex concepts, and nomatter what I say about them here, I am sure that this article will not be thefinal word on these topics. However, for the practical purposes of this article,we need to have at least preliminary working definitions of each term. Theterm interpretation typically refers to the individualistic shaping of a pieceaccording to the musical ideas of the performer (Palmer, 1997: 119). Thismight involve an intention to express something (e.g. an idea, an emotion)beyond the musical structure (Gabrielsson, 1999), but such expression is usu-ally accomplished through the ways in which the structure is articulated (inhow it is played). The process of interpretation is still little investigated (butsee Hallam, 1995; Persson, 1993), although it seems to be influenced by both‘internal’ (e.g. emotions, wanting to express something personal) and ‘exter-nal’ factors (e.g. musical style, the structure of the piece, the composer’sintentions) (Lindström et al., in press; Persson, 2001: 278–81).

Expression, in my view, refers to a set of perceptual qualities that reflectpsychophysical relationships between ‘objective’ properties of the music, and‘subjective’ (or, rather, objective but partly person-dependent) impressions ofthe listener. Expression does not reside solely in the acoustic properties of themusic (different listeners may perceive the expression differently), nor does itreside solely in the mind of the listener (different listeners usually agree aboutthe general nature of the expression in a performance). Expression dependson both of these factors, in ways that, although complex, can be modelled in asystematic fashion (Juslin, 2000). Our perception of expressive music per-formances reminds us, somehow, of the ways humans express their states ofmind in real life (why would we otherwise use the term expression in the firstplace?). Indeed, we have an ‘anthropomorphic’ tendency to perceive expres-sive form even in inanimate objects (e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). Occasionallythe perception of an expressive performance will also evoke an emotion in thelistener (he or she is ‘moved’), or even an aesthetic response (a more complexand profound response that involves emotional, cognitive and social factors;Konecni, 1979), but such a response is not required for a listener to hear themusic as expressive (Davies, 1994). The emotion induced in the listener maybe the same as that expressed (through emotional contagion; Juslin, 2001),or it may be a complementary response (Juslin and Zentner, 2002). As Clynes(1977: 60) notes, when we hear a convincing expression, this is perceived as‘sincerity’; we therefore tend to feel sympathy for the performer of the music.

If the general notion of expression is accepted, the question is: what doesmusic express. A survey of the literature suggests a large number of differentideas about what music may express. Music has been regarded as expressiveof emotion, physical aspects (motion, force), tension and release, personalitycharacteristics, beauty, events, objects, musical conventions, religious beliefand social conditions (Gabrielsson and Juslin, 2003). A generous view on





expressivity would hold that there is truth to all of these ideas as long as thereare individual listeners who claim that they find music expressive of thesequalities. One problem with this generous approach is that it tends toembrace any arbitrary association that one could have to a music performance.This would be simply a form of conditioning that does not relate to the per-formance as such; it says more about the listener than it says about themusic. It seems more fruitful to look for expressive aspects that relate to thenature of the music, at least if we want to explain performance expression.

A more restrictive approach to expression that is common in researchholds that music is expressive of a certain quality only to the extent that thereis some minimum level of agreement among the listeners (presumablybecause there is something in the actual performance that gives rise to simi-lar listener percepts). Thus, for example, we might agree that the slow move-ment of Beethoven’s Eroica symphony is expressive of, say, sadness (althoughthe expression could, of course, change rapidly during the piece). In suchcases of intersubjective agreement, we may be inclined to say that ‘this piecehas a sad expression’. But note that expression (as defined here) does notrequire an expressive intention.

The concept of communication (of emotion, for instance), in contrast, goesfurther: accurate communication, I believe, requires that there is both a per-former’s intention to express a specific concept and recognition of this conceptby a listener. Perhaps, it may seem strange to talk about communicationaccuracy in the context of music. Still, most performers are probably – orshould be – worried about whether their musical interpretation is actuallyperceived by listeners the way they intended it. (What is the purpose of a spe-cific interpretation if every listener fails to perceive it?) The performer may, forinstance, wish to highlight an emotional character that is latent in the com-position. The extent to which performer and listener agree about the emotional expression of the performance could pragmatically be seen as ameasure of the accuracy of the communication. (Precisely which perceptualqualities I think are involved in performance expression is discussed later inthe description of a psychological approach.)

Problems in research on performance expression

To do music performance justice as a meaningful event in a particular timeand place, with certain individuals taking part (Small, 1999), we would haveto take into account a very large set of complicated real-world relationships.To get some sense of the difficulties involved in such an endeavour, considerthe list of factors that – in principle – may influence expression (Table 1). Ascan be seen, this includes numerous factors related to the piece, the instru-ment, the performer, the listener and the performance context (for furtherdiscussion of factors that might be relevant, see Gabrielsson, 2003, this issue;Rink, 2003, this issue). To model all the factors simultaneously may be





outright impossible. To simplify matters, researchers have been forced tobracket most of the factors listed in Table 1, and to focus instead on core prin-ciples of performance that transcend a particular time and place (in theWestern world, at least). In practice, this has meant focusing on measure-ment of performances, with occasional attempts to relate the measures toother aspects (e.g. the score, the performer’s intention, the listener’s percep-tion, etc.). Yet, even with this narrow focus researchers have been strugglingto account for the nature of a typical performance of music. Why is this so?

Clearly, there are many problems that performance researchers are confronted with. First, it is usually difficult to obtain large samples of music


TA B L E 1 Examples of factors that might influence expression in music performance

Type Examples of factors

Piece-related The musical composition itselfNotational variants of the pieceConsultations with composer or composer’s written commentsMusical style/genre

Instrument-related Acoustic parameters availableInstrument-specific aspects of timbre, pitch, etc.Technical difficulties of the instrument

Performer-related The performer’s structural interpretationThe performer’s expressive intention with regard to the mood

of the pieceThe performer’s emotion-expressive styleThe performer’s technical skillThe performer’s motor precisionThe performer’s mood while playingThe performer’s interaction with co-performersThe performer’s perception of/interaction with audience

Listener-related The listener’s music preferencesThe listener’s music expertiseThe listener’s personalityThe listener’s current moodThe listener’s state of attention

Context-related AcousticsSound technologyListening context (e.g. recording, concert)Other individuals presentVisual performance conditionsLarger cultural and historic settingWhether the performance is formally evaluated




performances from expert musicians (however, see Repp, 1998). This prob-lem can be partly overcome through large investments of time and money,and also by trying to conduct research more on the performers’ own terms.Second, even if we do manage to obtain sufficiently large samples of perform-ances, it is a difficult and time-consuming task to analyse all relevantacoustic variables (Palmer, 1997). There are currently some promisingattempts to develop computer algorithms for automatic extraction of such vari-ables (e.g. Friberg et al., 2002), which might help researchers to analyse larg-er samples of performances quickly. Thus this problem may eventually besolved. The most serious problem for studies of performance is perhaps not toobtain sufficient amounts of data, but rather to find ways of interpreting thewealth of data in a meaningful way (Gabrielsson and Juslin, 1996).

It is here that psychological theory can make a crucial contribution to howwe conceive of expression. I think that the greatest impediment to progress inexplaining expression has been the common tendency to regard expression asa single entity, a homogeneous natural category. Given the controversy thathas surrounded the concept of expression throughout history (Davies,1994), it is perhaps understandable that many researchers have tended toleave the concept undefined or simply ‘defined’ it in terms of ‘deviations fromthe score’. But it is troubling to note how many studies have treated expres-sion as a mysterious quality of which there is simply ‘more’ or ‘less’, withoutspecifying what is meant by the term expression (the expression is simply‘appropriate’, ‘exaggerated’, or ‘lacking’). There is no serious consideration ofwhat is expressed, or how it is expressive, which implies that there is only oneway of performing expressively (by ‘appropriate expressive deviations’). Attimes, it seems that expression is simply equated with everything that mightbe good about a performance, but what is good is, of course, not specified.What is at stake is not the usefulness of the generic word ‘expression’ as such,it is rather whether this is the most fruitful level at which to investigate andteach expression (‘Put some expression into it’). I reject on empirical groundsthe idea that music can be expressive ‘in general’ without being expressive insome particular way, because any music performance has certain acousticfeatures that renders it different in expression from a performance with differ-ent acoustic features. (Two performances with the same rated level of‘expressivity’ or ‘emotionality’ may exhibit quite different acoustic character-istics, and may be perceived quite differently with regard to how they areexpressive.)

