Band Instrument Selection and Assignment

Abstract

This review of the literature examines the process of matching students with band instruments as presented in academic research journals and practitioner publications. While some directors may evaluate the potential impact of students’ physical characteristics such as lip size and shape, teeth and jaw structure, body build, and so forth, other sources have cited the importance of fine- and gross-motor coordination, aural skills acuity, music aptitude, timbre preference, motivation, personality, and environmental influences. A few empirical studies have suggested a positive impact on student achievement and retention when professional educators assist students in selecting instruments. Despite conflicting information, helping students match their gifts to specific instruments deserves careful study and more attention from those who assist students in selecting instruments. Motivation to play a particular instrument is a strong factor in predicting success and persistence. Some suggestions for possible approaches to clear up some of the ambiguity are provided.

Keywords

aural skills beginning band motivation motor skills music aptitude personality recruiting retention timbre preference

Many band directors may feel that their students progress faster, achieve more, and persist in playing their instruments longer if they are matched with an instrument fitting their particular skill set, physical makeup, or other factors (Hardin, 1990; Millican, 2012; Payne, 2009). Some teachers evaluate the size and shape of students’ lips, teeth, jaw, hands, and fingers, while others test fine- and gross-motor skills and coordination or have prospective students complete playing tests on the mouthpiece or the entire instrument. Other teachers pour over the results of music aptitude or timbre preference tests, while others factor in the students’ music backgrounds, personalities, or academic achievement. These directors feel that carefully weighing these variables can help them improve students’ success rate on the various instruments.

This literature review examines both quasi-experimental and practitioner publications related to band instrument selection and assignment. The purpose of this review is to summarize the literature related to the selection and assignment of band instruments and how those decisions may affect students’ success in band as measured by either music achievement or continuation in music programs. I have divided the review into four sections: (a) Physical Characteristics, (b) Music Predictors, (c) Nonmusic Factors, and (d) Conclusion.

Physical Characteristics

Examination of students’ physical characteristics has been one of the most commonly used methods of assisting students in selecting an instrument (Bayley, 2004; Bazan, 2005; C. M. Johnson & Stewart, 2004; Solomon, 1982), although some research has indicated that physical characteristics are not valid predictors for student success (Klinedinst, 1991; Lamp & Keys, 1935). Pizer (1978) declared that it would be “educationally unsound to have students attempt tasks that are physiologically beyond their capabilities. This just leads to untold amounts of frustration” (p. 31).

Lip Size, Shape, and the Embouchure

Directors have classified the size of the lips into three distinct categories: (a) thin, (b) average, and (c) full or thick (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Solomon, 1983). In these studies, lip control was assessed by whether or not students could whistle (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Pizer, 1987; Solomon, 1983) or buzz their lips at various degrees of high and low (Solomon, 1983). Sometimes the relative firmness or softness of the corners of the mouth when forming an embouchure was taken into account (Solomon, 1983). Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) even considered students’ reaction to the feel of having objects inside the mouth or vibration against the lips. Authors viewed lip control as most important for flute and brass players, presumably because they need these skills to change registers (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Jagow, 2007; Pizer, 1987). Playing tests in which students actually form embouchures and play either the mouthpieces or the whole instruments has been a commonly used method for matching students with instruments (Bayley, 2004; Bazan, 2005; Millican, 2012).

Specific recommendations for matching lip size and shape to particular instruments have sometimes been contradictory. For instance, authors have advised directors to select flute students who had thin lips (Pizer, 1987), full lips (Jagow, 2007), or all three types: thin, thick, and average (Conn-Selmer, 1976). Others have specifically advised against recommending the flute for students with thick lips (Millican, 2012; Pizer, 1987), uneven lips (H. G. Griswold, 2008), or a short upper lip (Poor, 1978). Authors have cautioned directors to avoid flute placement for students who have a pronounced drop in the upper lip which is often referred to as a Cupid’s bow (Cooper, 2004; H. G. Griswold, 2008; Janzen, 1985; Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011; Poor, 1978; Powell, 1982). Advice for matching the other instruments has been equally contradictory. Supplemental Tables S1 through S5 (all supplemental materials are available online at http://update.sagepub.com/supplemental) show specific physical recommendations found in the literature.

