juslin, p. n. (2003). five facets of musical expression. a psychologist's perspective on music...

7/30/2019 Juslin, P. N. (2003). Five Facets of Musical Expression. a Psychologist's Perspective on Music Performance. Psychology of Music, 31(3), 273-302

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/juslin-p-n-2003-five-facets-of-musical-expression-a-psychologists 1/31

http://pom.sagepub.com

Psychology of Music

DOI: 10.1177/03057356030313003

2003; 31; 273Psychology of Music Patrik N. Juslin

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

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at:Psychology of Music Additional 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/cgi/content/refs/31/3/273SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 44 articles hosted on theCitations

© 2003 Society for Education, Music, and Psychology Research. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 17, 2008http://pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.sempre.org.uk/


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


http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions



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



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


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


http://pom.sagepub.com/












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

273A R T I C L E

Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music

Copyright ©

Society for Education,

Music and Psychology

Research

vol (): ‒

[- ()

:; ‒; ]

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

A B S T R A C T The aim of this article is to outline a psychological approach to

expression in music performance that could help to provide a solid foundation for

the teaching of expressive skills in music education. Drawing on previous

research, the author suggests that performance expression is best conceptualized

as a multi-dimensional phenomenon consisting of five primary components: (a)

Generative rules that function to clarify the musical structure; (b) Emotional

expression that serves to convey intended emotions to listeners; (c) Random

variations that reflect human limitations with regard to internal time-keeper

variance and motor delays; (d) Motion principles that prescribe that some aspects

of the performance (e.g. timing) should be shaped in accordance with patterns of

biological motion; and (e) Stylistic unexpectedness that involves local deviations

from performance conventions. An analysis of performance expression in termsof these five components – collectively referred to as the GERMS model – has

important implications for research and teaching of music performance.

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

performance

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 the

music 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 four

octaves, played staccato in a single stroke of the bow . . . Then came a noble,moving theme, which sounded as though a human voice was singing . . . After

the seemingly endless applause had subsided, Paganini began to play the second

movement. It was an adagio, and showed the virtuoso from quite a different

angle. There were none of the devilish tricks that had stunned the audience

during 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 :








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 his

very soul . . . The audience sat as though paralysed until the rhythm of a grace-

ful rondo changed their mood . . . an infinitely tender pizzicato accompanied the

melody, 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 Vienna

1828, 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 connection

between music and expression of emotions, the notion that expression is

embodied 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’ commonly

attributed to the expressive virtuoso.1 Could researchers ever hope to explain

this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon? Judging from the comments by

some performers, we would be inclined to think not (Dubal, 1985). As noted

by Sloboda (2000), ‘the folk psychology of the musical world can often seem

to be designed to keep the answers shrouded in mystery’ (p. 398). Yet I believe

that it is not only possible for psychologists to investigate musical expression

successfully, it is a matter of responsibility. I argue that the primary aim of a

psychological 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 it

is 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. I

believe it is time for psychologists to reclaim the study of expression.2 Many, if

not all, issues concerning expression are such that they can be resolved

empirically.

Why do I regard expression as the primary topic? Because expression is

largely what makes music performance worthwhile. It is expression that

makes people go through all sorts of trouble to hear human performances

rather than the ‘dead-pan’ renditions of computers; it is expression that

makes possible new and insightful interpretations of familiar works; and it is

on the basis of expressive features that we prefer one performer rather than

another. 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 the

importance attributed to expression in music performance, there is evidence

that expressive skills are often ignored in teaching (e.g. Persson, 1993;

Rostwall and West, 2001; Tait, 1992). As I have noted elsewhere (e.g. Juslin

and 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 address

them through theoretically informed teaching. Thus, a proper and scientifi-

cally grounded understanding of the mechanisms that underlie musical

expression has scientific as well as social and educational implications

(Sloboda, 2000).

In this article, I consider the role of the performer in musical expression. I

want to convince the reader that performance expression is a problem

amenable to empirical investigation, and that psychological theory is critical

to 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, this

issue). Often, a purely descriptive approach has been taken, in accordance

with the tradition first established by Seashore (1938) and his co-workers. As

a consequence, the notion of expression has been poorly conceptualized.3

Matters of expression have largely been reduced to tables or graphs of

acoustic data, whereas the question of what these data actually tell us about

the 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 a

theoretical organization of the field. In my view, a psychological approach toperformance expression should consider how this phenomenon reflects basic

human abilities and characteristics that are not necessarily unique to the

musical domain. Recent research reviewed in this article will provide some

support for this view.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: first, I provide

working definitions of interpretation, expression and communication, and

consider problems in performance research that have prevented cumulative

progress. Second, I outline a psychological approach to musical expression

that distinguishes five aspects of expression. Unfortunately there are few

attempts to integrate these different aspects; and so, I outline a meta theory of

music performance, which is an attempt to integrate different aspects of

expression. Not very surprisingly, empirical findings derived from this model

suggest that emotion is a major aspect of expression. Therefore I briefly

review findings about emotion in music performance. Finally, I consider

various implications of a psychological approach for performance research

and music education, and also acknowledge some limitations of this

approach.

Juslin: Five facets of musical expression 275








Working definitionsInterpretation, expression and communication are complex concepts, and no

matter what I say about them here, I am sure that this article will not be the

final word on these topics. However, for the practical purposes of this article,

we need to have at least preliminary working definitions of each term. The

term interpretation typically refers to the individualistic shaping of a piece

according to the musical ideas of the performer (Palmer, 1997: 119). This

might 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 (in

how it is played). The process of interpretation is still little investigated (but

see 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’s

intentions) (Lindström et al., in press; Persson, 2001: 278–81).

