Effects of baton usage on college musicians’ perceptions of ensemble performance

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of baton usage on college musicians’ perceptions of ensemble performance. Two conductors were videotaped while conducting a 1-minute excerpt from either a technical (Pathfinder of Panama, John Philip Sousa) or lyrical (Seal Lullaby, Eric Whitacre) piece of concert band music. Each excerpt was conducted twice, once with and without a baton. After viewing each of the four videos, college musicians (N = 119) rated the ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision of each performance. Technical excerpt performances were rated significantly higher when the conductor used the baton than we he did not. No baton effect was found for ratings assigned to the lyrical excerpt. A separate panel of evaluators (N = 44, college musicians), who served as the control group, assigned ratings to the same excerpts, but was presented these excerpts in an audio-only format. Findings indicated that the use of the baton significantly affected these participants’ ratings of ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision for the technical excerpt, with higher ratings being assigned to those excerpts in which the conductor used a baton. Similar to our results in the audio-visual condition, no significant differences were found between participants’ ensemble expressivity or ensemble precision ratings when listening to the lyrical excerpt.

Keywords

baton conductor ensemble performance expressivity precision

The practice of employing a conductor to rehearse and conduct an orchestra dates only to around the late 1700s (Krueger, 1958). Before conductors became conventional figures in the orchestral world, performers themselves would decide the appropriate tempi, dynamics, and other interpretive nuances for each musical selection (Bowles, 1959). Only when deemed necessary did concertmasters and keyboardists lead their colleagues during performances by conducting (Bamberger, 1989; Khan, 1965). As orchestras began to grow in size near the end of the 18th century, the music that was being performed also became more complex, requiring trained musicians to serve as conductors—a leadership role that has become commonplace since that time (Grosbayne, 1973; Leinsdorf, 1997).

One of the earliest functions of the conductor was to maintain a consistent pulse for ensemble performers (Malko, 1950). In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, conductors often remained seated on the stage with a music score in one hand and a large staff in the other. The staff was struck on the floor with the conductor deciding whether or not to gesture with his right hand (Galkin, 1988). Because symphonic music that was composed during this time was more complex than that of previous eras, the need for conductors to demonstrate more advanced conducting behaviors (e.g., phrase shaping, dynamic contrasts, cues) rather than just simply keeping time became more important (Grosbayne, 1973). This musical complexity may have led orchestral conductors to begin holding the baton in an effort to minimize the distraction that came from striking the floor and to communicate more effectively with their ensemble members (Bowen, 2003). The use of the baton has since become an accepted practice for orchestra and band conductors.

Because the baton is viewed as an extension of the arm, many conducting pedagogues believe that its use aids the conductor in more accurately communicating aspects of musical interpretation (Blackman, 1964; Busch, 1984; Welke, 1964). The baton can “lessen the distance between conductor and performers, making the means of communication much more personal, focused, and expressive” (Maiello, Bullock, & Clark, 1996, p. 17). The increased clarity that results from using the baton may help musicians to feel more secure in their performances because the gestural precision that is required while conducting (e.g., showing beat, tempo, meter, cues, entrances, releases) can be seen more easily with a baton than without (Bowles, 1959; Demaree & Moses, 1995; Green & Gibson, 2004). The use of the baton not only may help aid in the communication between conductor and performer, it also “enables the audience to read the music with the conductor and players, thus making the performance a three-way affair” (Welke, 1964, p. 130).

Although the historical intentions for using the baton appeared to focus on clarity, precision, and rhythmic security for performers, some conducting pedagogues now believe that using a baton may actually inhibit one of the most important aspects of conducting technique—expressivity. Rather than adopting a strict philosophy of always or never using a baton, conductors are advised to make decisions based upon whether the baton helps them achieve the most expressive ensemble performance (Schuller, 1997; Slatkin, 2012). Given that musicians prefer expressive conductors to unexpressive ones (Morrison, Price, Geiger, & Cornacchio, 2009; Napoles, 2013; Price & Mann, 2011), further investigation into whether ensemble members perceive conductors as more or less expressive when using a baton seems warranted, especially given evidence that visual information is often more important than aural information to people making decisions about music performance (Bergeron & Lopes, 2009; Tsay, 2013).

