Effects of Conductor Baton Use on Band and Choral Musicians’ Perceptions of Conductor Expressivity and Clarity

Method

The independent variable that we manipulated in this study was replicated from two recent conductor and ensemble expressivity investigations (Napoles et al., 2014; Silvey et al., 2016) in which highly expressive band or choral conductors were videotaped while conducting musical excerpts with or without a baton. The conducting videos in those two studies were synchronized with identical highly expressive audio performances, a characteristic of other studies in this continuing line of research (Morrison et al., 2009; Morrison & Selvey, 2014; Silvey, 2011; Silvey & Fisher, 2015).

We recruited two doctoral students who had an emphasis in either band or choral conducting to serve as conductors for the stimulus videos (White males, ages 36 and 39). Both were enrolled at a large state university, had taught high school for several years prior to enrolling in PhD music education programs, and were past participants in conducting workshops. We also secured two additional conductors (one band and one choral, who were also doctoral students, white males aged 32 and 45) to serve as distractors (hereafter referred to as “distractor conductors”).

When we met with the two primary conductors for the first time, each was given— specific to his conducting emphasis—either a professional wind ensemble or a choral recording of Guy Forbes’s O Nata Lux (choir, Forbes, n.d.; band, Hazzard, n.d.). Originally written for chorus (Forbes, 2008), this piece was later transcribed for concert band by Preston Hazzard (Forbes & Hazzard, 2010). We chose this selection because it was lyrical, diatonic, and featured predictable phrase shapes and lengths. The music also included a printed expressive, tempo rubato indication, which mandated the execution of slower patterns that allowed for the conductors’ hands to be more visible. We then chose two excerpts from each version of the piece, representing two different but complete musical ideas. Selection of these approximately 45-s music excerpts was consistent with recent studies that employed similar methodologies (Morrison & Selvey, 2014; Napoles et al., 2014; Silvey & Fisher, 2015). The two distractor conductors received two different selections and professional audio recordings with which to practice: Steal Away by Moses Hogan (1998, 1999) for the choral conductor and Seal Lullaby by Eric Whitacre (2008, 2010) for the band conductor. We used distractor excerpts that were similar in difficulty, tempo, and style to O Nata Lux. Two experts (university ensemble conductors from each performing emphasis) independently agreed that the pieces were comparable.

After distributing the scores and recordings to the conductors, the primary author had a general discussion of what constituted highly expressive conducting (e.g., fluid right hand gestures, independent left hand, variation in size of the gesture, and use of the sagittal plane). Next, we told conductors they should practice conducting their excerpts with and without a baton while incorporating highly expressive conducting techniques and that they should keep all other conducting behaviors constant (e.g., left hand cues, crescendo and decrescendo, releases) in both conditions.

The conductors were given 1 week to practice conducting their excerpt using their usual practice technique before they were asked to meet again with the principal investigator. At this meeting, each conductor successfully demonstrated his highly expressive conducting in synchronization with either the wind ensemble or choral audio excerpts. At the conclusion of this meeting, conductors were scheduled for a video recording session that occurred 1 week later. Three university music professors were present at this practice meeting, and each independently agreed that all the conductors displayed expressive conducting techniques and could successfully synchronize their gestures with the audio recordings.

We secured a professional video engineer to video record all four conductors. At the video recording session, each of the conductors arrived dressed in all black. Positioned in front of a dark wall background, the primary conductors conducted the two O Nata Lux excerpts multiple times, with and without baton, for later review. The distractor choral conductor performed without a baton, and the distractor band conductor performed with a baton, each also offering multiple takes. Audio excerpts were played aloud to conductors via speaker in front of the conductor in surround sound.

The video engineer subsequently removed the audio from all videos and substituted it with the original, higher quality audio recordings. When editing the videos, the engineer used a special effects technique in which the conductors’ faces were blurred out in the same color as the wall of the background. This editing was done to reduce potential biases or distractions resulting from unique facial expressions, as previously found by Silvey (2013), Van Weelden (2002), and Wöllner (2006). Before the final videos were processed, both authors reviewed all video takes from the four conductors. For the primary conductors, we chose pairs of excerpts (baton versus no baton) that looked most similar to one another; for the distractor conductors, we chose the video that appeared most expressive. We established reliability by viewing excerpts independently, then consulting with each other while referencing our operational definitions. In total, 10 excerpts were used in this study—both the main conductors conducting two excerpts with and without baton and the two distractor excerpts. Four DVDs were then created using two random orders and their respective reverses. The duration of each DVD was approximately 10 min, with 10-s transitions between each of the 10 excerpts.