Expression, in my view, refers to a set of perceptual qualities that reflect

psychophysical relationships between ‘objective’ properties of the music, and

‘subjective’ (or, rather, objective but partly person-dependent) impressions of

the listener. Expression does not reside solely in the acoustic properties of the

music (different listeners may perceive the expression differently), nor does it

reside solely in the mind of the listener (different listeners usually agree about

the general nature of the expression in a performance). Expression depends

on both of these factors, in ways that, although complex, can be modelled in a

systematic fashion (Juslin, 2000). Our perception of expressive music per-formances reminds us, somehow, of the ways humans express their states of

mind in real life (why would we otherwise use the term expression in the first

place?). Indeed, we have an ‘anthropomorphic’ tendency to perceive expres-

sive form even in inanimate objects (e.g. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). Occasionally

the perception of an expressive performance will also evoke an emotion in the

listener (he or she is ‘moved’), or even an aesthetic response (a more complex

and profound response that involves emotional, cognitive and social factors;

Konecni, 1979), but such a response is not required for a listener to hear the

music as expressive (Davies, 1994). The emotion induced in the listener may

be 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 does

music express. A survey of the literature suggests a large number of different

ideas about what music may express. Music has been regarded as expressive

of emotion, physical aspects (motion, force), tension and release, personality

characteristics, beauty, events, objects, musical conventions, religious belief

and 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 these

qualities. One problem with this generous approach is that it tends to

embrace 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 the

music. It seems more fruitful to look for expressive aspects that relate to the

nature of the music, at least if we want to explain performance expression.

A more restrictive approach to expression that is common in research

holds that music is expressive of a certain quality only to the extent that there

is some minimum level of agreement among the listeners (presumably

because 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 (although

the expression could, of course, change rapidly during the piece). In such

cases of intersubjective agreement, we may be inclined to say that ‘this piece

has a sad expression’. But note that expression (as defined here) does not

require an expressive intention.

The concept of communication (of emotion, for instance), in contrast, goes

further: accurate communication, I believe, requires that there is both a per-

former’s intention to express a specific concept and recognition of this concept

by a listener. Perhaps, it may seem strange to talk about communication

accuracy in the context of music. Still, most performers are probably – or

should be – worried about whether their musical interpretation is actually

perceived 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, for

instance, 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 a

measure of the accuracy of the communication. (Precisely which perceptual

qualities I think are involved in performance expression is discussed later in

the description of a psychological approach.)

Problems in research on performance expression

To do music performance justice as a meaningful event in a particular time

and place, with certain individuals taking part (Small, 1999), we would have

to take into account a very large set of complicated real-world relationships.

To get some sense of the difficulties involved in such an endeavour, consider

the list of factors that – in principle – may influence expression (Table 1). As

can be seen, this includes numerous factors related to the piece, the instru-

ment, the performer, the listener and the performance context (for further

discussion 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 the

Western world, at least). In practice, this has meant focusing on measure-

ment of performances, with occasional attempts to relate the measures to

other aspects (e.g. the score, the performer’s intention, the listener’s percep-

tion, etc.). Yet, even with this narrow focus researchers have been struggling

to 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


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

Type Examples of factors

Piece-related The musical composition itself

Notational variants of the piece

Consultations with composer or composer’s written comments

Musical style/genre

Instrument-related Acoustic parameters available

Instrument-specific aspects of timbre, pitch, etc.

Technical difficulties of the instrument

Performer-related The performer’s structural interpretation

The performer’s expressive intention with regard to the moodof the piece

The performer’s emotion-expressive style

The performer’s technical skill

The performer’s motor precision

The performer’s mood while playing

The performer’s interaction with co-performers

The performer’s perception of/interaction with audience

Listener-related The listener’s music preferences

The listener’s music expertise

The listener’s personality

The listener’s current mood

The listener’s state of attention

Context-related Acoustics

Sound technology

Listening context (e.g. recording, concert)

Other individuals present

Visual performance conditions

Larger cultural and historic setting

Whether 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 relevant

acoustic variables (Palmer, 1997). There are currently some promising

attempts 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 be

solved. The most serious problem for studies of performance is perhaps not to

obtain sufficient amounts of data, but rather to find ways of interpreting the

wealth 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 in

explaining expression has been the common tendency to regard expression as

a single entity, a homogeneous natural category. Given the controversy that

has surrounded the concept of expression throughout history (Davies,

1994), it is perhaps understandable that many researchers have tended to

leave the concept undefined or simply ‘defined’ it in terms of ‘deviations from

the 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’, without

specifying what is meant by the term expression (the expression is simply

‘appropriate’, ‘exaggerated’, or ‘lacking’). There is no serious consideration of

what is expressed, or how it is expressive, which implies that there is only one

way of performing expressively (by ‘appropriate expressive deviations’). Attimes, it seems that expression is simply equated with everything that might

be 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 and

teach expression (‘Put some expression into it’). I reject on empirical grounds

the idea that music can be expressive ‘in general’ without being expressive in

some particular way, because any music performance has certain acoustic

features 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 are

expressive.)