Aside from expressivity and clarity, the type of ensemble being conducted (e.g., choir, band, orchestra, chamber group), the size of the group, and the music being performed must also be taken into consideration when determining whether or not to use a baton (Gumm, 2012; Rudolf, 1994). For example, many choral conductors typically do not use a baton due to “the relatively compact arrangement and good sight lines of choral groups” (Hunsberger & Ernst, 1992, p. 30). Some band directors choose to conduct without a baton when the piece is lyrical or the tempo is slow, perhaps helping them to feel more expressive while conducting (Battisti, 2007). It is unknown whether novices who conduct ensembles apply similar criteria when deciding whether to use the baton, or if the aforementioned factors are discussed by university faculty during conducting courses.

Although the authors of various conducting texts suggest that using a baton is critical to achieving a precise musical performance (Bowles, 1959; Grosbayne, 1973; Labuta, 2010; Welke, 1964), many prominent conductors and pedagogues remain unconvinced about the necessity and importance of using a baton (Grau, 2009; Rudolf, 1994; Schuller, 1997; Slatkin, 2012; Wakin, 2012). Outside historical precedent and conducting teachers’ opinions—which largely support the continued use of the baton in instrumental settings—we found only one extant study regarding the potential effects of baton use on perceptions of conductor and ensemble performance (Napoles, Babb, & Willie, 2014). In that study, the authors examined whether baton use in slow and fast tempi affected perceptions of choral conducting and ensemble performance. Although participants rated clarity and expressiveness slightly higher when conductors used a baton, these differences were not statistically significant. Furthermore, they found no differences in participants’ ratings of musicality between excerpts conducted with and without a baton.

We found no investigations that had been conducted within instrumental settings. Further exploration of baton usage in instrumental ensembles might result in a better understanding of the pedagogical arguments given for conducting with a baton. Because baton skills are the focus of many of the standard textbooks that are used in university-level basic instrumental conducting courses (Green & Gibson, 2004; Hunsberger & Ernst, 1992; Labuta, 2010), understanding if a conductor’s use of a baton affects perceptions of ensemble performance seems worthy of further investigation.

The purpose of this study was to test conductor baton usage on college musicians’ perceptions of ensemble performance. Would musicians evaluate either the expressivity or precision of two performances differently depending on whether the conductor led the ensemble with or without a baton?

Method

Participants

Evaluators

College musicians (N = 164) at four Midwestern and one Rocky Mountain university music schools in the United States served as either audio-visual or audio-only evaluators in this study. All participants (M_age = 20.4, SD = 2.70) were currently enrolled in concert bands at their respective institution. Participants reported their years of previous conducted ensemble experience (M = 9.57, SD = 2.41) and whether they had ever conducted an ensemble (yes, n = 96; no, n = 56; did not report, n = 12).

Study conductors

Two white male graduate students majoring in either wind conducting or music education who had already been assigned pieces to conduct with an auditioned symphonic band were chosen as the conducting participants for this study. Both conductors had completed baccalaureate degrees in music education and subsequently taught public school instrumental music for several years prior to enrolling at the university.

Conductor preparation and music excerpts

Both conductors met with the first author to discuss their roles in the study. At this meeting, the conductors were informed that on two separate occasions (one week apart) they would be videotaped while leading a 1-minute excerpt from each of their previously assigned scores. The excerpts selected for use in this study were Pathfinder of Panama (mm. 1–52, conductor 1) by John Philip Sousa and Seal Lullaby (mm. 28–45, conductor 2) by Eric Whitacre. The technical excerpt (Sousa) was chosen because of its consistent, quick tempo (thus necessitating a steady beat), whereas the lyrical excerpt (Whitacre) was selected on the basis of its slower tempo, legato and sustaining qualities, and use of rubato. Both excerpts featured dynamic contrasts and phrase shaping opportunities. Excerpt selection was consistent with recent investigations involving conductor expressivity and effectiveness (Napoles, 2013; Price & Morrison, 2011; Silvey, 2013). Because both pieces had been rehearsed extensively in preparation for an upcoming concert performance, we believed these excerpts allowed the performers to focus their attention more heavily on following the conductors rather than on reading the music. In addition, because both excerpts would be conducted with and without a baton, we wanted the style contrasts between the two excerpts to be distinct.