Even more important, the expressive variations that are typically found ina human music performance are not all of the same kind; they do not allshare the same origins, and they should therefore not all be taught in thesame manner. In my estimation, the ‘single-factor approach’ to expressionhas contributed to the fragmented state of affairs in studies of performance. Ithas not encouraged integrative attempts even among researchers who haverecognized that expression is multidimensional. I argue that a satisfactory





model should incorporate the fact that expression is a multi-dimensional phe-nomenon including distinct components of information. Precisely what thesecomponents are is a theoretical and empirical matter. In the following discus-sion, I take stock of what previous research on music performance can teachus about this problem.

A psychological approach to performance expression

The ultimate goal of research on expression in music performance is tounderstand what, exactly, the performer ‘adds’ to a written piece of music. Itmay be instructive to look closer at what this endeavour actually entails.Performance researchers are faced with complex patterns of behaviour; theymust describe and explain the nature and origin of intricate patterns of vari-ability in acoustic measures shown over the time-course of a performance ofmusic (see Figure 1). The problem is that ‘using measurements of actual per-formances alone, it is difficult to separate the effects of combined, thoughpsychologically distinct, expressive actions’ (Thompson et al., 1989: 64). Thisexplains why single-factor conceptions of expression have been so prevalent.


Note. The solid line shows the first performance, the dotted line the repetition.(Reproduced with kind permission of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music)

F I G U R E 1 Deviations in timing from mechanical performance in a performance of Mozart’sPiano Sonata in A Major (K 331) from a classic study by Gabrielsson (1987).

%




As long as the expressive features are simply lumped together as ‘expressivedeviations from the score’, it is hard to reach beyond a single factor. Oneheuristic tool could be to rely on the advice of professional performers, asshown by the work by Sundberg (1988) and co-workers. However, perform-ers are commonly unable to explain the details of how they apply expressivefeatures (Sloboda, 1996). Psychologists early realized the limitations of intro-spection in explaining psychological mechanisms (e.g. Leahey, 1987), andmany of the mechanisms that underlie music performance are clearly notavailable to introspection. What is needed, I believe, is a psychological theoryof expression. What would such a theory look like?

First, a psychological approach would involve an attempt to go beyond theperformance and to consider the nature of the person behind the perform-ance. ‘What are the proximate and ultimate causes of the behaviour in the performer, and how can we make sense of this behaviour from what weknow about humans?’ Second (and partly as a consequence of what we knowabout humans), it would have to be a component approach. Some researchershave suggested a general mechanism to account for performance expression(e.g. Todd, 1992), though it seems that a single mechanism cannot success-fully account for all the variability in a music performance. Such a model isbound to be incomplete in certain respects, as indicated by some recent stud-ies (Clarke and Windsor, 2000; Juslin, 2000; Repp, 1989; Van Oosten, 1993;Thompson et al., 1989). A careful review of the literature suggests that performance expression is better thought of as a multi-dimensional phenom-enon, consisting of five components of expression that I collectively refer toas the GERMS model. The five components are summarized in the followingsections (for more extensive reviews, see Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, this issue).

GENERATIVE RULES (G)One function of performance expression may be to convey the musical struc-ture to listeners as clearly as possible. This forms the basis of the so-calledgenerative approach (Clarke, 1988). In this line of research, expression isregarded as rule-based transformations of nominal score values that origi-nate in the performer’s cognitive representation of the hierarchical structure.By means of variations in such acoustic variables as timing, dynamics andarticulation, a performer is able to clarify group boundaries (Gabrielsson,1987), metrical accents (Sloboda, 1983) and harmonic structure (Palmer,1996). One of the most robust findings is that tempo variations (rubato) havea strong tendency to be determined by the phrase structure; phrase endingsare usually marked with decreases in tempo, and the amount of slowingreflects the depth of embedding in the hierarchical structure (Todd, 1985; seealso Figure 1). This is the most well-studied aspect of expression, and to theextent that a performer aims to clarify the structure, we may explain part ofthe variance in the acoustic features. However, the absence of a generallyaccepted system for structural analysis still makes prediction difficult.





Furthermore, rules for the transformation of a generative structure into pat-terns of expression are highly dependent on conventions related to specificmusical styles. The generative approach dominated research on music per-formance until the 1990s (for excellent reviews, see Clarke, 1988, 1995). Butthere is clearly more to expression than merely the conveying of structure(Shaffer, 1992; see also Rink, 2003, this issue).

EMOTIONAL EXPRESSION (E)A second function of performance expression might be to render the perform-ance with a particular emotional expression. As noted by Shaffer (1992), ‘aperformer can be faithful to the structure and at the same time have the free-dom to shape its moods’ (p. 265). A series of studies in the 1990s indicatedthat professional performers are able to communicate discrete emotions to lis-teners. To accomplish this goal, the performers use a large number ofacoustic variables in the performance. For example, if a performer would liketo express tenderness in a performance, he or she may use slow tempo, lowsound level, legato articulation, ‘soft’ timbre, slow tone attacks, regular tim-ing, reduced contrasts between ‘long’ and ‘short’ notes, and an intense vibra-to (for a review, see Juslin, 2001). This component of expression is actuallythe last to receive attention in performance research, but it could well be oneof the most crucial as far as music performers and listeners are concerned(see Lindström et al., in press; Persson, 2001). One reason for the relativeneglect of this component may be that it not always operates on the explicitlevel that is required in order to study it empirically. (The emotion componentis discussed in more detail in a later section of this article.)

RANDOM VARIABILITY (R)A third aspect of performance expression that has mostly been studied indomains other than music is random variability. It appears to be generallyagreed that human music performance is not controlled by a completelydeterministic motor-system (e.g. Repp, 1997a; Yamada, 1998). Performanceexpression always contains some random fluctuations, although they may bequite small. How is this feature relevant in understanding expression, espe-cially since practice usually aims at minimizing error? From an aestheticalpoint of view, random variations contribute to the ‘living’ character of music– that slight unpredictability that makes each performance absolutelyunique. Research on human limitations in perceptual-motor skills, mainlystudies of isochronous interval finger tapping, have revealed that the randomvariations have certain characteristics: (1) the magnitude of random fluctua-tions increases with inter-onset-interval duration, so that longer intervalstend to yield larger deviations (Wing and Kristofferson, 1973; see also Repp,1997a); (2) there is a negative first-order dependency with regard to inter-onset-interval durations; that is, a performed interval that is shorter than themean is usually followed by one that is longer than the mean, yielding zig-zag





patterns (Madison, 2000); (3) there is a positive higher-order dependency, or tempo drift, over time (a linear trend that can be extracted from tappingdata; Madison, 2000); and (4) the random fluctuations may be successfullysimulated by a combination of 1/f noise and white noise, two kinds ofrandom variability (Gilden et al., 1995). Although these random variationsare subtle – in expert performance, at least – they do contribute to the soundof a human music performance. Therefore, if we really intend to model performance expression, this component should be included also (Juslin et al.,2002).

MOTION PRINCIPLES (M)A fourth aspect of performance expression is motion. There is a commonassumption that music and motion are closely related to one another.However, this hypothesis needs to be made more specific to be useful. Shoveand Repp (1995) argue that ‘without proper constraint the idea that changein music induces an experience of motion has little explanatory power’ (p. 58).One way to constrain the hypothesis is to limit it to a specific kind of motioncalled biological motion (e.g. Johansson, 1973). This refers to the dynamic patterns of movement that are characteristic of humans. It should be notedthat such patterns in music performance may be of two kinds. First, it can beassumed that performers intentionally (though not necessarily consciously)try to re-create such patterns. Shove and Repp propose that an aestheticallypleasing performance is ‘one whose expressive microstructure satisfies basicconstraints of biological motion’ (p. 78). One example is the shaping of finalritardandi. Friberg and Sundberg (1999) showed that final ritardandi ofmusic performances follow a mathematical function similar to that of run-ners’ decelerations. (This was also the ritardando function preferred by listen-ers in a listening test.) A second kind of biological motion is non-intentionalpatterns of variability that reflect anatomical constraints of the body in con-nection with motor requirements of specific musical instruments (e.g. Peneland Drake, 1999).