Even more important, the expressive variations that are typically found in

a human music performance are not all of the same kind; they do not all

share the same origins, and they should therefore not all be taught in the

same manner. In my estimation, the ‘single-factor approach’ to expression

has contributed to the fragmented state of affairs in studies of performance. It

has not encouraged integrative attempts even among researchers who have

recognized 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 these

components are is a theoretical and empirical matter. In the following discus-

sion, I take stock of what previous research on music performance can teach

us about this problem.

A psychological approach to performance expression

The ultimate goal of research on expression in music performance is to

understand what, exactly, the performer ‘adds’ to a written piece of music. It

may be instructive to look closer at what this endeavour actually entails.

Performance researchers are faced with complex patterns of behaviour; they

must describe and explain the nature and origin of intricate patterns of vari-ability in acoustic measures shown over the time-course of a performance of

music (see Figure 1). The problem is that ‘using measurements of actual per-

formances alone, it is difficult to separate the effects of combined, though

psychologically distinct, expressive actions’ (Thompson et al., 1989: 64). This

explains 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’s

Piano 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. One

heuristic tool could be to rely on the advice of professional performers, as

shown by the work by Sundberg (1988) and co-workers. However, perform-

ers are commonly unable to explain the details of how they apply expressive

features (Sloboda, 1996). Psychologists early realized the limitations of intro-

spection in explaining psychological mechanisms (e.g. Leahey, 1987), and

many of the mechanisms that underlie music performance are clearly not

available to introspection. What is needed, I believe, is a psychological theory

of expression. What would such a theory look like?

First, a psychological approach would involve an attempt to go beyond the

performance and to consider the nature of the person behind the perform-

ance. ‘What are the proximate and ultimate causes of the behaviour inthe performer, and how can we make sense of this behaviour from what we

know about humans?’ Second (and partly as a consequence of what we know

about humans), it would have to be a component approach. Some researchers

have 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 is

bound 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 to

as 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-called

generative approach (Clarke, 1988). In this line of research, expression is

regarded 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 and

articulation, 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) have

a strong tendency to be determined by the phrase structure; phrase endings

are usually marked with decreases in tempo, and the amount of slowing

reflects the depth of embedding in the hierarchical structure (Todd, 1985; see

also Figure 1). This is the most well-studied aspect of expression, and to the

extent that a performer aims to clarify the structure, we may explain part of

the variance in the acoustic features. However, the absence of a generally

accepted 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 specific

musical styles. The generative approach dominated research on music per-

formance until the 1990s (for excellent reviews, see Clarke, 1988, 1995). But

there 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), ‘a

performer 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 indicated

that professional performers are able to communicate discrete emotions to lis-teners. To accomplish this goal, the performers use a large number of

acoustic variables in the performance. For example, if a performer would like

to express tenderness in a performance, he or she may use slow tempo, low

sound 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 actually

the last to receive attention in performance research, but it could well be one

of the most crucial as far as music performers and listeners are concerned

(see Lindström et al., in press; Persson, 2001). One reason for the relative

neglect of this component may be that it not always operates on the explicit

level that is required in order to study it empirically. (The emotion component

is 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 in

domains other than music is random variability. It appears to be generally

agreed that human music performance is not controlled by a completely

deterministic motor-system (e.g. Repp, 1997a; Yamada, 1998). Performance

expression always contains some random fluctuations, although they may be

quite small. How is this feature relevant in understanding expression, espe-

cially since practice usually aims at minimizing error? From an aesthetical

point of view, random variations contribute to the ‘living’ character of music

– that slight unpredictability that makes each performance absolutely

unique. Research on human limitations in perceptual-motor skills, mainly

studies of isochronous interval finger tapping, have revealed that the random

variations have certain characteristics: (1) the magnitude of random fluctua-

tions increases with inter-onset-interval duration, so that longer intervals

tend 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 the

mean 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 tapping

data; Madison, 2000); and (4) the random fluctuations may be successfully

simulated by a combination of 1/f noise and white noise, two kinds of

random variability (Gilden et al., 1995). Although these random variations

are subtle – in expert performance, at least – they do contribute to the sound

of 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 common

assumption that music and motion are closely related to one another.However, this hypothesis needs to be made more specific to be useful. Shove

and Repp (1995) argue that ‘without proper constraint the idea that change

in 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 motion

called biological motion (e.g. Johansson, 1973). This refers to the dynamic

patterns of movement that are characteristic of humans. It should be noted

that such patterns in music performance may be of two kinds. First, it can be

assumed that performers intentionally (though not necessarily consciously)

try to re-create such patterns. Shove and Repp propose that an aesthetically

pleasing performance is ‘one whose expressive microstructure satisfies basic

constraints of biological motion’ (p. 78). One example is the shaping of final

ritardandi. Friberg and Sundberg (1999) showed that final ritardandi of music 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-intentional

patterns of variability that reflect anatomical constraints of the body in con-

nection with motor requirements of specific musical instruments (e.g. Penel

and Drake, 1999).