The conductors were told to concentrate their conducting preparations on expressively and precisely conveying their assigned excerpt to the ensemble. Although the nature of the lyrical excerpt might seem to make expressive conducting easier than the technical excerpt, both excerpts afforded opportunities for expressive conducting. Furthermore, considering the literature cited in which pedagogues appeared to present a relatively simple choice about when to use the baton (i.e., the need for clarity) versus not (i.e., the need to be expressive), we believed these descriptors would (a) serve the conductors in their preparation to conduct their excerpt and (b) prove meaningful as dependent variables in this study.

Similar to previous investigations in which differences between high and low conducting expressivity conditions were confirmed by university conducting faculty or outside observers (Morrison et al., 2009; Morrison & Selvey, 2014; Silvey, 2011), two wind band conducting faculty members at a nearby university school of music (each charged with teaching either undergraduate or graduate conducting courses) confirmed these conductors’ ability to demonstrate high levels of nonverbal conducting effectiveness (e.g., maintained and varied eye contact, use of facial expressions, fluid gesture). These characteristics were adapted from instrumental conducting textbooks and from previous research studies on conducting (Byo & Austin, 1994; Garofalo & Battisti, 2005; Hunsberger & Ernst, 1992).

Videotaping and audio recordings

Video and audio recordings of both excerpts took place during the last 10 minutes of two regularly scheduled symphonic band rehearsals held one week apart. Conductors (who were dressed in identical formal attire of black pants and black shirts) were digitally recorded simultaneously in audio-visual and audio-only formats as they led the ensemble in their assigned excerpt. A Kodak Zi8 video camera was focused on the upper torso of each conductor such that the use or nonuse of a baton was apparent. We recorded the ensemble using a Zoom H2 audio recording device, placed in the front of the rehearsal hall. During the first session, the conductor leading the Pathfinder of Panama (technical) excerpt used a baton, whereas the conductor leading Seal Lullaby (lyrical) did not. At the second session held one week later, the excerpt order and use of the baton were both reversed. In other words, each conductor conducted his assigned excerpt twice, both with and without a baton.

From these source recordings, we created two sets of stimulus recordings (audio-visual and audio-only) for subsequent evaluation. Videos were imported into iMovie 10.0.1. The audio that accompanied each video was then replaced and synchronized with the same recordings that were made using the Zoom H2 audio recorder. (This would later allow participants in both audio-visual and audio-only conditions to hear the same recordings as created by the same device.) To help control for order effects, we created four orders in which no music excerpt or conductor was shown successively. These presentation orders were burned as QuickTime files onto four separate DVDs. Each video excerpt was about 1 minute in duration. We also created four audio-only sound files for evaluation. These audio excerpts were burned onto a CD and randomly organized such that no identical excerpt was heard successively (i.e., no baton, technical; baton, lyrical; baton, technical; no baton, lyrical).

Evaluation task

We presented audio-visual and audio-only recordings to participants for evaluation. After the institutional review board (IRB)-approved informed consent forms were signed and collected, the printed instructions for either the audio-visual or audio-only evaluation task were read at each of the five participating university sites. Participants in the audio-visual condition (N = 119) were randomly assigned to one of four presentation orders (order 1, n = 30; order 2, n = 29; order 3, n = 30; order 4, n = 30; see Table 1 for a display of presentation orders). After viewing each of the four videos within their presentation order, participants evaluated both the ensemble’s expressivity and precision on two, 10-point Likert-type scales anchored by (1) not expressive and (10) very expressive and (1) not precise and (10) very precise. An additional set of participants (control group, N = 44) listened to the audio-only excerpts through the sound system available in that institution’s rehearsal hall. These participants also evaluated the ensemble’s expressivity and precision, but in the absence of any accompanying visual information. Data collection took approximately 10 minutes at each site.

Table 1.

Audio-visual presentation orders.