STYLISTIC UNEXPECTEDNESS (S)An additional way in which a performance may be expressive involves thefact that musical emotions often occur when musical expectations are violat-ed in some way. Thus, Meyer (1956) suggested that expressive variations in amusic performance may serve an aesthetic function by ‘delaying an expectedresolution’, or otherwise ‘creating psychological tension’ (p. 206). This couldhappen when a performer deviates from stylistic expectations with regard toperformance conventions for a certain part of the structure. For example, theperformer might be expected to clarify the structure in a certain manner (asdescribed by generative rules), but instead he or she does something com-pletely different. This momentarily creates psychological tension that isresolved when the performer resumes ‘expected playing’. Something of the





effect is captured in the following description of the Italian style of perform-ance at the beginning of the 18th century:

He’ll have passages of such an extent as will perfectly confound his auditors atfirst, and upon such irregular notes as shall instill a terror as well as surpriseinto the audience, who will immediately conclude that the whole concert isdegenerating into a dreadful dissonance; and betraying [them] by that meansinto a concern for the music, which seems to be on the brink of ruin, he imme-diately reconciles [them] by such regular cadences that everyone is surprised tosee harmony rising again, in a manner, out of discord itself and owing its great-est beauties to those irregularities which seemed to threaten it with destruction.(François Raguenet, cited in Meyer, 1956: 208)

This component is probably the least researched so far, but it may be criti-cal to developing a truly original interpretation. For examples of music per-formances by experts that feature various bold and unexpected patterns ofexpression, see, for example, Repp (1997b). No attempt has yet been made tomodel this component in terms of expressive rules, perhaps because of theparadox inherent in developing rules for how to break other rules, and thedifficulty in deciding precisely on what basis such rule breaking is done (notall rule breaking is musically satisfying).

TOWARDS A THEORY OF PERFORMANCE EXPRESSION: THE GERMS MODEL

Research on the five components of expression outlined previously has tend-ed to be descriptive, and to the extent that theoretical models have been pro-posed, they have not been integrated with other models. (For an overview ofvarious models of music performance, see Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, thisissue.) Therefore, I propose a model of expression – the GERMS model – thatintegrates different facets of expression (see also Juslin et al., 2002). Theassumption is that, in principle, it is possible to decompose patterns of expres-sion into five different components (Generative rules, Emotional expression,Random variability, Motion principles, Stylistic unexpectedness). Further, itcan be assumed that the different components of expression:

(1) have different origins (2) involve patterns with different characteristics(3) are processed by somewhat different brain regions(4) have different effects on listeners’ perception of music

The last of these criteria also means that each GERMS component will tend tomake a unique contribution to the emotional and aesthetic impact of a givenperformance. Although the aesthetic impact of a music performance is acomplex topic indeed, it may be hypothesized that it involves commonly sug-gested features, such as beauty, recognition, symmetry, tension/resolution,arousal, order, originality and personal expression (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989;North and Hargreaves, 1997).

We are, in my view, only just beginning to explore differences between





different components, which is why my suggestions on how they might differshould be treated as hypotheses rather than as established facts. Table 2shows some of the hypothesized characteristics of the components. The G-component originates in generative transformations of the notated musicalstructure, and reflects basic characteristics of human cognition, such as cate-gorical perception and gestalt laws (Bregman, 1990). It recruits the humancapacity for syntactical processing, which is also involved in language. Apositron-emission tomography study of sight reading in piano performanceshowed activated cortical brain areas distinct from, but adjacent to, thoseunderlying language operations (Sergent et al., 1992), consistent with thetask of translating a generative structure in a musical notation into expres-sive markings of structure. A magnetoencephalography study of musicalperception suggested that musical syntax is processed in Broca’s area, whichis also involved in syntactic processing during auditory language comprehen-sion (Maess et al., 2001). Generative rules are mainly bottom-up (i.e. determined by the local structure), but also reflect the hierarchical structureof the music. By conveying the structure and creating coherence and order,generative rules add to the beauty of the music. They may further have anarousing effect, but mainly by enhancing the emotional impact inherent inthe structure.

The E-component originates in emotion-specific patterns of cues in vocalexpression (Juslin and Laukka, in press) and reflects evolutionary ancienthuman abilities for non-verbal communication of emotion. This involves alarge set of probabilistic (uncertain) albeit partly redundant cues that areadditive and compensatory in nature (one cue can to some extent compen-sate for another, see Juslin, 2000). Perception of the E-component can beinstantaneous (Peretz et al., 1998) and involves parallel processing mainly inthe right hemisphere of the brain (Bryden et al., 1982), perhaps in the basalganglia, which are involved in perception of emotion in vocal expression(Cohen et al., 1994). The E-component is mainly top-down (i.e. a holisticinterpretation of the mood of the piece influences local acoustic parameters),and offers a parallel channel of affective information, which may support orcontradict the expression of the composed structure. The E-component con-tributes to the recognition aspect of art, but could also enhance arousal(Juslin, 2001) and personal expression (Lindström et al., in press).4

The R-component originates in a hypothesized ‘internal timekeeper’ andassociated motor delays (Gilden et al., 1995), and reflects human limitationsregarding perceptual-motor precision. This involves two kinds of random patterns: 1/f noise (noise for which the power varies inversely with the fre-quency) that reflects the timekeeper and changes according to the inter-onset-interval duration, and uncorrelated white noise that reflects motordelays that are constant across different inter-onset-interval durations. Itmay be hypothesized that the internal time-keeper is localized in the lateraland medial parts of the cerebellum (see Ivry et al., 1988). This component





28

6P

sychology ofM

usic3

1(3

)

TA B L E 2 Summary of hypotheses regarding the primary components of performance expression according to the GERMS model

Component

Characteristic G E R M S

Origin of pattern Generative Emotion-specific Internal timekeeper Biological motion; Deviations from transformations of patterns of acoustic and motor delay distinct patterns of expected performance the musical structure cues deriving from variance reflecting movement typical conventions

vocal expression human limitations of human beings

Nature of pattern Local expressive Mainly overall levels Semi-random patterns Dynamic, non- Local; not predictable features related to of multiple uncertain, 1/f noise and white compensatory from the structurethe structural partly redundant cues noise; very small in patterns; smooth interpretation that are compensatory magnitude, irregular and global

Salient brain regions Left hemisphere Right hemisphere Lateral and medial Left hemisphere Anterior cingulate (adjacent to Broca’s (the basal ganglia) parts of the (adjacent to the cortexarea) cerebellum, plus the superior temporal

motor cortex sulcus)

Perceptual effects Clarifies structure; Expresses emotions Generates a ‘living’ Yields expressive Heightens tension affects the inherent and moods (mainly in and natural quality form that is similar and unpredictabilityexpression of a piece broad categories of to human gestures

emotion)

Knowledge dependence Medium Low None Low High

Aesthetic contribution Beauty, order, Recognition, arousal, Unevenness, novelty Balance, unity, Novelty, arousalcoherence personal expression recognition

Under voluntary control Yes, mostly Yes No Yes, partly Yes

at UN

IV O

F S

OU

TH

ER

N C

ALIF

OR

NIA

on April 3, 2014

pom.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from



involves involuntary patterns of variability that contribute a certain uneven-ness to a performance, and also may enhance the novelty aspect of art.

The M-component originates in patterns of human movement (biologicalmotion), like arm gestures, which reflect the unique construction of thehuman body (e.g. the unique composite of anatomical proportions, includingboth geometrical dimensions and distribution of mass between parts of thebody). Perception of the M-component partly reflects the human ability todistinguish animate objects from inanimate objects on the basis of patterns ofsounds, which could have great survival value. This involves complex,dynamic and non-compensatory temporal patterns that are processed by the left hemisphere (Natale, 1977; Peretz, 1990), possibly by brain regionsadjacent to those that analyse biological motion in vision, like the superiortemporal sulcus (Allison et al., 2000). The M-component contributes to therecognition aspect of art – by signalling human intentionality – but alsolends balance and smooth gesturing to a performance.