STYLISTIC UNEXPECTEDNESS (S)An additional way in which a performance may be expressive involves the

fact that musical emotions often occur when musical expectations are violat-

ed in some way. Thus, Meyer (1956) suggested that expressive variations in a

music performance may serve an aesthetic function by ‘delaying an expected

resolution’, or otherwise ‘creating psychological tension’ (p. 206). This could

happen when a performer deviates from stylistic expectations with regard to

performance conventions for a certain part of the structure. For example, the

performer might be expected to clarify the structure in a certain manner (as

described by generative rules), but instead he or she does something com-

pletely different. This momentarily creates psychological tension that is

resolved 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 at

first, and upon such irregular notes as shall instill a terror as well as surprise

into the audience, who will immediately conclude that the whole concert is

degenerating into a dreadful dissonance; and betraying [them] by that means

into 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 to

see 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 of

expression, see, for example, Repp (1997b). No attempt has yet been made to

model this component in terms of expressive rules, perhaps because of the

paradox inherent in developing rules for how to break other rules, and the

difficulty in deciding precisely on what basis such rule breaking is done (not

all rule breaking is musically satisfying).

T OWA RD S A T H EO RY O F P E RF O RMA NC E E X PR E SS ION: T HE G ER MS M OD EL

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 of

various models of music performance, see Gabrielsson, 1999, 2003, thisissue.) Therefore, I propose a model of expression – the GERMS model – that

integrates different facets of expression (see also Juslin et al., 2002). The

assumption 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, it

can 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 to

make a unique contribution to the emotional and aesthetic impact of a given

performance. Although the aesthetic impact of a music performance is a

complex 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 2

shows some of the hypothesized characteristics of the components. The

G-component originates in generative transformations of the notated musical

structure, and reflects basic characteristics of human cognition, such as cate-

gorical perception and gestalt laws (Bregman, 1990). It recruits the human

capacity for syntactical processing, which is also involved in language. A

positron-emission tomography study of sight reading in piano performance

showed activated cortical brain areas distinct from, but adjacent to, those

underlying language operations (Sergent et al., 1992), consistent with the

task of translating a generative structure in a musical notation into expres-

sive markings of structure. A magnetoencephalography study of musical

perception 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 structure

of the music. By conveying the structure and creating coherence and order,

generative rules add to the beauty of the music. They may further have an

arousing effect, but mainly by enhancing the emotional impact inherent in

the structure.

The E-component originates in emotion-specific patterns of cues in vocal

expression (Juslin and Laukka, in press) and reflects evolutionary ancient

human abilities for non-verbal communication of emotion. This involves a

large set of probabilistic (uncertain) albeit partly redundant cues that are

additive and compensatory in nature (one cue can to some extent compen-sate for another, see Juslin, 2000). Perception of the E-component can be

instantaneous (Peretz et al., 1998) and involves parallel processing mainly in

the right hemisphere of the brain (Bryden et al., 1982), perhaps in the basal

ganglia, which are involved in perception of emotion in vocal expression

(Cohen et al., 1994). The E-component is mainly top-down (i.e. a holistic

interpretation of the mood of the piece influences local acoustic parameters),

and offers a parallel channel of affective information, which may support or

contradict 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’ and

associated motor delays (Gilden et al., 1995), and reflects human limitations

regarding 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 motor

delays that are constant across different inter-onset-interval durations. It

may be hypothesized that the internal time-keeper is localized in the lateral

and medial parts of the cerebellum (see Ivry et al., 1988). This component









T A B L E 2 Summary of hypotheses regarding the primary components of performance expression according to the GERMS mode

Component

Characteristic G E R M

Origin of pattern Generative Emotion-specific Internal timekeeper Biological motion

transformations of patterns of acoustic and motor delay distinct patterns o

the musical structure cues deriving from variance reflecting movement typica

vocal expression human limitations of human beings

Nature of pattern Local expressive Mainly overall levels Semi-random patterns Dynamic, non-

features related to of multiple uncertain, 1/f noise and white compensatory

the 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

(adjacent to Broca’s (the basal ganglia) parts of the (adjacent to the

area) cerebellum, plus the superior tempora

motor cortex sulcus)

Perceptual effects Clarifies structure; Expresses emotions Generates a ‘living’ Yields expressive

affects the inherent and moods (mainly in and natural quality form that is simila

expression of a piece broad categories of to human gesture

emotion)

Knowledge dependence Medium Low None Low

Aesthetic contribution Beauty, order, Recognition, arousal, Unevenness, novelty Balance, unity,

coherence personal expression recognition

Under voluntary control Yes, mostly Yes No Yes, partly

© 2 0

0 3 S o ci e t yf or E d u c a t i on ,M u si c , an d P s y ch ol o g yR e s e ar ch .A

l l r i gh t sr e s er v e d .N o t f or c omm er ci al u s e or un a u t h or i z e d d i s t

r i b u t i on.

a t

P E N N

S Y L V A N I A

S T A T E

U N I V

onA

pr i l 1 7

,2

0 0 8

h t t p: / / p

om. s

a g e p u b . c

om

D ownl o

a d e d f r om




























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 (biological

motion), like arm gestures, which reflect the unique construction of the

human body (e.g. the unique composite of anatomical proportions, including

both geometrical dimensions and distribution of mass between parts of the

body). Perception of the M-component partly reflects the human ability to

distinguish animate objects from inanimate objects on the basis of patterns of

sounds, 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 regions

adjacent to those that analyse biological motion in vision, like the superior

temporal sulcus (Allison et al., 2000). The M-component contributes to therecognition aspect of art – by signalling human intentionality – but also

lends 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 of

such expectations that may give rise to emotional arousal, signalling that

something important has happened. This notion is recurrent in psychological

theories of emotion since the beginning of the 20th century (e.g. Oatley, 1992).