Tooth Size, Distribution, and Alignment

The primary dental issues cited in the literature have related to the potential influence of teeth and jaw alignment, the evenness of the teeth, the size of the teeth, and the use of orthodontic braces on wind instrument playing. A malocclusion, such as an overbite or underbite, occurs when either the top teeth or lower jaw protrudes excessively (Powell, 1982). Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) mentioned evenness of teeth as an evaluative factor, but it is unclear whether these writers meant the spacing between individual teeth in the lower or upper jaw or the rotation of teeth in relationship to the plane of the teeth potentially resulting in sharp edges pressed against the embouchure or the mouthpiece. Other authors have offered recommendations based on the size of teeth, but this too has been used in different ways to mean either tooth length (Solomon, 1983) or width (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985). Nevertheless, directors have offered instrument recommendations (see Supplemental Tables S1-S5) based on the alignment, shape, and distribution of the teeth.

Some authors have mentioned orthodontic braces as potential obstacles to playing certain instruments, but most of the literature has merely recommended changes to practice and playing routines when adding or removing the braces (K. Johnson, 2002; Millican, 2012; Solomon, 1983; Whitis, 2014). Orthodontic braces have been cautioned against for those students wishing to play the flute (Millican, 2012) or high-brass instruments such as the trumpet or horn (Cooper, 2004; Jagow, 2007; Millican, 2012). Students wishing to play instruments that may put stress on the dental structure such as the clarinet and saxophone have sometimes been advised to seek approval for these instrument assignments from an orthodontist (Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). H. G. Griswold (2008) addressed the potential negative impact of retainer plates on flute performance.

Some directors have offered recommendations based on the shape of the jaw—square, round, or pointed (Conn-Selmer, 1976; House, 1965; Pizer, 1987; Powell, 1982). As before, some of the information has been contradictory, and several authors have contradicted themselves. Some authors have endorsed rounded jaw shapes on all of the wind instruments (Conn-Selmer, 1976; Pizer, 1987; Powell, 1982). Only Pizer (1987) cautioned against matching students with rounded jaws with the trumpet. Square jaws have been matched with low-brass instruments most often (House, 1965; Powell, 1982), whereas narrow jaw shapes have been associated with flute, oboe, clarinet, saxophone, trumpet, and horn (Conn-Selmer, 1976; Pizer, 1987; Powell, 1982).

Body Build

The literature relating students’ body builds and the instruments they study has also been inconsistent. Hudson (2004) reported that the size of the instrument was not a factor in students’ decisions to choose their instruments, but Fortney, Boyle, and DeCarbo (1993) found that some students were apprehensive about selecting larger instruments. Chang (2007) found that instrument size was the second most important factor, after the instrument’s sound, in influencing students’ instrument selections. Furthermore, Katzenmoyer (2003) suggested the size of the instrument may have had an impact on whether or not students remained in programs after joining.

Several teachers have assessed general size and physique as a practical matter in operating the mechanics of the instrument (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Cooper, 2004; H. G. Griswold, 2008; House, 1965; Jagow, 2007; Janzen, 1985; Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011; Solomon, 1983). Authors have cited that flute players must be able to reach the keywork without contorting their bodies or hands (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; H. G. Griswold, 2008; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011), so Cooper (2004) advised students with shorter arms away from this instrument. Authors have cited that saxophonists must be able to support the relatively heavy instrument (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; H. G. Griswold, 2008), trombone players need to have long enough arms to reach longer slide positions (Cooper, 2004; Jagow, 2007; Millican, 2012), and low brass players need to be able to support the weight of the instrument (Cooper, 2004; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011).