The S-component originates in a general human tendency to create schemat-ic expectations that can guide behaviour, and the consequent monitoring ofsuch expectations that may give rise to emotional arousal, signalling thatsomething important has happened. This notion is recurrent in psychologicaltheories of emotion since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Oatley, 1992).As regards music performance, I have hypothesized that the S-componentreflects a performer’s deliberate attempt to deviate from stylistic expectationsconcerning performance conventions in order to add tension and unpre-dictability to the performance. The S-component involves locally focusedexpressive features that contribute to the novelty, originality and arousalaspects of art. Monitoring of expectations is believed to be processed by partsof the anterior cingulate cortex (Ochsner and Feldman Barrett, 2001). Whatis the relationship of the S-component to the others? My guess is that the firstfour components are sufficient to achieve an acceptable performance, but thatthe S-component is what makes a performance really special. Thus, much ofthe artistic process aims at turning GERM performances into GEMS. That is,reducing random fluctuations to a minimum and increasing the originality ofthe musical interpretation.

A PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION

Can this kind of psychological theory be turned into something useful inempirical terms? In a recent study, we made the first attempt to implement acomponent approach in a computational model, the GERM model, that simu-lates different aspects of expression (Juslin et al., 2002).5 The model com-prised only four main sources of variability (Generative rules, Emotionalexpression, Random variability, Motion principles), since we had not figuredout how to implement the fifth component, S, at the time. The model takes asits input (a) a musical notation, and (b) a performer interpretation. Weassume that there is both a structural interpretation (e.g. phrase structure)





and a mood interpretation (e.g. ‘joy’). Then, for each component, there is amodule featuring a set of algorithms that convert the notation into patternsof expression. Space does not permit description of the rules, but some ofthem are derived from the KTH rule system (see Friberg, 1995), others werepresented in Juslin et al. (2002). In a preliminary experiment, a subset of therules featured in the GERM model was used to synthesize expressive perform-ances of a brief piece of music. The aim of this experiment was to examine(1) whether the four components would yield predicted effects on listeners’judgements of the performances, and (2) whether the components wouldyield at least partly independent effects on these judgements (for furtherinformation about this experiment, see Juslin et al., 2002). The basic idea wasto manipulate the four components of the GERM model in a factorial design;this was done by generating all possible combinations (16) of the presenceand absence of each GERM component. For instance, a condition with onlythe G-component present and all other components absent would includeonly those rules that serve to convey the structure to listeners. We askedmusically trained listeners to rate all 16 performances on scales believed toreflect various aspects of expression (clear, sad, human, gestural, musical,expressive).

The results of this experiment suggested, first of all, that the different com-ponents yielded predicted effects on listeners’ ratings of the performance. Forinstance, the G-component yielded high ratings on the ‘clear’ scale; the E-component yielded high ratings on the ‘sad’ scale; and the M-componentyielded high ratings on the ‘gestural’ scale. Multiple regression analysesrevealed that listeners’ judgements of overall expressivity could be successful-ly predicted on the basis of a linear combination of the GERM components,which all contributed significantly but in different degrees to the judgedexpressivity; R = .77, F(4,184) = 66.143, p < .0001, with beta weights inorder of predictive strength: Emotional Expression, β = .64, p < .0001;Motion Principles, β = .32, p < .0001; Generative Rules, β = .23, p < .0001;Random Variations, β = .14, p < .01). There were, of course, some interac-tions between the four components in how they affected listeners’ judge-ments. However, only 20 percent of the total number of possible interactionswere actually significant, and the interaction effects were smaller than themain effects. Finally, the components produced different and at least partlyindependent effects on listeners’ judgements. This tendency is seen in exam-ples of dissociations between the four components. For instance, the perform-ance with only G present yielded a high mean rating on the ‘clear’ scale, butlow mean ratings on the ‘sad’, ‘human’ and ‘gestural’ scales (Juslin et al.,2002).

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

What can we conclude from these preliminary data? First, the GERM modelsuggests that different aspects of performance expression can be integrated





into a common model. The reader may disagree with me about the specifics ofthis model, but the important point is that there are different facets of expres-sion. I suspect that researchers have found performance data confusing part-ly because they have treated them as if they reflected a single factor. If we areunaware of the different aspects of performance expression, or ignore someof them, we are likely to be confused by data that reflect some unknown mix-ture of the different modes of behaviour. Indeed, even some of the moresophisticated systems for synthesis of music performances, such as DirectorMusices (Friberg et al., 2000), may not have sufficiently differentiated betweendifferent kinds of expressive features. The rules in Director Musices were simply designed to make a synthesized music performance sound as good aspossible, without categorizing expressive features theoretically. This makesperfect sense from an engineering point of view, although, unfortunately, itmuddles important distinctions between psychologically different compo-nents of expression. Rules that reflect acoustic characteristics of certainmusical instruments are mixed with rules that convey structure (Friberg,1995), and rules that function to convey structure are ‘turned backwards’ toexpress emotions (Bresin and Friberg, 2000). A genuine understanding ofperformance expression may require that we take greater care in distinguish-ing different categories of expressive features. Distinguishing different com-ponents of expression could help us to better explain individual differencesamong performers. Different performers may be characterized in terms ofthe relative weights they give to different aspects of expression. (Some mayemphasize precision, others may emphasize emotional expression at any cost,yet others may emphasize structural communication.) Furthermore, differ-ent musical styles may put different emphasis on different facets of expres-sion; the G-component may be crucial to the classical pianist, but is lessimportant to the blues guitarist. Finally, a componential approach might helpto resolve some inconsistent findings in the previous literature. For example,the fact that experienced listeners have shown refined ability to detect expres-sive aspects in some studies but not others (Rohwer, 2001) could be explainedby the fact that these studies have investigated different components ofexpression (e.g. generative structure vs emotional expression).

How can we be sure that the particular components I have postulated arethe appropriate ones? This is, ultimately, an empirical question, which is farfrom settled. I remain open to the possibility that a different set of componentscan provide a more cohesive account. However, I have argued that psycholog-ical theory in combination with findings from listening experiments, per-formance measurements, and brain imaging could help us to resolve thisproblem. As should be apparent, I hypothesize that all components in theGERMS model have their origins in human phenomena outside the musicdomain. (From this perspective, it may be premature to view some compo-nents as more ‘musical’ than others.) Thus, one implication of the GERMSmodel is that it agrees with Palmer’s (1997) view of music performance as ‘a





seemingly unique human ability that is not unique in its underlying cognitivemechanisms’ (p. 134). But far from depreciating the performance of music,this idea suggests that music performance is an activity that recruits manydifferent aspects of human behaviour in a wonderful way. It also implies thatpsychological theory about various aspects of human behaviour such as lan-guage, emotion, motor-coordination, movement and expectancy may behighly relevant to an understanding of performance expression.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MUSIC EDUCATION

The GERMS model offers an example of how research could benefit teachingby helping to ‘demystify’ expression. Indeed, based on my research on expres-sion over the last decade, I have come to believe that there are certain mythsabout expression, which have had a negative impact on music education. (Fora discussion of common myths about expression, see Juslin et al., in press.)One of these myths is that ‘expression cannot be studied objectively’.

This myth is associated with the notion that expression is a completelysubjective quality, which cannot be explained in scientific terms. However, asdemonstrated by the GERM study, acoustic correlates of perceived expressioncan readily be obtained and manipulated in performances, and listeners’ ratings of expression can be systematically and reliably related to these correlates. This paves the way for a more theoretically informed approach toteaching of expression.