Presentation order	Conductor, use of baton, and excerpt type
1	C1, NB, T	C2, B, L	C1, B, T	C2, NB, L
2	C2, B, L	C1, NB, T	C2, NB, L	C1, B, T
3	C1, B, T	C2, NB, L	C1, NB, T	C2, B, L
4	C2, NB, L	C1, B, T	C2, B, L	C1, NB, T

Note: C = conductor, B = baton, NB = no baton, L = lyrical, T = technical.

Results

Due to the contrasting musical nature of both excerpts, we analyzed our participants’ audio-visual ratings for Pathfinder of Panama (technical) and Seal Lullaby (lyrical) separately.

Audio-visual ratings

Technical excerpt (Pathfinder of Panama)

A repeated measures ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (presentation order) and one within-subjects factor (baton use) was used to determine the effect of baton use on ratings of ensemble expressivity. Results indicated a significant main effect for baton use, F(1, 115) = 4.56, p = .035, partial η² = .03. Participants’ mean ensemble expressivity rating of the excerpt featuring the baton (M = 7.23, SD = 1.68) was higher than the version without the baton (M = 6.86, SD = 1.68). No presentation order effect was found, F(3, 115) = .566, p = .63, partial η² = .015. However, there was a significant baton use × order interaction, F(3, 115) = 3.74, p = .013, partial η² = .089. A Bonferonni post hoc test for multiple comparisons revealed that participants’ ensemble expressivity ratings were significantly different for Order 2 only. The mean of the ratings assigned by participants in Order 2 was significantly higher (p < .01) when the conductor used a baton (M = 7.52, SD = 1.80) than when he did not (M = 6.17, SD = 1.71). There were no other significant differences between ratings in Orders 1, 3, or 4.

We conducted a similar ANOVA to analyze participants’ ratings of ensemble precision. Results indicated a significant main effect for baton use, F(1, 115) = 42.43, p < .001, partial η² = .27, with participants rating the excerpt with the baton (M = 7.58, SD = 1.36) higher than that without (M = 6.39, SD = 1.71). No presentation order effect was found, F(3, 115) = 1.91, p = .132, partial η² = .047, but we did obtain a significant baton use × order interaction, F(3, 115) = 3.74, p = .004, partial η² = .109. Again, we used a Bonferonni post hoc test to compare participants’ precision ratings. We found that ensemble precision ratings between excerpts in Orders 1, 2, and 4 were significantly different (all comparisons, p < .01). Excerpts that featured the conductor using the baton were rated higher than those where the conductor led the ensemble without a baton (Order 1, M = 7.57, SD = 1.33 versus M = 6.00, SD = 1.43; Order 2, M = 7.97, SD = 1.50 versus M = 5.93, SD = 1.75; Order 4, M = 7.30, SD = 1.55 versus M = 6.33, SD = 1.93 respectively). There was no significant difference (p = .584) between ratings assigned in Order 3, however (baton, M = 7.50, SD = 0.97; no baton, M = 7.30, SD = 1.36).

Lyrical excerpt (Seal Lullaby)

We used the same repeated measures ANOVA procedure to analyze participants’ ensemble expressivity ratings of the lyrical excerpt. Results indicated no significant effect of baton use on participants’ ratings of ensemble expressivity, F(1, 115) = 3.91, p = .051, partial η² = .03, with the excerpt including the baton (M = 7.08, SD = 1.51) being rated similarly to that without (M = 6.78, SD = 1.59). We did, however, find a presentation order effect, F(3, 115) = 3.31, p = .023, partial η² = .079, and a significant baton use × order interaction, F(3, 115) = 3.49, p = .018, partial η² = .084. After using a Bonferonni post hoc test to compare participants’ expressivity ratings, we found a significant difference between excerpts in Order 3. Examination of the ensemble expressivity mean ratings assigned by participants in Order 3 revealed significantly higher ratings (p = .002) for excerpts with the baton (M = 7.77, SD = 1.31) than for those without (M = 6.80, SD = 1.56). There were no significant differences in Orders 1, 2, or 4.