Hand and Finger Size

Three factors related to the hands and fingers have been found to influence the ability to manipulate the instruments effectively: (a) overall hand size, (b) the width of the finger pads, and (c) hypermobility. Students with small hands or thin finger pads and short or stubby fingers may have trouble manipulating the keywork of the flute (Cooper, 2004; H. G. Griswold, 2008). Double reed players may need to have large hand spans and long fingers to reach the keys (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Cooper, 2004; H. G. Griswold, 2008; House, 1965; Jagow, 2007; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011), so students with small hands or short fingers have often been advised to select other instruments (Cooper, 2004; Millican, 2012). Potential clarinet players not only may need to have fingers that are long enough to span the keywork (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Cooper, 2004) but they also may need broad finger pads to cover the open tone holes completely (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Cooper, 2004; Jagow, 2007; Janzen, 1985; Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). Pearson and Nowlin (2011) advised students with hypermobile, often called “double jointed,” thumbs to avoid saxophone, and H. G. Griswold (2008) recommended that students needed large enough hands to reach the three right-hand keys of the instrument and reach the low C key without pulling the hands out of position. Authors have cited that trumpet players should not have short, stubby fingers, tuba players should have average to large hands (Cooper, 2004), and percussionists should have a full range of wrist motion (Cooper, 2004; Millican, 2012) and be able to grip with both hands (Cooper, 2004; Solomon, 1983). The literature has rarely addressed students with physical or developmental differences (Millican, 2012; Mixon, 2007; Solomon, 1983), but has mentioned health conditions such as asthma (Katzenmoyer, 2003).

Coordination and Motor Skill

Some directors have assessed students’ fine- and gross-motor coordination and skill when determining the best instrument match. These assessments have taken the form of finger-sequencing skill tests to measure fine-motor control (Millican, 2012; Pizer, 1987; Solomon, 1983) or hand, foot, and body movements to assess gross-motor control (Solomon, 1983). Both Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) and Solomon (1983) checked hand dominance; however, Schleuter (1978) found neither hand, eye, nor foot dominance correlated with music achievement. Solomon (1983) described tests to measure hand to eye coordination using visual tracking and spatial relationships, but did not offer recommendations on how to use the test results for instrument placement. Similarly, Pizer (1987) presented intricate tests such as timing students as they tap a telegraph key, placing pegs in a pegboard, or counting the number of times they could print dots on a sheet of paper in a given time period, but did not say what to do with the test results. None of these measures took into account any prior fine- or gross-motor training that may have skewed results; some low-scoring students may have shown rapid gains with minimal training, while others may have truly lacked the physical aptitude to advance quickly in these areas (Karma, 1983). Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) offered more subjective measures such as general physical energy and health of the student or if the student enjoyed participating in sports or other physical activity.

In the literature, woodwind players have generally been thought to need well-developed fine-motor control and good hand–eye coordination to manipulate the keywork effectively (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) proposed that trombonists do not need fine-motor control as much as performers on the other instruments since the trombone is, in their view, the only instrument that does not use the fingers extensively. Potential percussionists need to be able to use both hands, arms, legs, and feet to play, and thus may need to have exceptional gross-motor coordination skills (Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). Ben-Tovim and Boyd (1985) recommended against placing students on flute or the brass instruments if they were complete left-handers with the exception of the horn in the brass family since the left-hand fingers work the mechanics of that instrument.