One implication is that, at certain stages of learning, different aspects ofexpression might need to be taught separately, since they have different char-acteristics. According to the GERMS model, a music performance should (a)convey the structure of the music, (b) express emotions, (c) exhibit motor pre-cision, (d) be suggestive of human motion and gesture, and (e) deviate fromstylistic expectations in creative and aesthetically pleasing ways. The convey-ing of structure (G) is perhaps the aspect that has received most attention inmusic education, presumably because it is the most tangible aspect; ‘struc-ture can be seen, heard, demonstrated’ (Epstein, 1995: 126). Certainly thereis no substitute for a thorough understanding of the musical structure inshaping an interpretation. This aspect of expression may be guided by struc-tural analysis, by consulting the composer’s writings, and also by studyingvisual graphs of performance variables alongside the score. The motion com-ponent (M) can be trained by using some of the methods outlined byDavidson and Correia (2002: 246–7), like having a student conduct theexpression in the playing of the teacher, and developing a non-verbal narra-tive of physical gesture for individual phrases. The stylistic unexpectednesscomponent (S) requires extensive knowledge of musical styles and perform-ance conventions, and an ability to conceive of the performance structure interms of a ‘narrative’ of musical expectations that may be experimented within creative ways. The aspect of expression in most need of a formalized teach-ing strategy is emotion (E). This is regrettable, considering that the strongest





predictor of listeners’ judgements of expression in the GERM experiment wasthe emotion component. This suggests that music teaching should pay moreattention to the emotion component of expression. And, so, in the final partof my article, I turn specifically to emotion.

Emotion and communication

Although music and emotion is a topic that has attracted much interest sinceancient Greece (Juslin and Sloboda, 2001; Sloboda and Juslin, in press), a sys-tematic research program on emotions in music performance did not take offuntil the 1990s. There are several reasons for this: first, the structuralistapproach in musicology rendered expressive aspects of music off-limits forresearch until the rise of the ‘new’ musicology (see Cook and Dibben, 2001).Second, researchers may have sensed ‘a general aversion among musicians toscientific study of music, especially when related to topics such as emotion,expression and aesthetics’ (Woody, 2002: 214). Finally, although it mayappear obvious to the reader that emotion is strongly related to musicalexpression, this very idea has been questioned by some authors. On whatbasis can we claim that expression is about emotion, or even communicationof emotion?

A questionnaire study featuring 135 expert musicians from three coun-tries (England, Italy, Sweden) revealed that the great majority of the musi-cians defined expression mainly in terms of ‘communicating emotions’ and‘playing with feeling’, as indicated by their own free responses (Lindström etal., in press). When directly asked whether music expresses emotions, 99 per-cent of the musicians thought that this was the case. Numerous biographiesand interviews with performers confirm that they conceive of expression interms of emotions and communication (e.g. Boyd and George-Warren, 1992;Carreras, 1992; Menuhin, 1996; King, 1996; Persson, 1993; Schumacher,1995; see also Mills, 2003, this issue). Some composers may have arguedthat music is ‘absolute’ and ‘expresses nothing but itself ’, but this is simplynot how most people think of music.

When Small (1999) argues, plausibly, that the origins of ‘musicking’ (aterm that serves to highlight that music above all is an activity, and that per-formance is its essence) are to be found in the ancient gestures, in which weaffirm and explore our human relationships, it is perplexing that he deniesthat this involves communication of emotion, which is at the very heart ofhuman relationships:

. . . to my mind the idea of music . . . as the communication of emotions doesn’tjibe at all with my own experience. I cannot remember ever being happy by ahappy piece of music, or sad by a sad piece of music, and I am not sure I couldtell you which was which. (p. 18)

Be that as it may (although I am certain that Small would be able to tell





happy and sad pieces apart), we cannot ignore that most performers and lis-teners seem to think of music as a means of emotional communication. I donot claim that communication is the sole or main purpose of music, but 83percent of music students in a questionnaire study claim that they try toexpress specific emotions in their performance ‘always’ or ‘often’ (Lindströmet al., in press), and we know that listeners are able to recognize at least certain emotions expressed by performers (Juslin, 2001). This suggests thatthe concept of communication is viable in music, even if not every instant of music performance may be an example of the phenomenon. To whatextent do music performers actually succeed in communicating emotions tolisteners?

In the most extensive review of emotional expression in music perform-ance to date (Juslin and Laukka, in press), including 41 studies, a meta-analysis of communication accuracy showed that professional performersare able to communicate basic emotions (happiness, anger, sadness, fear, ten-derness) to listeners with an accuracy approximately as high as in facial andvocal expression of emotions. The overall decoding accuracy was π = 0.89,which is equivalent to a raw accuracy score of pc = .70 in a forced-choice taskwith five response alternatives (i.e. the average number of emotions includedin studies of music performance so far).6 Amateur musicians communicateemotions less accurately, and tend to apply acoustic features inconsistently(see Juslin and Laukka, 2000; Rohwer, 2001). The available evidence indicates that the communicative process operates on a fairly broad level ofemotion categories, whereas finer distinctions within the categories are diffi-cult to convey (Juslin and Lindström, 2003), at least without some context(London, 2002; see also Juslin, 1997c). It is not that music performancesintended to express, say, anger and jealousy sound exactly the same or thatlisteners cannot hear a difference, it is just that they are not able to tell whichperformance is which. It has been argued by some authors that the specificordering of successive emotional states could help to communicate subtler ormore complex states (Levinson, 1990). This is an interesting possibility, but itremains to be demonstrated that this is possible. (In reviewing these findings,I do not intend to imply that performances that do not reliably convey a spe-cific emotion are without value, because, as I have tried to demonstrate inthis article, musical expression involves a lot more than just emotion; andsometimes musicians may deliberately aim for emotional ambiguity.)

Many studies have tried to capture the acoustic cues that musicians use toconvey specific emotions (e.g. Jansens et al., 1997; Juslin, 1997a; Juslin andMadison, 1999; Kotlyar and Morozov, 1976; Mergl et al., 1998). These cuesinvolve changes in tempo, sound level, articulation, timbre, timing, toneattack and decay, intonation, vibrato extent and frequency, accents on partic-ular notes, etc. Earlier studies have mostly been limited to a few emotions.Figure 2 offers examples of patterns of acoustic cues used by professional per-formers to express 12 emotions in a recent study (Juslin and Lindström,






Note. Sound level is expressed in decibels (dBs) down from an arbitrary reference level.

F I G U R E 2 Overall levels of sound level and tempo (means and SDs) in professional pianists’renditions of 12 emotions in performances of a theme by Haydn (adapted from Juslin andLindström, 2003).

Intended Emotion

Intended Emotion




2003). Both ‘basic’ (e.g. sadness, anger, fear) and ‘complex’ (e.g. jealousy,shame, pride) emotions were featured in an attempt to accommodate the sub-tleties of musical expression. In reality the emotional expression will oftenchange quickly within a piece, or even within a single note. Thus we haverecently experimented with real-time analysis of emotional expression overtime (Friberg et al., 2002). That the relevant cues have been described may beconfirmed by programming synthesized performances of music on the basisof empirical data. Computerized performances with appropriate acoustic fea-tures can communicate emotions as reliably as human performers can(Juslin, 1997b), although they sound less musically satisfying (presumablybecause they lack other components of expression).

An important question concerns the origins of the acoustic cues used byperformers. Some authors have argued that emotions expressed in musichave nothing in common with other forms of expression: ‘Musical feelingshave their own character . . . the emotions [music] formulates are not identicalwith those accompanying extra-musical experience’ (Lippman, 1953: 569).It is getting exceedingly hard to make such a case. A review of 145 studies(101 speech and 41 music studies) strongly indicates that patterns of musicalcues used to convey discrete emotions mainly derives from the non-verbalaspects of emotional speech (Juslin and Laukka, in press), as proposed bySpencer (1857). Hence, musical emotions touch us deeply not because they are so different from everyday emotions, but because they are so similar.This may explain why music students find extramusical sources (e.g. life situations) useful in developing expression (e.g. Woody, 2000). One reasonwhy singing musical phrases seems to be such good practice for instrumen-talists (e.g. Dubal, 1985: 221; see also Mills, 2003, this issue) could be thatthis helps the performer to connect with fundamental principles of vocalexpression of emotion.7

Although it may be tempting to connect musical expression of emotion tomotion (Woody, 2002), a theoretically more plausible and parsimonious viewholds that the origin of the emotion component is to be found in involuntaryand emotion-specific physiological changes associated with emotions, which strong-ly influence different aspects of voice production (Juslin and Laukka, 2001;Scherer, 1986). Music performance shares with vocal expression of emotionsnot just the code but also the coding: the cues used to express emotions areuncertain but redundant to some extent, as conceptualized by the lens model(Juslin, 2000). This can account for some interesting phenomena, forinstance that communication of emotion in music is generally successfuldespite individual differences in utilization of acoustic cues among both per-formers and listeners (Juslin, 2000) and different cues available on differentmusical instruments (Juslin and Laukka, in press).