As regards music performance, I have hypothesized that the S-component

reflects a performer’s deliberate attempt to deviate from stylistic expectations

concerning performance conventions in order to add tension and unpre-

dictability to the performance. The S-component involves locally focused

expressive features that contribute to the novelty, originality and arousalaspects of art. Monitoring of expectations is believed to be processed by parts

of the anterior cingulate cortex (Ochsner and Feldman Barrett, 2001). What

is the relationship of the S-component to the others? My guess is that the first

four components are sufficient to achieve an acceptable performance, but that

the S-component is what makes a performance really special. Thus, much of

the artistic process aims at turning GERM performances into GEMS. That is,

reducing random fluctuations to a minimum and increasing the originality of

the musical interpretation.

A PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION

Can this kind of psychological theory be turned into something useful in

empirical terms? In a recent study, we made the first attempt to implement a

component 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, Emotional

expression, Random variability, Motion principles), since we had not figured

out how to implement the fifth component, S, at the time. The model takes as

its input (a) a musical notation, and (b) a performer interpretation. We

assume 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 patterns

of expression. Space does not permit description of the rules, but some of

them are derived from the KTH rule system (see Friberg, 1995), others were

presented in Juslin et al. (2002). In a preliminary experiment, a subset of the

rules 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 would

yield at least partly independent effects on these judgements (for further

information about this experiment, see Juslin et al., 2002). The basic idea was

to 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 only

the G-component present and all other components absent would include

only those rules that serve to convey the structure to listeners. We asked

musically trained listeners to rate all 16 performances on scales believed to

reflect 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. For

instance, the G-component yielded high ratings on the ‘clear’ scale; the E-

component yielded high ratings on the ‘sad’ scale; and the M-component

yielded high ratings on the ‘gestural’ scale. Multiple regression analyses

revealed 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 judged

expressivity; R = .77, F(4,184) = 66.143, p < .0001, with beta weights in

order 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 interactions

were actually significant, and the interaction effects were smaller than the

main effects. Finally, the components produced different and at least partly

independent 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, but

low 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 model

suggests that different aspects of performance expression can be integrated









into a common model. The reader may disagree with me about the specifics of this 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 are

unaware of the different aspects of performance expression, or ignore some

of 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 more

sophisticated systems for synthesis of music performances, such as Director

Musices (Friberg et al., 2000), may not have sufficiently differentiated between

different kinds of expressive features. The rules in Director Musices were

simply designed to make a synthesized music performance sound as good as

possible, without categorizing expressive features theoretically. This makes

perfect 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 certain

musical instruments are mixed with rules that convey structure (Friberg,

1995), and rules that function to convey structure are ‘turned backwards’ to

express emotions (Bresin and Friberg, 2000). A genuine understanding of

performance 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 differences

among performers. Different performers may be characterized in terms of

the relative weights they give to different aspects of expression. (Some may

emphasize 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 less

important to the blues guitarist. Finally, a componential approach might help

to 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 explained

by the fact that these studies have investigated different components of

expression (e.g. generative structure vs emotional expression).

How can we be sure that the particular components I have postulated are

the appropriate ones? This is, ultimately, an empirical question, which is far

from settled. I remain open to the possibility that a different set of components

can 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 this

problem. As should be apparent, I hypothesize that all components in the

GERMS model have their origins in human phenomena outside the music

domain. (From this perspective, it may be premature to view some compo-

nents as more ‘musical’ than others.) Thus, one implication of the GERMS

model 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 many

different aspects of human behaviour in a wonderful way. It also implies that

psychological theory about various aspects of human behaviour such as lan-

guage, emotion, motor-coordination, movement and expectancy may be

highly relevant to an understanding of performance expression.

IMPL ICAT ION S F O R MU SIC E D UC AT ION

The GERMS model offers an example of how research could benefit teaching

by 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 myths

about 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 completely

subjective quality, which cannot be explained in scientific terms. However, as

demonstrated by the GERM study, acoustic correlates of perceived expression

can 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 to

teaching of expression.

One implication is that, at certain stages of learning, different aspects of

expression 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 from

stylistic expectations in creative and aesthetically pleasing ways. The convey-

ing of structure (G) is perhaps the aspect that has received most attention in

music education, presumably because it is the most tangible aspect; ‘struc-

ture can be seen, heard, demonstrated’ (Epstein, 1995: 126). Certainly there

is no substitute for a thorough understanding of the musical structure in

shaping an interpretation. This aspect of expression may be guided by struc-

tural analysis, by consulting the composer’s writings, and also by studying

visual graphs of performance variables alongside the score. The motion com-

ponent (M) can be trained by using some of the methods outlined by

Davidson and Correia (2002: 246–7), like having a student conduct the

expression in the playing of the teacher, and developing a non-verbal narra-

tive of physical gesture for individual phrases. The stylistic unexpectedness

component (S) requires extensive knowledge of musical styles and perform-

ance conventions, and an ability to conceive of the performance structure in

terms of a ‘narrative’ of musical expectations that may be experimented with

in 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 more

attention to the emotion component of expression. And, so, in the final part

of my article, I turn specifically to emotion.

Emotion and communication

Although music and emotion is a topic that has attracted much interest since

ancient Greece (Juslin and Sloboda, 2001; Sloboda and Juslin, in press), a sys-

tematic research program on emotions in music performance did not take off

until the 1990s. There are several reasons for this: first, the structuralist

approach in musicology rendered expressive aspects of music off-limits for

research until the rise of the ‘new’ musicology (see Cook and Dibben, 2001).