Results

Before beginning data analyses, we combined (added) ratings for excerpts within the same piece for each experimental conductor. All data related to the distractor conductors were disregarded. As a result, we constructed four categories: choral conductor with a baton, choral conductor without a baton, band conductor with a baton, and band conductor without a baton. Given the 10-point scale and the combination of two scores for each category, the range of possible scores was between 2 and 20. For each of the four categories, there were two dependent measures, conductor clarity and conductor expressivity. MANOVA procedures carry assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, random selection, a linear relationship among variables, and absence of multicollinearity (Mertler & Vannatta, 2013). We corrected violations in normality by eliminating 10 participants’ ratings. We used the five highest and five lowest sets of overall scores to identify these outliers. Correlations among variables ranged from 0 to .57. Box’s Test revealed a violation of homoscedasticity (p = .008), so we employed the more conservative Pillai’s Trace for all multivariate analyses. We combined all four orders after learning there was no significant order effect for any of the variables, p > .05. We also treated both schools’ samples as one population, as there was no significant main effect for school, F(1, 141) = .48, p > .05.

To answer our first three research questions, we conducted a 3-way MANOVA with repeated measures, with one between-subjects variable (ensemble emphasis–band, choral) and two within-subjects variables (conductor type and baton use). The two variates were conductor clarity and conductor expressivity. We found significant main effects for participant ensemble emphasis, F(2, 140) = 5.98, p = .003, partial η² = .07; baton use, F(2, 140) = 4.77, p = .01, partial η² = .06; and conductor type, F(2, 140) = 29.32, p < .001, partial η² = .29. There was a significant interaction between conductor type × baton use, F(2, 140) = 23.49, p < .001, partial η² = .25. Subsequent univariate analyses, adjusted using the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, indicated that participant ensemble emphasis significantly affected ratings of conductor clarity, F(1, 141) = 11.38, p = .001, partial η² = .07, and conductor expressivity, F(1, 141) = 5.76, p = .01, partial η² = .03. Participants with a band ensemble emphasis rated conductor clarity (M = 14.24, SD = 2.72) and conductor expressivity (M = 13.39, SD = 2.69) higher than did participants with a choral ensemble emphasis did (clarity, M = 13.28, SD = 2.85; expressivity, M = 12.66, SD = 3.17). Conductor type also significantly affected ratings of conductor clarity, F(1, 141) = 6.64, p = .01, partial η² = .04, as well as conductor expressivity, F(1, 141) = 36.17, p < .001, partial η² = .20. Overall, the band conductor (M = 14.00, SD = 2.87) was perceived as more clear than the choral conductor (M = 13.46, SD = 2.77). However, the choral conductor (M = 13.75, SD = 2.79) was perceived as more expressive than the band conductor (M = 12.24, SD = 2.97). The baton main effect was significant for clarity ratings only, F(1, 141) = 6.98, p = .009, partial η² = .04, and indicates that participants perceived clarity to be higher in excerpts conducted with a baton (M = 14.01, SD = 2.63) compared with excerpts conducted without a baton (M = 13.44, SD = 2.99). There were no other significant interactions among the variables.

Figure 1 displays the significant interaction between conductor type and baton affecting conductor clarity, F(1, 141) = 27.22, p < .001, partial η² = .16 and the interaction affecting conductor expressivity, F(1, 141) = 8.17, p = .005, partial η² = .05. The choral conductor was perceived to be clearer without a baton, while the band conductor was perceived to be clearer with a baton. The converse was true for expressivity. The choral conductor was perceived to be more expressive with a baton, and the band conductor was perceived to be more expressive without a baton. The choral conductor was perceived to be more expressive overall.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Mean Clarity (L) and Expressivity (R) ratings of choral and band conductors with and without baton (Range = 2-20, error bars show standard deviation).

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether baton use would influence college musicians’ ratings of conductor expressivity or clarity. We sought to answer the following research questions: (1) Would there be differences in college musicians’ ratings of conductor expressivity or clarity based upon the use or nonuse of a baton? (2) Would there be differences in college musicians’ conductor expressivity or clarity ratings attributable to their own performing ensemble (i.e., band or choir)? and (3) Would college musicians rate choral and band conductors differently?

Our results indicated significant main effects for participant ensemble emphasis, conductor type, and baton use. However, these findings were overridden by the presence of a conductor type × baton use interaction. With regard to conductor clarity ratings, our participants rated the choral conductor as clearer without a baton, whereas the band conductor was perceived to have greater clarity with the baton. This finding supports some commonly held historical beliefs about the role of the baton in instrumental and choral settings (Bowles, 1959; Gumm, 2012) but contradicts other pedagogical advice that a baton makes choral conductors’ gestures clearer (Demaree & Moses, 1995). Perhaps participants’ previous experiences observing and working with conductors in either band or choral settings influenced their conductor clarity ratings.