I envisage several important directions for future research. First, there hasbeen almost no attempt to study how the emotional expression of a perform-ance interacts with the expression of the piece. In our recent work, we are





using an expanded version of the lens model, which features both composedand performed cues (Juslin and Lindström, 2003). Second, it is importantthat basic research is turned into useful applications for performers. We arethus currently trying to develop computer software that may provide per-formers with detailed feedback about their performances (Juslin et al., inpress). Finally, it is crucial to explore how the emotion component interactswith other components of expression in yielding an expressive performance,which could explored by means of theoretical models (e.g. along the lines ofthe GERMS model).

Limitations of a psychological approach

Performers are sometimes sceptical about research on expression, perhapspartly because research on performance lags far behind the actual perform-ance of music (to the extent that these endeavours can actually be com-pared), in terms of maturity and sophistication. Like the performer who firstlearns to play a musical instrument, studies of music performance have pro-gressed from a consideration of basic principles of expression (e.g. how doesthe performer convey the phrase structure?) towards more subtle and individ-ualistic aspects (e.g. what makes a performance truly special?). But music hasbeen played since the beginning of recorded time whereas psychological stud-ies of music performance have been conducted for only a century; perhapsresearchers should be excused for not having reached the same level ofsophistication as the performers?

There are many limitations of the psychological approach to performanceexpression. One limitation involves the fact that psychological researchrequires that all relevant concepts are formally operationalized, so that theycan be measured with precision. This requirement severely limits the com-plexity that can be handled in any single empirical investigation. Thus, psy-chological studies are often criticized by musicians for their ‘simplicity’.Clearly, psychologists must strive to study music at an appropriate level ofcomplexity. At the same time, musicians must also appreciate the conditionsunder which empirical research is carried out. Seemingly ‘crude’ models, for instance, could reflect practical limitations rather than insensitivityregarding musical matters. (The GERM model, for example, is admittedly sim-ple as compared to the long list of factors that can influence performanceexpression in Table 1. Still, you might be surprised how complicated thatmodel is!)

Practical limitations of a psychological approach are perhaps redeemed bythe power with which experiments allow us to draw valid conclusions aboutcausal relationships. Thus, folk theories of expression may ultimately bereplaced, or at least improved, by empirically validated knowledge. Such adevelopment may be welcomed by some performers (Dubal, 1985: 250), butnot all are so inclined. A common sentiment is that too much knowledge





‘destroys the magic’, or interferes with the artistic process (Dubal, 1985:245).

Ultimately, this could reflect the different needs of scientists and artists.Elsewhere, I have argued for an attempt to bridge the gap between art and sci-ence (Juslin and Zentner, 2002; see also Rink, 2003, this issue), because Ibelieve that musicians and researchers have much to learn from each other.Art and science share many characteristics: they are both interesting ways ofexploring the world around us; they both involve creativity; and they bothprovide certain perspectives or ways of looking at the world. However, Ibelieve that we must accept that there will always be some tension betweenart and science, since art and science, ultimately, have different aims. Thus,for instance, research on performance expression aims to develop generalmodels (i.e. simplified descriptions and explanations of a specific phenome-non), whereas the performing artist often strives to create something uniqueand personal. (The scientist usually opts out at the point where the artistthinks things are getting interesting.) There is no way in which a psychologi-cal focus on general models can fully capture the rich, personal and piece-specific ways in which musicians tend to approach their work artistically.And – after all – the most useful approach to performance as an artist maynot be the most useful approach to performance as a researcher, given thequite different aims of these endeavours. But there is one important reasonwhy we should at least try to establish some common ground: the teaching ofperformance expression clearly appears to benefit from explicit instructionand knowledge about expression (Juslin et al., in press; Woody, 1999).Hence, in this article, I have suggested that the primary goal of a psychologi-cal approach to music performance should be to explain the nature of per-formance expression in order provide a solid foundation for the teaching ofexpressive skills in music education. It remains to be seen whether this chal-lenge can be met in coming years. But even if it is not, I am sure that we canlearn something important along the way.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This is an expanded version of an invited paper presented at the conference Investi-gating Music Performance, 12–13 April 2002, Royal College of Music, London. Theresearch was supported by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. I am grate-ful to the members of the Feel-ME project for fruitful collaboration.

N O T E S

1. Some musicians, including Nicolo Paganini and blues singer Robert Johnson,have been accused of ‘selling their soul to the devil’ in order to gain their excep-tional skills.

2. One notable reason for doing so is that philosophical inquiry does not lend itselfeasily to applications in music education. To take but one example: which musicteacher could seriously claim to have gained a better sense of how to teach





expressive skills after having read Scruton’s (1997) complex chapter on musicalexpression?

3. Meyer (1956) notes that ‘because Seashore advances no theory or attempts noexplanation of the relationship between deviation and affective aesthetic experi-ence, his viewpoint lacks substance and plausibility’ (p. 203).

4. The reader may wonder why Clynes’s (1977) work has not been included here.The reason is that independent attempts to replicate his essentic forms have yield-ed mixed results (Gorman and Crain, 1974; Nettelbeck et al., 1989; Trussoni etal., 1988).

5. A computational model means that the relevant relationships are expressed interms of mathematical procedures. The calculations are handled by implement-ing the model in a program, which permits simulation of the phenomenon underinvestigation.

6. Rosenthal and Rubin’s effect size index, pi (π), allows researchers to transformaccuracy scores involving any number of response alternatives to a standardscale of dichotomous choice, on which .50 is the null value and 1.00 correspondsto 100 percent correct recognition.

7. Recall also the use of principles from vocal rhetoric among composers in the 18thcentury.

R E F E R E N C E S

Allison, T., Puce, A. and McCarthy, G. (2000) ‘Social Perception from Visual Cues:Role of the STS Region’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 267–78.

Boyd, J. and George-Warren, H. (1992) Musicians in Tune: Seventy-Five ContemporaryMusicians Discuss the Creative Process. New York: Fireside.

Bregman, A.S. (1990) Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bresin, R. and Friberg, A. (2000) ‘Emotional Coloring of Computer-Controlled MusicPerformance’, Computer Music Journal 24: 44–62.

Bryden, M. P., Ley, R. and Sugerman, J. (1982) ‘A Left-Ear Advantage for Identifyingthe Emotional Quality of Tonal Sequences’, Neuropsychologia 20: 83–7.

Carreras, J. (1992) Sjunga med själen (Singing with soul). Uddevalla: Vocalis.Clarke, E.F. (1988) ‘Generative Principles in Music Performance’, In J.A. Sloboda (ed.)

Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation, andComposition, pp. 1–26. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Clarke, E.F. (1995) ‘Expression in Performance: Generativity, Perception, andSemiosis’, In J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies in MusicalInterpretation, pp. 21–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, E.F. and Windsor, W.L. (2000) ‘Real and Simulated Expression: A ListeningStudy’, Music Perception 17: 277–313.

Clynes, M. (1977) Sentics: The Touch of Emotions. New York: Doubleday.Cohen, R.A., Riccio, C.A. and Flannery, A.M. (1994) ‘Expressive Aprosodia

Following Stroke to the Right Basal Ganglia: A Case Report’, Neuropsychology 8:242–5.

Cook, N. and Dibben, N. (2001) ‘Musicological Approaches to Emotion’, in P.N. Juslinand J.A. Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, pp. 45–70. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Davidson, J.W. and Correia, J.S. (2002) ‘Body Movement’, in R. Parncuttand G.E.McPherson (eds) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: Creative





Strategies for Teaching and Learning, pp. 237–50. New York: Oxford University Press.

Davies, S. (1994) Musical Meaning and Expression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

Dubal, D. (1985) The World of the Concert Pianist: Conversations with 35 InternationallyCelebrated Pianists. London: Victor Gollancz.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989) Human Ethology. New York: Aldine.Epstein, D. (1995) ‘A Curious Moment in Schumann’s Fourth Symphony: Structure

as the Fusion of Affect and Intuition’, in J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance,pp. 126–49. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Farga, F. (1969) Violins and Violinists, 2nd edn. London: The Cresset Press.Friberg, A. (1995) ‘A Quantitative Rule System for Musical Performance’, doctoral dis-

sertation, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.Friberg, A. and Sundberg, J. (1999) ‘Does Music Performance Allude to Locomotion?