Second, researchers may have sensed ‘a general aversion among musicians to

scientific study of music, especially when related to topics such as emotion,

expression and aesthetics’ (Woody, 2002: 214). Finally, although it may

appear obvious to the reader that emotion is strongly related to musical

expression, this very idea has been questioned by some authors. On what

basis can we claim that expression is about emotion, or even communication

of 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 et

al., in press). When directly asked whether music expresses emotions, 99 per-

cent of the musicians thought that this was the case. Numerous biographies

and interviews with performers confirm that they conceive of expression in

terms 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 argued

that music is ‘absolute’ and ‘expresses nothing but itself’, but this is simply

not how most people think of music.

When Small (1999) argues, plausibly, that the origins of ‘musicking’ (a

term 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 we

affirm and explore our human relationships, it is perplexing that he deniesthat this involves communication of emotion, which is at the very heart of

human relationships:

. . . to my mind the idea of music . . . as the communication of emotions doesn’t

jibe at all with my own experience. I cannot remember ever being happy by a

happy piece of music, or sad by a sad piece of music, and I am not sure I could

tell 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 do

not claim that communication is the sole or main purpose of music, but 83

percent of music students in a questionnaire study claim that they try to

express specific emotions in their performance ‘always’ or ‘often’ (Lindström

et al., in press), and we know that listeners are able to recognize at least

certain emotions expressed by performers (Juslin, 2001). This suggests that

the concept of communication is viable in music, even if not every instant

of music performance may be an example of the phenomenon. To what

extent do music performers actually succeed in communicating emotions to

listeners?

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 performers

are able to communicate basic emotions (happiness, anger, sadness, fear, ten-

derness) to listeners with an accuracy approximately as high as in facial and

vocal 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 task

with five response alternatives (i.e. the average number of emotions included

in studies of music performance so far).6 Amateur musicians communicate

emotions 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 of

emotion 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 performances

intended to express, say, anger and jealousy sound exactly the same or that

listeners cannot hear a difference, it is just that they are not able to tell which

performance is which. It has been argued by some authors that the specific

ordering of successive emotional states could help to communicate subtler or

more complex states (Levinson, 1990). This is an interesting possibility, but it

remains 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 in

this article, musical expression involves a lot more than just emotion; and

sometimes musicians may deliberately aim for emotional ambiguity.)

Many studies have tried to capture the acoustic cues that musicians use to

convey specific emotions (e.g. Jansens et al., 1997; Juslin, 1997a; Juslin and

Madison, 1999; Kotlyar and Morozov, 1976; Mergl et al., 1998). These cues

involve changes in tempo, sound level, articulation, timbre, timing, tone

attack 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 and

Lindström, 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 often

change quickly within a piece, or even within a single note. Thus we have

recently experimented with real-time analysis of emotional expression over

time (Friberg et al., 2002). That the relevant cues have been described may be

confirmed by programming synthesized performances of music on the basis

of 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 (presumably

because they lack other components of expression).

An important question concerns the origins of the acoustic cues used by

performers. Some authors have argued that emotions expressed in musichave nothing in common with other forms of expression: ‘Musical feelings

have their own character . . . the emotions [music] formulates are not identical

with 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 musical

cues used to convey discrete emotions mainly derives from the non-verbal

aspects of emotional speech (Juslin and Laukka, in press), as proposed by

Spencer (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 reason

why 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 that

this helps the performer to connect with fundamental principles of vocal

expression of emotion.7

Although it may be tempting to connect musical expression of emotion to

motion (Woody, 2002), a theoretically more plausible and parsimonious view

holds that the origin of the emotion component is to be found in involuntary

and 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 emotions

not just the code but also the coding: the cues used to express emotions are

uncertain but redundant to some extent, as conceptualized by the lens model

(Juslin, 2000). This can account for some interesting phenomena, for

instance that communication of emotion in music is generally successful

despite individual differences in utilization of acoustic cues among both per-

formers and listeners (Juslin, 2000) and different cues available on different

musical instruments (Juslin and Laukka, in press).

I envisage several important directions for future research. First, there has

been 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 important

that basic research is turned into useful applications for performers. We are

thus currently trying to develop computer software that may provide per-

formers with detailed feedback about their performances (Juslin et al., in

press). Finally, it is crucial to explore how the emotion component interacts

with other components of expression in yielding an expressive performance,

which could explored by means of theoretical models (e.g. along the lines of

the 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 first

learns to play a musical instrument, studies of music performance have pro-

gressed from a consideration of basic principles of expression (e.g. how does

the performer convey the phrase structure?) towards more subtle and individ-

ualistic aspects (e.g. what makes a performance truly special?). But music has

been played since the beginning of recorded time whereas psychological stud-

ies of music performance have been conducted for only a century; perhaps

researchers should be excused for not having reached the same level of

sophistication as the performers?

There are many limitations of the psychological approach to performanceexpression. One limitation involves the fact that psychological research

requires that all relevant concepts are formally operationalized, so that they

can 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 of

complexity. At the same time, musicians must also appreciate the conditions

under which empirical research is carried out. Seemingly ‘crude’ models,

for instance, could reflect practical limitations rather than insensitivity

regarding musical matters. (The GERM model, for example, is admittedly sim-

ple as compared to the long list of factors that can influence performance

expression in Table 1. Still, you might be surprised how complicated that

model is!)