Music Predictors

Several authors have noted aural skills, measures of music aptitude, and instrument timbre preference as factors in helping place students on instruments. Students have been asked to imitate pitches, intervals, rhythms, and melodies in an attempt to assess their aural skills (Karma, 1983; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). Students with the ability to match pitch have often been steered to the double reeds, the horn, or the trombone. Double reed players have been found to humor the pitch of the instrument primarily with their embouchures, so a keen sense of matching pitch has been seen as a valuable skill on those instruments (H. G. Griswold, 2008; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). The ability to match pitch has also been viewed as advantageous on brass instruments because of the need to play in the correct partial of the harmonic series. Pearson and Nowlin (2011) recommended that all brass players need the ability to sing common folk songs and retain a stable pitch center. Pitch-matching skill has been viewed as particularly valuable for horn players since the horn generally plays in the upper partials of the instrument in its normal range (House, 1965; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011). The ability to match pitch has been thought to be valuable for trombonists since they need to be able to move the slide to perform micro-tuning adjustments as they play (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; House, 1965; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011).

Directors have determined students’ music aptitude by measuring their tonal memory as well as their pitch and rhythmic discrimination abilities (Karma, 1983; Solomon, 1982). Katzenmoyer (2003) documented that these measures could be predictors of students’ success on music instruments, but other studies have failed to show a correlation between music aptitude test scores and music achievement (Hardin, 1990; Hufstader, 1974; Klinedinst, 1991; Nierman & Veak, 1997). Zdzinski (1992), however, showed a strong relationship between Gordon’s (1995) Musical Aptitude Profile scores and both cognitive music achievement and performance achievement. Young (1971) found a positive correlation between high scores on the Musical Aptitude Profile and student retention. One must remember that strong correlational results alone do not infer a cause and effect relationship.

When it comes to students making choices of which instrument to select, the instrument’s timbre or quality of sound has been found to be one of the most influential factors in making a decision (Chang, 2007; De Vous, 2011; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993; Hudson, 2004; Katzenmoyer, 2003; O’Neill & Boultona, 1996; Taylor, 2009). Students may make choices based on their prior exposure or experience hearing different instruments, or they may express their fondness for particular sounds on a standardized test such as Gordon’s (1984) Instrument Timbre Preference Test. Rideout (1988) found that students who played instruments that matched their timbre preference performed better on end-of-year performance evaluations.

Nonmusic Factors

Some factors that are not physical or musical may influence students’ selection or directors’ assignments of music instruments. These factors can include (a) students’ personalities, (b) gender associations and stereotypes associated with various instruments, (c) students’ academic achievement and aptitude, (d) environmental factors, and (e) motivation.

Personality

Hudson (2004) and Payne (2009) suggested that personality may interact with timbre preference. Payne’s (2009) study of 624 band students found that levels of student extroversion and openness were significant in predicting their instrument timbre preference. He also found that gender was a “moderate factor in determining a timbre preference” (p. 135). Hudson (2004) found that female students who preferred the timbre of the flute, for instance, tended to be more tender minded and obedient; students who preferred the saxophone, trumpet, or percussion timbre were more extroverted.

Cutietta and McAllister (1997) found no significant relationship between personality and instrument selection. Authors have cautioned against making correlations between successful performance and personality types (Kemp, 1996; Millican, 2012). Personality can be difficult to measure, and answers to self-reported personality inventories may be skewed based on what participants think the test administrator wants to hear (Langendorfer, 2008).

Gender Association and Stereotypes

Students may associate different instruments with gender. Abeles and Porter (1978) suggested that students develop gender associations with various instruments as early as the third grade. This gender association has been shown to be influential in students’ instrument choices (Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993; Payne, 2009) and may prevent students from selecting instruments that they may otherwise enjoy playing (Coffman & Sehmann, 1989). Students have been found to consistently rate band instruments along a continuum from feminine to masculine: flute, clarinet, saxophone, trumpet, trombone, then drums (Abeles & Porter, 1978; Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Eros, 2008; P. A. Griswold & Chroback, 1981; O’Neill & Boultona, 1996; Sinsel, Dixon, & Blades-Zeller, 1997). This may align with the relative size and perception of power of each instrument (Kemp, 1996) or might be associated with male and female voices (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985). When asked, most boys and girls rejected the notion that some instruments were better suited to a particular gender, but when selecting instruments for themselves, they reinforced these same gender stereotypes (Zervoudakes & Tanur, 1994). Cannava (1994) proposed that a professionally mediated instrument selection process may decrease gender stereotyping.