A Model of Final Ritardandi Derived from Measurements of Stopping Runners’,Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105: 1469–84.

Friberg, A., Colombo, V., Frydén, L. and Sundberg, J. (2000) ‘Generating MusicalPerformances with Director Musices’, Computer Music Journal 24: 23–9.

Friberg, A., Schoonderwaldt, E., Juslin, P.N. and Bresin, R. (2002) ‘Automatic Real-Time Extraction of Musical Expression’, in Proceedings of the International ComputerMusic Conference, Göteborg, 16–21 September 2002, pp. 365–7. San Francisco:International Computer Music Association.

Gabrielsson, A. (1987) ‘Once Again: The Theme from Mozart’s Piano Sonata in AMajor: A Comparison of Five Performances’, in A. Gabrielsson (ed.) Action andPerception in Rhythm and Music, publication no. 55, pp. 81–103. Stockholm: RoyalSwedish Academy of Music.

Gabrielsson, A. (1999) ‘The Performance of Music’, in D. Deutsch (ed.) The Psychologyof Music, 2nd edn, pp. 501–602. San Diego: Academic Press.

Gabrielsson, A. (2003) ‘Music Performance Research at the Millennium’, Psychologyof Music 31(3): 221–72.

Gabrielsson, A. and Juslin, P.N. (1996) ‘Emotional Expression in Music Performance:Between the Performer’s Intention and the Listener’s Experience’, Psychology ofMusic 24: 68–91.

Gabrielsson, A. and Juslin, P.N. (2003) ‘Emotional Expression in Music’, in R.J. Davidson, H.H. Goldsmith and K.R. Scherer (eds) Handbook of Affective Sciences,pp. 503–34. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gilden, D.L., Thornton, T. and Mallon, M.W. (1995) ‘1/f Noise in Human Cognition’,Science 267: 1837–9.

Gorman, B.S. and Crain, W.C. (1974) ‘Decoding of “sentograms”’, Perceptual andMotor Skills 39: 784–6.

Hallam, S. (1995) ‘Professional Musicians’ Approaches to the Learning andInterpretation of Music’, Psychology of Music 23: 111–28.

Ivry, R.I., Keele, S.W. and Diener, H.C. (1988) ‘Dissociation of the Lateral and MedialCerebellum in Movement Timing and Movement Execution’, Experimental BrainResearch 73: 167–80.

Jansens, S., Bloothooft, G. and De Krom, G. (1997) ‘Perception and Acoustics ofEmotions in Singing’, in Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on SpeechCommunication and Technology, Vol. IV, pp. 2155–8. Rhodes, Greece: ESCA.

Johansson, G. (1973) ‘Visual Perception of Biological Motion and a Model for itsAnalysis’, Perception and Psychophysics 14: 201–11.





Juslin, P.N. (1997a) ‘Emotional Communication in Music Performance: AFunctionalist Perspective and Some Data’, Music Perception 14: 383–418.

Juslin, P.N. (1997b) ‘Perceived Emotional Expression in Synthesized Performances ofa Short Melody: Capturing the Listener’s Judgment Policy’, Musicae Scientiae 1:225–56.

Juslin, P.N. (1997c) ‘Can Results from Studies of Perceived Expression in MusicalPerformances Be Generalized across Response Formats?’, Psychomusicology 16:77–101.

Juslin, P.N. (2000) ‘Cue Utilization in Communication of Emotion in MusicPerformance: Relating Performance to Perception’, Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 1797–813.

Juslin, P.N. (2001) ‘Communicating Emotion in Music Performance: A Review and aTheoretical Framework’, in P.N. Juslin and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion:Theory and Research, pp. 305–33. New York: Oxford University Press.

Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (2000) ‘Improving Emotional Communication in MusicPerformance through Cognitive Feedback’, Musicae Scientiae 4: 151–83.

Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (2001) ‘Impact of Intended Emotion Intensity On CueUtilization and Decoding Accuracy in Vocal Expression of Emotion’, Emotion 1:381–412.

Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (in press) ‘Communication of Emotions in Vocal Expressionand Music Performance: Different Channels, Same Code?’, Psychological Bulletin.

Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (in press) ‘Emotional Expression in Speech and Music:Evidence of Cross-modal Similarities’, in P. Ekman (ed.) Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Juslin, P.N. and Lindström, E. (2003) ‘Musical Expression of Emotions: ModelingComposed and Performed Features’, manuscript in preparation.

Juslin, P.N. and Madison, G. (1999) ‘The Role of Timing Patterns in Recognition ofEmotional Expression from Musical Performance’, Music Perception 17: 197–221.

Juslin, P.N. and Persson, R.S. (2002) ‘Emotional Communication’, in R. Parncutt andG.E. McPherson (eds) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: CreativeStrategies for Teaching and Learning, pp. 219–36. New York: Oxford University Press.

Juslin, P.N. and Sloboda, J.A. (eds) (2001) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research.New York: Oxford University Press.

Juslin, P.N. and Zentner, M.R. (2002) ‘Current Trends in the Study of Music andEmotion: Overture’, Musicae Scientiae (special issue 2001/2): 3–21.

Juslin, P.N., Friberg, A. and Bresin, R. (2002) ‘Toward a Computational Model ofExpression in Music Performance: The GERM Model’, Musicae Scientiae (specialIssue 2001/2): 63–122.

Juslin, P.N., Friberg, A., Schoonderwaldt, E. and Karlsson, J. (in press) ‘Feedback-Learning of Musical Expressivity’, in A. Williamon (ed.) Enhancing MusicalPerformance: A Resource for Performers, Teachers and Researchers. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

King, B.B. (1996) Blues All Around Me. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Konecni, V.J. (1979) ‘Determinants of Aesthetic Preference and Effects of Exposure to

Aesthetic Stimuli: Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Factors’, in B.A. Maher (ed.)Progress in Experimental Personality Research, Vol. 9, pp. 149–97. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Kotlyar, G.M. and Morozov, V.P. (1976) ‘Acoustic Correlates of the Emotional Contentof Vocalized Speech’, Soviet Physics: Acoustics 22: 370–6.





Laukka, P. (2003) ‘Instrumental Music Teachers’ Views on Expressivity: A Reportfrom Music Conservatories’, manuscript submitted for publication.

Leahey, T.H. (1987) A History of Psychology: Main Currents in Psychological Thought.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Levinson, J. (1990) Music, Art, and Metaphysics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Lindström, E., Juslin, P.N., Bresin, R. and Williamon, A. (in press) ‘Expressivity Comes

From Within Your Soul: A Questionnaire Study of Music Students’ Perspectives onExpressivity’, Research Studies in Music Education.

Lippman, E.A. (1953) ‘Symbolism in Music’, Musical Quarterly 39: 554–75.London, J. (2002) ‘Some Theories of Emotion in Music and their Implications for

Research in Music Psychology’, Musicae Scientiae (special issue 2001/2): 23–36.Madison, G. (2000) ‘On the Nature of Variability in Isochronous Serial Interval

Production’, in P. Desain and W.L. Windsor (eds) Rhythm Perception and Production,pp. 95–113. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Maess, B., Koelsch, S., Gunter, T.C. and Friederici, A.D. (2001) ‘Musical Syntax isProcessed in Broca’s Area: A MEG Study’, Nature Neuroscience 4: 540–5.

Menuhin, Y. (1996) Unfinished Journey. London: Methuen.Mergl, R., Piesbergen, C. and Tunner, W. (1998) ‘Musikalisch-improvisatorischer

Ausdruck und erkennen von gefühlsqualitäten’, Musikpsychologie: Jahrbuch derDeutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie 13: 69–81.

Meyer, L.B. (1956) Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Mills, J. (2003) ‘Musical Performance: Crux or Curse of Music Education’, Psychologyof Music 31(3): 324–39.

Natale, M. (1977) ‘Perception of Nonlinguistic Auditory Rhythms by the SpeechHemisphere’, Brain and Language 4: 32–44.