Practical limitations of a psychological approach are perhaps redeemed by

the power with which experiments allow us to draw valid conclusions about

causal relationships. Thus, folk theories of expression may ultimately be

replaced, or at least improved, by empirically validated knowledge. Such a

development may be welcomed by some performers (Dubal, 1985: 250), but

not 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 I

believe that musicians and researchers have much to learn from each other.

Art and science share many characteristics: they are both interesting ways of

exploring the world around us; they both involve creativity; and they both

provide certain perspectives or ways of looking at the world. However, I

believe that we must accept that there will always be some tension between

art and science, since art and science, ultimately, have different aims. Thus,

for instance, research on performance expression aims to develop general

models (i.e. simplified descriptions and explanations of a specific phenome-non), whereas the performing artist often strives to create something unique

and personal. (The scientist usually opts out at the point where the artist

thinks 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 may

not be the most useful approach to performance as a researcher, given the

quite different aims of these endeavours. But there is one important reason

why we should at least try to establish some common ground: the teaching of

performance expression clearly appears to benefit from explicit instruction

and 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 of

expressive 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 can

learn 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. The

research 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 itself

easily to applications in music education. To take but one example: which music

teacher 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 no

explanation 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 et

al., 1988).

5. A computational model means that the relevant relationships are expressed in

terms of mathematical procedures. The calculations are handled by implement-

ing the model in a program, which permits simulation of the phenomenon under

investigation.

6. Rosenthal and Rubin’s effect size index, pi (π), allows researchers to transform

accuracy scores involving any number of response alternatives to a standard

scale of dichotomous choice, on which .50 is the null value and 1.00 corresponds

to 100 percent correct recognition.

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

century.

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 Contemporary

Musicians 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 Music

Performance’, Computer Music Journal 24: 44–62.

Bryden, M. P., Ley, R. and Sugerman, J. (1982) ‘A Left-Ear Advantage for Identifying

the 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, and

Composition, pp. 1–26. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Clarke, E.F. (1995) ‘Expression in Performance: Generativity, Perception, and

Semiosis’, In J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies in Musical

Interpretation, pp. 21–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, E.F. and Windsor, W.L. (2000) ‘Real and Simulated Expression: A Listening

Study’, 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. Juslin

and J.A. Sloboda (eds) Music and Emotion: Theory and Research, pp. 45–70. New

York: 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 UniversityPress.

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

Press.

Dubal, D. (1985) The World of the Concert Pianist: Conversations with 35 Internationally

Celebrated 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 Musical

Performances 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 Computer

Music 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 A

Major: A Comparison of Five Performances’, in A. Gabrielsson (ed.) Action and

Perception in Rhythm and Music, publication no. 55, pp. 81–103. Stockholm: Royal

Swedish Academy of Music.

Gabrielsson, A. (1999) ‘The Performance of Music’, in D. Deutsch (ed.) The Psychology

of Music, 2nd edn, pp. 501–602. San Diego: Academic Press.Gabrielsson, A. (2003) ‘Music Performance Research at the Millennium’, Psychology

of 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 of

Music 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 and

Motor Skills 39: 784–6.

Hallam, S. (1995) ‘Professional Musicians’ Approaches to the Learning and

Interpretation of Music’, Psychology of Music 23: 111–28.

Ivry, R.I., Keele, S.W. and Diener, H.C. (1988) ‘Dissociation of the Lateral and Medial

Cerebellum in Movement Timing and Movement Execution’, Experimental Brain

Research 73: 167–80.

Jansens, S., Bloothooft, G. and De Krom, G. (1997) ‘Perception and Acoustics of

Emotions in Singing’, in Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Speech

Communication and Technology, Vol. IV, pp. 2155–8. Rhodes, Greece: ESCA.

Johansson, G. (1973) ‘Visual Perception of Biological Motion and a Model for its

Analysis’, 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 of

a 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 Musical

Performances Be Generalized across Response Formats?’, Psychomusicology 16:

77–101.

Juslin, P.N. (2000) ‘Cue Utilization in Communication of Emotion in Music

Performance: Relating Performance to Perception’, Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 1797–813.

Juslin, P.N. (2001) ‘Communicating Emotion in Music Performance: A Review and a

Theoretical 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 Music

Performance through Cognitive Feedback’, Musicae Scientiae 4: 151–83.

Juslin, P.N. and Laukka, P. (2001) ‘Impact of Intended Emotion Intensity On Cue

Utilization 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 Expression

and 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 York

Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Juslin, P.N. and Lindström, E. (2003) ‘Musical Expression of Emotions: Modeling

Composed and Performed Features’, manuscript in preparation.

Juslin, P.N. and Madison, G. (1999) ‘The Role of Timing Patterns in Recognition of

Emotional Expression from Musical Performance’, Music Perception 17: 197–221. Juslin, P.N. and Persson, R.S. (2002) ‘Emotional Communication’, in R. Parncutt and

G.E. McPherson (eds) The Science and Psychology of Music Performance: Creative

Strategies 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 and

Emotion: Overture’, Musicae Scientiae (special issue 2001/2): 3–21.

Juslin, P.N., Friberg, A. and Bresin, R. (2002) ‘Toward a Computational Model of

Expression in Music Performance: The GERM Model’, Musicae Scientiae (special

Issue 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 Musical

Performance: A Resource for Performers, Teachers and Researchers. New York: Oxford

University 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 Content

of 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 on

Expressivity’, 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 is

Processed 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 der

Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie 13: 69–81.

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

Press.