Academic Achievement and Aptitude

Directors may assess academic achievement or aptitude to inform instrument selection and matching, although academic ability can be measured in several different ways. Pizer (1987) found that directors used a holistic assessment of students’ academic performance from the students’ previous classroom teachers, while Pearson and Nowlin (2011) and Solomon (1982) found that directors used actual student grades, reading level, or standardized tests of academic achievement. Klinedinst (1991) documented that achievement information can be helpful in identifying students who may be successful on their instruments, while Kinney (2010) noted that achievement information may highlight which students may be most likely to enroll and persist in band. Other studies have shown little or no correlation between overall grades and music achievement or persistence (Corenblum & Marshall, 1998; Young, 1971). Hardin (1990) found that standardized tests of reading scores also did not seem to be related to overall music performance measures. Kuhlman (2005) noted that academic ability was correlated with posttests measuring music reading ability perhaps because reading music involves decoding symbolic notation and reflects general problem-solving skills.

Environmental Factors

Some researchers have considered the impact of environmental factors when matching students to instruments. These factors have included past music experience, family music background and support, hobbies and interests, as well as the desire to be in a music ensemble or play a particular instrument. Research has suggested that teachers, parents, and friends may be significant influences on participation in a music organization (Katzenmoyer, 2003) and on individual instrument selection (Fortney et al., 1993), while Hudson (2004) found family, friends, and the media did not influence instrument choice. Much of the research into these environmental factors has focused on the influence of family and friends. Cook (2013) found a lack of parental influence to be associated with dropouts in school orchestra programs, and Sichivitsa (2004) found parental support to influence students’ value of music which influenced their intention to persist in music ensembles. While some studies have suggested that parental involvement may not be an influence on students’ music achievement (Dregalla, 1983; Zdzinski, 1992), Zdzinski’s (1996) follow-up research supported the hypothesis that parental involvement was related to music outcomes. The oboe, bassoon, trumpet, horn, and percussion were singled out as instrument assignments needing extra parental support and commitment (Pearson & Nowlin, 2011).

The influence of friends has been reported as a strong influence on band instrument choice (Bayley, 2004; Taylor, 2009). Friends were also a strong influence on students who dropped orchestra (Cook, 2013). Hoffman (2012) found that students based their decisions to persist in music on their peers’ affirmation or rejection based on the students’ competency in band. The only instrument-matching recommendations based on environmental background involved the recommendation that percussion students have prior piano study (Millican, 2012; Pearson & Nowlin, 2011).

Some research has reported the influence of socioeconomic factors in selecting instruments or participation in school ensembles. Hoffman (2012) found the emerging awareness of one’s own socioeconomic status may influence attributions of success or failure; students may feel that they cannot afford to improve their playing through private lessons, to upgrade to a better instrument, or to refresh worn reeds. Katzenmoyer (2003) proposed that students may have viewed themselves as unable to participate in school music programs because of the expense. Socioeconomic level has been found to be associated with persistence in school ensembles (Kinney, 2010; Klinedinst, 1991), particularly when moving from the middle school to high school level (Corenblum & Marshall, 1998).

Motivation

Several authors have emphasized that a student’s passion, desire, and motivation often overcome other physical, musical, and environmental limitations (Asmus, 1994; Colwell & Hewitt, 2011; Millican, 2012). Asmus (1994) noted that factors such as intelligence, aptitude, and socioeconomic status are usually not elements teachers can manipulate, but up to 27% of achievement in schools can be accounted for by the students’ motivation. Sichivitsa (2004) proposed that music students who are more motivated are often more academically and socially integrated into the classroom, and are therefore more likely to develop intrinsic value for the activity. These students, then, may achieve at a higher level and persist in the activity (McPherson & McCormick, 1999; Sichivitsa, 2004).