Nettelbeck, T., Henderson, C. and Willson, R. (1989) ‘Communicating Emotionthrough Sound: An Evaluation of Clynes’ Theory of Sentics’, Australian Journal ofPsychology 41: 17–24.

North, A.C. and Hargreaves, D.J. (1997) ‘Experimental Aesthetics and EverydayListening to Music’, in D.J. Hargreaves and A.C. North (eds) The Social Psychology ofMusic, pp. 84–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oatley, K. (1992) Best Laid Schemes: The Psychology of Emotions. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Ochsner, K.N. and Feldman Barrett, L. (2001) ‘A Multiprocess Perspective on theNeuroscience of Emotion’, in T.J. Mayne and G.A. Bonnano (eds) Emotions: CurrentIssues and Future Directions, pp. 38–81. New York: Guilford Press.

Palmer, C. (1996) ‘Anatomy of a Performance: Sources of Musical Expression’, MusicPerception 13: 433–53.

Palmer, C. (1997) ‘Music Performance’, Annual Review of Psychology 48: 115–38.Penel, A. and Drake, C. (1999) ‘Seeking “One” Explanation for Expressive Timing’, in

S.W. Yi (ed.) Music, Mind, and Science, pp. 271–97. Seoul: Seoul National UniversityPress.

Peretz, I. (1990) ‘Processing of Local and Global Musical Information by UnilateralBrain-Damaged Patients’, Brain 113: 1185–205.

Peretz, I., Gagnon, L. and Bouchard, B. (1998) ‘Music and Emotion: PerceptualDeterminants, Immediacy, and Isolation after Brain Damage’, Cognition 68:111–41.

Persson, R.S. (1993) ‘The Subjectivity of Musical Performance: An ExploratoryMusic-Psychological Real World Enquiry into the Determinants and Education of





Musical Reality’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Huddersfield University, UK.Persson, R.S. (2001) ‘The Subjective World of the Performer’, in P.N. Juslin and J.A.

Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Repp, B.H. (1989) ‘Expressive Microstructure in Music: A Preliminary PerceptualAssessment of Four Composers’ “pulses”’, Music Perception 6: 243–74.

Repp, B.H. (1997a) ‘Variability of Timing in Expressive Piano Performance Increaseswith Interval Duration’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4: 530–4.

Repp, B.H. (1997b) ‘The Aesthetic Quality of a Quantitatively Average MusicPerformance: Two Preliminary Experiments’, Music Perception 14: 419–44.

Repp, B.H. (1998) ‘A Microcosm of Musical Expression: I. Quantitative Analyses ofPianists’ Timing in the Initial Measures of Chopin’s Etude in E major’, Journal ofthe Acoustical Society of America 104: 1085–100.

Rink, J. (2003) ‘In Respect of Performance: The View from Musicology’, Psychology ofMusic 31(3): 303–23.

Rohwer, D. (2001) ‘Instrumental Music Students’ Cognitive and PerformanceUnderstanding of Musical Expression’, Journal of Band Research 37: 17–28.

Rostwall, A.-L. and West, T. (2001) ‘Interaktion och kunskapsutveckling (Interactionand Learning: A Study of Music Instrument Teaching), doctoral dissertation (witha summary in English), Stockholm University.

Scherer, K.R. (1986) ‘Vocal Affect Expression: A Review and a Model for FutureResearch’, Psychological Bulletin 99: 143–65.

Scruton, R. (1997) The Aesthetics of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schumacher, M. (1995) Crossroads: The Life and Music of Eric Clapton. New York:

Hyperion.Seashore, C.E. (1938) Psychology of Music. New York: McGraw-Hill.Sergent, J., Zuck, E., Tenial, S. and MacDonall, B. (1992) ‘Distributed Neural Network

Underlying Musical Sight-Reading and Keyboard Performance’, Science 257: 106–9.Shaffer, L.H. (1992) ‘How to Interpret Music’, in M.R. Jones and S. Holleran (eds)

Cognitive Bases of Musical Communication, pp. 263–78. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association (APA).

Shove, P. and Repp, B.H. (1995) ‘Musical Motion and Performance: Theoretical andEmpirical Perspectives’, in J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies inMusical Interpretation, pp. 55–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sloboda, J.A. (1983) ‘The Communication of Musical Metre in Piano Performance’,Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 35: 377–96.

Sloboda, J.A. (1996) ‘The Acquisition of Musical Performance Expertise:Deconstructing the ‘Talent’ Account of Individual Differences in MusicalExpressivity’, in K.A. Ericsson (ed.) The Road to Excellence, pp. 107–26. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Sloboda, J.A. (2000) ‘Individual Differences in Music Performance’, Trends in CognitiveSciences 4: 397–403.

Sloboda, J.A. and Juslin, P.N. (in press) ‘Affektive Prozesse: Emotion, Gefallen undPräferenzen (Affective Processes in Music: Emotion, Liking, and Preference)’, inT.H. Stoffer and R. Oerter (eds) Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Musikpsychologie, Bd.1.Allgemeine Musikpsychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Small, C. (1999) ‘Musicking: The Meanings of Performance and Listening: ALecture’, Music Education Research 1: 9–21.

Spencer, H. (1857) ‘The Origin and Function of Music’, Fraser’s Magazine 56:396–408.





Sundberg, J. (1988) ‘Computer Synthesis of Music Performance’, in J.A. Sloboda (ed.)Generative Processes in Music: The Psychology of Performance, Improvisation, andComposition, pp. 52–69. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tait, M. (1992) ‘Teaching Strategies and Styles’, in R. Colwell (ed.) Handbook ofResearch on Music Teaching and Learning, pp. 525–34. New York: Schirmer Books.

Thompson, W.F., Sundberg, J., Friberg, A. and Frydén, L. (1989) ‘The Use of Rules forExpression in the Performance of Melodies’, Psychology of Music 17: 63–82.

Todd, N. (1985) ‘A Model of Expressive Timing in Tonal Music’, Music Perception 3:33–58.

Todd, N. (1992) ‘The Dynamics of Dynamics: A Model of Musical Expression’, Journalof the Acoustical Society of America 91: 3540–50.

Trussoni, S.J., O’Malley, A. and Barton, A. (1988) ‘Human Emotion Communicationby Touch: A Modified Replication of an Experiment by Manfred Clynes’, Perceptualand Motor Skills 66: 419–24.

Van Oosten, P. (1993) ‘Critical Study of Sundberg’s Rules for Expression in thePerformance of Melodies’, Contemporary Music Review 9: 267–74.

Wing, A. and Kristofferson, A.B. (1973) ‘Response Delays and the Timing of DiscreteMotor Responses’, Perception & Psychophysics 14: 5–12.

Woody, R.H. (1999) ‘The Relationship between Explicit Planning and ExpressivePerformance of Dynamic Variations in an Aural Modeling Task’, Journal ofResearch in Music Education 47: 331–42.

Woody, R.H. (2000) ‘Learning Expressivity in Music Performance: An ExploratoryStudy’, Research Studies in Music Education 14: 14–23.

Woody, R.H. (2002) ‘Emotion, Imagery and Metaphor in the Acquisition of MusicalPerformance Skill’, Music Education Research 4: 213–24.

Yamada, M. (1998) ‘Temporal Fluctuations in Musical Performances: FluctuationsCaused by the Limitations of Performers’ Controllability and by ArtisticExpression’, in S.W. Yi (ed.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on MusicPerception and Cognition, pp. 353–63. Seoul: Seoul National University.

PAT R I K N. J U S L I N is Associate Professor of Psychology at the Department ofPsychology, Uppsala University, Sweden, where he teaches courses on emotion, perception, and music psychology. He is the director of the inter-disciplinary researchproject Feedback-Learning of Musical Expressivity (Feel-ME) (http://www.psyk.uu.se/hemsidor/musicpsy/). He is a member of the International Society for Research onEmotions (ISRE), and received ESCOM’s Young Researcher Award in 1996. He co-edit-ed the book Music and Emotion (Oxford University Press, 2001) with John Sloboda. Aswell as his work as a researcher, Juslin has worked professionally as a guitar playerand toured internationally with blues/jazz bands.Address: Patrik N. Juslin, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE– 751 42 Uppsala, Sweden. [email: [email protected]]





five facets of musical expression: a psychologist's perspective on music performance

Documents