Again, we used a repeated measures ANOVA to compare participants’ ensemble precision ratings. There was no significant main effect found for baton use, F(1, 115) = .749, p = .389, partial η² = .006. Participants’ ratings of the excerpt with the baton (M = 6.67, SD = 1.48) were almost identical to those without a baton (M = 6.54, SD = 1.61). There was a significant presentation order effect, F(3, 115) = 7.07, p < .001, partial η² = .156. A Bonferonni post hoc test for multiple comparisons revealed that participants’ ensemble precision ratings in Order 2 (M = 5.82, SD = 1.42) were significantly lower than those ratings assigned in Order 3 (M = 7.25, SD = 1.32, p < .001) and Order 4 (M = 6.67, SD = 1.34, p = .048). We found no baton use × order interaction, F(3, 115) = 2.27, p = .085, partial η² = .056.

Audio-only ratings

Another aspect of this investigation was to test if participants who were presented the excerpts in an audio-only format (control group) would hear any audible differences between excerpts conducted with or without a baton. We used a paired-samples t test to compare participants’ ensemble expressivity ratings for the technical excerpt (Pathfinder of Panama). We found a significant difference between participants’ ensemble expressivity ratings, with a significantly higher (p < .001) score being assigned to the excerpt conducted with a baton (M = 7.38, SD = 1.06) versus without a baton (M = 6.27, SD = 1.27); t(43) = 5.094, p < .001, d = 0.77. Similar results were found for participants’ ratings of ensemble precision, with a significantly higher score (p < .001) being assigned to the excerpt conducted with a baton (M = 7.56, SD = 1.55) versus without one (M = 5.77, SD = 1.16); t(43) = 6.718, p < .001, d = 1.01.

As with the technical excerpt, we used paired samples t tests to compare participants’ audio-only ensemble expressivity and precision ratings of the lyrical excerpt (Seal Lullaby). We found no significant difference between participants’ ratings of ensemble expressivity after listening to the excerpt conducted with a baton (M = 5.68, SD = 1.27) versus without a baton (M = 5.52, SD = 1.45); t(43) = –.585, p = .56. Similarly, no significant difference was found between participants’ ratings of ensemble precision (baton, M = 5.88, SD = 1.82; no baton, M = 5.77, SD = 1.55); t(43) = –.440, p = .66.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of baton usage on college musicians’ perceptions of ensemble performance. Our results indicated that participants assigned significantly higher ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision ratings to the technical excerpt (Pathfinder of Panama) after viewing videos in which the conductor used the baton than when he did not. Interestingly, this pattern did not remain constant for participants’ ratings of the lyrical excerpt (Seal Lullaby)—we found no significant differences for either ensemble expressivity or ensemble precision based upon the use of the baton. It is important to note, however, that significant baton use × order interactions were found for participants’ ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision ratings of the technical excerpt, although these effect sizes were negligible (ensemble expressivity, partial η² = .089; ensemble precision, partial η² = .109). These interaction effects may indicate that the character of the music (technical versus lyrical) combined with a particular conductor’s use of the baton may have influenced participants’ perceptions of ensemble expressivity and precision in this study.

That participants rated the ensemble precision of the technical excerpt slightly higher when viewing the video featuring the baton appears to bolster conducting pedagogues’ recommendation that baton use leads to a more precise performance (Bowles, 1959; Grosbayne, 1973; Labuta, 2010). Participants in the audio-only condition also rated the precision of the technical excerpt higher when conducted with a baton. When considered together, these audio-visual and audio-only findings might provide empirical evidence that the baton may assist conductors in displaying their gestures in instrumental settings with greater accuracy and precision (Green & Gibson, 2004; Welke, 1964).

In contrast to our technical excerpt results, we found no significant differences between participants’ ratings of ensemble expressivity or ensemble precision based upon baton use after they viewed the conductor who led the lyrical excerpt. Our findings are consistent with those of Napoles et al. (2014) who found no difference between ratings of choral ensemble musicality regardless of whether participants viewed conductors leading slow choral excerpts with or without a baton. Although some instrumental conducting pedagogues indicate that not using a baton may enhance a conductor’s perception of their own expressivity (e.g., Battisti, 2007)—particularly in slower or more lyrical music—that suggestion appears contrary to the perceptions of our participants, who rated the ensemble expressivity of the lyrical (i.e., slow) excerpt similarly, regardless of whether or not the conductor used a baton. Furthermore, audio-only participants’ ratings of ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision for the lyrical excerpt were nearly identical (i.e., all clustered around 5.5 on a 10-point scale).