Mills, J. (2003) ‘Musical Performance: Crux or Curse of Music Education’, Psychology

of Music 31(3): 324–39.

Natale, M. (1977) ‘Perception of Nonlinguistic Auditory Rhythms by the Speech

Hemisphere’, Brain and Language 4: 32–44.

Nettelbeck, T., Henderson, C. and Willson, R. (1989) ‘Communicating Emotion

through Sound: An Evaluation of Clynes’ Theory of Sentics’, Australian Journal of Psychology 41: 17–24.

North, A.C. and Hargreaves, D.J. (1997) ‘Experimental Aesthetics and Everyday

Listening to Music’, in D.J. Hargreaves and A.C. North (eds) The Social Psychology of

Music, 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 the

Neuroscience of Emotion’, in T.J. Mayne and G.A. Bonnano (eds) Emotions: Current

Issues and Future Directions, pp. 38–81. New York: Guilford Press.

Palmer, C. (1996) ‘Anatomy of a Performance: Sources of Musical Expression’, Music

Perception 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 University

Press.

Peretz, I. (1990) ‘Processing of Local and Global Musical Information by Unilateral

Brain-Damaged Patients’, Brain 113: 1185–205.

Peretz, I., Gagnon, L. and Bouchard, B. (1998) ‘Music and Emotion: Perceptual

Determinants, Immediacy, and Isolation after Brain Damage’, Cognition 68:

111–41.

Persson, R.S. (1993) ‘The Subjectivity of Musical Performance: An Exploratory

Music-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 University

Press.

Repp, B.H. (1989) ‘Expressive Microstructure in Music: A Preliminary Perceptual

Assessment of Four Composers’ “pulses”’, Music Perception 6: 243–74.

Repp, B.H. (1997a) ‘Variability of Timing in Expressive Piano Performance Increases

with Interval Duration’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4: 530–4.

Repp, B.H. (1997b) ‘The Aesthetic Quality of a Quantitatively Average Music

Performance: Two Preliminary Experiments’, Music Perception 14: 419–44.

Repp, B.H. (1998) ‘A Microcosm of Musical Expression: I. Quantitative Analyses of

Pianists’ Timing in the Initial Measures of Chopin’s Etude in E major’, Journal of

the Acoustical Society of America 104: 1085–100.

Rink, J. (2003) ‘In Respect of Performance: The View from Musicology’, Psychology of

Music 31(3): 303–23.

Rohwer, D. (2001) ‘Instrumental Music Students’ Cognitive and Performance

Understanding of Musical Expression’, Journal of Band Research 37: 17–28.

Rostwall, A.-L. and West, T. (2001) ‘Interaktion och kunskapsutveckling (Interaction

and Learning: A Study of Music Instrument Teaching), doctoral dissertation (with

a summary in English), Stockholm University.

Scherer, K.R. (1986) ‘Vocal Affect Expression: A Review and a Model for Future

Research’, 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: American

Psychological Association (APA).

Shove, P. and Repp, B.H. (1995) ‘Musical Motion and Performance: Theoretical and

Empirical Perspectives’, in J. Rink (ed.) The Practice of Performance: Studies in

Musical 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 Musical

Expressivity’, 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 Cognitive

Sciences 4: 397–403.

Sloboda, J.A. and Juslin, P.N. (in press) ‘Affektive Prozesse: Emotion, Gefallen und

Präferenzen (Affective Processes in Music: Emotion, Liking, and Preference)’, in

T.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: A

Lecture’, 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, and

Composition, pp. 52–69. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tait, M. (1992) ‘Teaching Strategies and Styles’, in R. Colwell (ed.) Handbook of

Research 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 for

Expression 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’, Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America 91: 3540–50.

Trussoni, S.J., O’Malley, A. and Barton, A. (1988) ‘Human Emotion Communication

by Touch: A Modified Replication of an Experiment by Manfred Clynes’, Perceptual

and Motor Skills 66: 419–24.

Van Oosten, P. (1993) ‘Critical Study of Sundberg’s Rules for Expression in the

Performance of Melodies’, Contemporary Music Review 9: 267–74.

Wing, A. and Kristofferson, A.B. (1973) ‘Response Delays and the Timing of Discrete

Motor Responses’, Perception & Psychophysics 14: 5–12.

Woody, R.H. (1999) ‘The Relationship between Explicit Planning and Expressive

Performance of Dynamic Variations in an Aural Modeling Task’, Journal of

Research in Music Education 47: 331–42.

Woody, R.H. (2000) ‘Learning Expressivity in Music Performance: An Exploratory

Study’, Research Studies in Music Education 14: 14–23.

Woody, R.H. (2002) ‘Emotion, Imagery and Metaphor in the Acquisition of Musical

Performance Skill’, Music Education Research 4: 213–24.

Yamada, M. (1998) ‘Temporal Fluctuations in Musical Performances: Fluctuations

Caused by the Limitations of Performers’ Controllability and by Artistic

Expression’, 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 of

Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden, where he teaches courses on emotion,

perception, and music psychology. He is the director of the inter-disciplinary research

project Feedback-Learning of Musical Expressivity (Feel-ME) (http://www.psyk.uu.se/

hemsidor/musicpsy/). He is a member of the International Society for Research on

Emotions (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. As

well as his work as a researcher, Juslin has worked professionally as a guitar player

and 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]]


juslin, p. n. (2003). five facets of musical expression. a psychologist's perspective on music...

Documents