This result also complements those found in a recent study by Silvey et al. (2016), in which they reported that college musicians’ ratings of ensemble precision were higher when a band conductor used the baton than when he did not while conducting a technical (i.e., fast, articulate) excerpt. It appears that baton use in instrumental settings may influence musicians’ perceptions about the clarity and precision of what is seen (conductor) and heard (music), a conclusion that is supported by research studies indicating the importance of both visual and aural stimuli in appreciating, experiencing, and evaluating music (Bergeron & Lopes, 2009; Cook, 2008; McPherson & Thompson, 1998). Regardless of undergraduates’ use or nonuse of a baton in their conducting courses, university conducting faculty should consider incorporating group warm-ups, physical exercises, and music excerpts that help novice conductors focus on the clear transmission of their musical ideas, as clarity has repeatedly been defined as an important goal for conductors (Battisti & Garafolo, 1990; Colson, 2015).

Participants’ ratings of conductor expressivity were opposite of those regarding conductor clarity—the band conductor was found to be more expressive without a baton, whereas the choral conductor was perceived to be more expressive with a baton. In addition, the choral conductor was perceived as more expressive overall. Consonant with Battisti’s (2007) suggestion that conducting without a baton might help band directors feel more comfortable and expressive when conducting lyrical pieces, participants in our study perceived that the band conductor was more expressive without the baton. The same was not true for the choral conductor, however, who was rated as more expressive with a baton. This outcome was similar to results obtained by Napoles et al. (2014) in that university choral musicians rated choral conductors’ expressivity higher when they used a baton versus when they did not. These inconsistencies probably indicate the need for continued research and empirical examination of pedagogical advice. Authors of conducting texts may subscribe to conventional practices in the field, yet many untested claims could potentially reflect personal preferences. An important consideration for conducting teachers may be equipping their students with several nonverbal strategies (e.g., choice of conducting planes, use or nonuse of a baton, types of cues) from which they can choose and vary depending upon their own conducting preferences and those that function best with their students and ensembles.

There are limitations to this study that should be noted. We documented perceptions of musicians from two universities, and results could be particular to these participants. In addition, because we did not wish to introduce confounding variables of multiple conductors within each idiom, there was one band and one choral conductor, and each conducted the same two excerpts from O Nata Lux (Forbes, 2008; Forbes & Hazzard, 2010). It is possible that participants were responding to some unique element of that conductor’s gestures and style, or their preference for a particular version of the piece. We incorporated deception by using conductors who were not conducting live ensembles. The act of conducting to a recording could have presented some challenges to our conductors’ ability to appear completely natural and comfortable. However, we should note that three university faculty verified that our conductors were expressive and in sync with the recordings.

Although perceptions of participants are certainly helpful in understanding particular biases, researchers have not yet found a consistent link between expressive conducting and expressive performance. Price and Chang’s (2001, 2005) participants, for example, expressed the importance of expressivity in their overall ratings of conductors, but this importance was not manifested in a causal relationship between perception and performance. The actual expressive performance following or resulting from self-reports should be investigated in future studies.

In order to isolate the baton variable, each conductor was asked to conduct similarly with and without the baton, using the same cues, releases, and gestures in both conditions. It is difficult to tell whether, given no restriction, the conductors may have performed differently if they were conducting with and without a baton. Finding the ideal balance between ecological validity and experimental control can be a difficult task, but one that we considered carefully when designing this study.

Results of this investigation provide important implications for music educators. Clearly, numerous variables impact personal preferences regarding the use of the baton (e.g., the type of ensemble, whether the participant has performed primarily in band or choir, and others). Although these predispositions are perhaps developed before college, it is important that conducting instructors who prepare preservice teachers continue to broaden their students’ education past these initial preferences. Rather than subscribing to a particular philosophy (band conducting students should learn to conduct with a baton, choral students should learn to be expressive without it), it would behoove all students to learn the basic skills necessary for demonstrating clarity and expressivity both with and without the baton. Perhaps as suggested by conducting pedagogue Elizabeth Green (1992), “the manual technique should be mastered both with and without a baton, and both hands should become skilled” (p. 21).

In addition, given our findings, adjudicators in festival settings could potentially have preferences and expectations of conductors in certain contexts with respect to baton use, and their evaluations could reflect these biases. In other words, adjudicators may expect and/or prefer for band conductors to use batons and for choral conductors not to use them. Future researchers may explore whether these biases do exist through analyses of festival ratings where baton use varies.

Additional research is warranted with a variety of selections, in multiple tempi and styles, especially considering that researchers have found that these variables could potentially influence perceptions of clarity and expressivity (Napoles et al., 2014; Silvey et al., 2016). It would also be interesting to study orchestral conductors, given the almost exclusive use of baton in that idiom. Beyond perception studies, and those incorporating preexisting recordings, a close examination of how musicians actually perform for conductors with and without batons could yield insight regarding the function and purpose of the baton and whether it should be used in certain contexts.