These findings stand in contrast to the significant differences that we found between participants’ ensemble expressivity and ensemble precision ratings of the technical excerpt in both the audio-visual and audio-only conditions. Given that participants in the audio-only condition were unaware of our experimental design and given no visual cues that might have influenced their audio judgments, we find it interesting that they discerned the same aural differences that their audio-visual counterparts heard. Perhaps the musicians in this study did indeed perform differently while being conducted with the baton during the technical excerpt, whereas the use of the baton had no effect during the performances of the lyrical excerpt. Allowing musicians in future investigations to provide free response comments might help clarify the rationale behind their numeric ratings and yield insight into what conductor attributes (e.g., baton use, facial expression, eye contact) receive the most focus of participants’ attention.

We must acknowledge that the results of this current study are formed on the basis of two conductors and their conducting of a single excerpt with a mid-level university symphonic band. Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results of this study, and broad generalizations should not be made. Designing a study in which multiple conductors are viewed while leading the same excerpts with and without a baton would be helpful in isolating issues related to conductor expressivity, ensemble performance, and performers’ perceptions of conductor effectiveness.

Most extant research involving conductor and musical expressivity has used slow and/or lyrical music excerpts (e.g., Morrison & Selvey, 2014; Napoles, 2013; Silvey, 2013, Silvey & Fisher, 2015). Our results involving ratings of the technical (i.e., fast) excerpt may suggest that researchers should explore musicians’ perceptions of conductors (and evaluators’ ratings of those performances) further by selecting music that displays a wider variety of music characteristics such as articulation, dynamics, and tempi (Dineen, 2011; Morrison, Price, Smedley, & Meals, 2014). We believe that the exploration between conductor and ensemble expressivity should extend beyond the use of mostly slower music. Anecdotally, we have viewed conductors who conduct expressively, regardless of the tempo or style of the music. Future researchers could help advance our understanding of conductor and ensemble expressivity by incorporating a wider variety of stimulus materials in their investigations (e.g., repertoire, musical genres, performing ensembles).

When discussing aspects of baton technique in undergraduate instrumental conductor preparation courses, faculty members might consider allowing students to lead the laboratory ensemble with and without a baton. Because conducting is such an idiosyncratic endeavor (Byo & Austin, 1994), many students may feel more comfortable and/or expressive without the baton. This pedagogical choice mirrors advice given by some expert conductors who believe that decisions involving the use of the baton should be based upon the expressivity of the music (Schuller, 1997; Slatkin, 2012). Ascertaining why conductors (and musicians under their direction) perceive themselves as more or less expressive when using the baton would be helpful for university conducting faculty who make curricular decisions about when to introduce the baton in their basic conducting courses and whether or not to give their students a choice about using the baton while conducting.

Although the results of this study should not serve as the basis for any broad pedagogical suggestions for university conductor preparation programs, we posit that the use of the baton—much like other conductor decision-making processes such as gesture selection, plane usage, and facial expression—is a choice that likely should be made while considering other factors (e.g., score study, the character of the music, personal preference). When once asked why he did not use a baton, renowned orchestral conductor Pierre Boulez stated “my fingers are 10 batons” (Holland, 1993, para. 7). Having a thorough and complete knowledge of the score seems essential for conductors who must demonstrate passion and conviction for the music they are rehearsing and performing, perhaps making the use of the baton a seemingly unimportant decision. However, given the pedagogical assertions from expert conductors and university conducting faculty, as well as the historical precedent for using the baton, additional research with more diverse participants and performing ensembles would be helpful in recognizing the perceived and actual effects of using the baton in ensemble settings.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Bamberger

(Ed.). (1989). The conductor’s art. New York: Columbia University Press.

Battisti

F. L.

(2007). On becoming a conductor: Lessons and mediations on the art of conducting. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music.

Bergeron

Lopes

D. M.

(2009). Hearing and seeing musical expression. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(1), 1–16.

Blackman

(1964). Behind the baton. New York: Charos Enterprises.

Bowen

J.A.

(2003). The rise of conducting. In Bowen (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to conducting (pp. 93–113). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bowles

(1959). The art of conducting. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company.

Busch

(1984). The complete choral conductor: Gesture and method. New York: Schirmer Books.

Byo

J. L.

Austin

K. R.

(1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An approach to the analysis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Band Research, 30, 11–34.

Demaree

G, Moses

D.V.

(1995). The complete conductor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

10.

Dineen

P.M.

(2011). Gestural economies in conducting. In Gritten

King

(Eds.), New perspectives on music and gesture (pp. 131–157). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

11.

Galkin

E.W.

(1988). A history of orchestral conducting: In theory and practice. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.

12.

Garofalo

Battisti

(2005). Lead and inspire: A guide to expressive conducting. Silver Springs, MD: Whirlwind Music.

13.

Grau

(2009). Choral conducting: The forging of the conductor. ( Habermann

, Trans.). Venezuela: GGM Editores/Earthsongs.

14.

Green

E. A.

Gibson

(2004). The modern conductor (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

15.

Grosbayne

(1973). Techniques of modern orchestral conducting (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Gumm

A.J.

(2012). Six functions of conducting: A new foundation for music educators. Music Educators Journal, 99(2), 43–49.

17.

Holland

(1993, March 13). Critic’s notebook: Boulez as conductors’ conductor. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

18.

Hunsberger

Ernst

R. E.

(1992). The art of conducting (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

19.

Khan

(1965). Conducting. New York: The Free Press.

20.

Krueger

(1958). The way of the conductor: His origins, purpose, and procedures. New York: Scribner.

21.

Labuta

J. A.

(2010). Basic Conducting Techniques (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

22.

Leinsdorf

(1997). Erich Leinsdorf on music. Portland, OR: Amadeus Press.

23.

Maiello

Bullock

Clark

(1996). Conducting: A hands-on approach. Van Nuys, CA: Belwin Mills.

24.

Malko

(1950). The conductor and his baton: Fundamentals of the technic of conducting. Copenhagen: William Hansen Verlag.

25.

Morrison

S. J.

Price

H. E.

Geiger

Cornacchio

(2009). The effect of conductor expressivity on ensemble performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 37–49.

26.

Morrison

S. J.

Price

H. E.

Smedley

E. M.

Meals

C. D.

(2014). Conductor gestures influence evaluations of ensemble performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(806), 1–8.

27.

Morrison

S. J.

Selvey

J. D.

(2014). The effect of conductor expressivity on choral ensemble evaluation. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 199, 7–18.

28.

Napoles

(2013). The influences of presentation modes and conducting gestures on the perceptions of expressive choral performance of high school musicians attending a summer choral camp. International Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 321–330.

29.

Napoles

Babb

Willie

(2014). The effect of baton use in fast and slow tempi on perceptions of choral conductor and ensemble performance. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 5(1), 15–25.

30.

Price

H. E.

Mann

(2011). The effect of conductors on ensemble evaluations. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189, 57–72.

31.

Price

H. E.

Morrison

S. J.

(2011, March). Effect of conductor expressivity on ensemble evaluations by nonmusic majors. Paper presented at the International Symposium for Research in Music Behavior, Barcelona, Spain.

32.

Rudolf

(1994). The grammar of conducting: A comprehensive guide to baton technique and interpretation. New York: G. Schirmer.

33.

Schuller

(1997). The compleat conductor. New York: Oxford Press.

34.

Silvey

B. A.

(2011). The effect of ensemble performance quality on the evaluation of conducting expressivity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 162–173.

35.

Silvey

B. A.

(2013). The role of conducting facial expression in students’ evaluation of ensemble expressivity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 419–429.

36.

Silvey

B. A.

Fisher

(2015). Effects of conducting plane on band and choral musicians’ perceptions of conductor and ensemble expressivity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 369–383.

37.

Slatkin

(2012). Conducting business: Unveiling the mystery behind the maestro. Milwaukee, WI: Amadeus Press.

38.

Tsay

C. J.

(2013). Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14580–14585.

39.

Wakin

D.J.

(2012, April 6). Maestro’s mojo. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

40.

Welke

W.C.

(1964). Baton: Friend or foe. Music Educators Journal, 50(4), 129–130.