The students’ interest, attitude, and motivation have been considered when assigning and selecting potential instruments (C. M. Johnson & Stewart, 2004; Solomon, 1983). Some students avoided selecting particular instruments because they perceived them as difficult (Fortney et al., 1993); this fear was particularly pronounced among males (O’Neill & Boultona, 1996). Anecdotal evidence abounds of students who have less than ideal physical characteristics and who have gone on to become proficient or even professional performers.

Discussion and Conclusion

After reflecting on the contradictions in the literature, there are several possibilities for inconsistent recommendations. Many of the suggestions were likely based on individual authors’ past experience as teachers, and their backgrounds and teaching approaches may have differed from those of other authors. Perhaps one teacher was unsuccessful teaching oboe students with thin lips (Cooper, 2004), while another group of teachers found a way to make this lip structure work (Ben-Tovim & Boyd, 1985; Conn-Selmer, 1976). Each of these teachers may have offered conflicting advice to their readers because different teaching methods worked with different types of students. Perhaps directors created an ideal image of performers on each instrument based on outstanding students or professional performers they had seen or heard in the past. This may have led to the development of false syllogisms such as “Benny Goodman has a pointed chin; Benny Goodman is a good clarinet player; all good clarinet players have pointed chins.” Another possibility for the inconsistencies of recommendations in the literature may be an excessive reliance on the weight of statistically significant correlations. It is likely that many variables influence a student’s success or failure on a particular instrument, and isolating specific influences can be difficult; correlation does not automatically imply a cause-and-effect relationship.

Although the literature on matching students with specific instruments can be confusing and conflicted, one of our primary duties as teachers is to create environments in which the students can be most successful (Duke, 2009). Directors who take the time to carefully match their students to instruments that suit them may have higher retention rates (Cannava, 1994), and their students may be more likely to perform better on measures of tone quality, range, embouchure development, and overall playing skills (Hardin, 1990; Kovacs, 1985). The process of matching students to instruments on which they may be most successful is often learned by trial and error (Bayley, 2004; Bazan, 2005). The ability to perform adequately on an instrument was shown to be one of the primary reasons students persisted or quit their instrumental music study (Martignetti, 1965). Humphries (2012) advised directors to be flexible when initial matches are not successful and when students desire to change instruments.

Future research may help clarify the inconsistencies that cloud the instrument selection and assignment process. Long-term quantitative study of the many variables that may influence success on an instrument could help develop more specific guidelines (Karma, 1983). I suggest examining and cataloguing specific inhibiting factors that might prevent quick progress on an instrument. Identifying valid predictor variables, including the important factor of students’ motivation to play the instrument, may assist students and their families in finding the best instrument match, which can allow their inner musicianship to shine and encourage them to persist in music study.

In light of this information, I suggest that directors should not use any of these tests or measurements to exclude students from programs, rather they should use all the data they can to match the performance requirements of the various instruments with the physical aptitudes each child presents. For those students who are undecided about an instrument, this guided matching process can help families make informed decisions about instrument choice (Payne, 2009). A successful pairing of a student’s gifts with his or her skills can increase that student’s self-concept of music ability which can lead to successful social and academic integration in the band class which was shown to raise students’ intentions to persist in music study (Sichivitsa, 2004).

Ultimately, the student’s desire and motivation to play an instrument may be the most important factor in making a successful selection. Students who are motivated to play a particular instrument often work harder and are more “cognitively engaged during their learning and therefore more likely to succeed” (McPherson & McCormick, 1999, p. 101). As Asmus (1994) suggested in his model of achievement motivation in music, a student who is successful on his or her instrument develops strong self-perceptions and is more likely to be motivated to continue in the activity and to continue to develop musically. Careful placement of students on instruments can be a big part of that success.

Footnotes

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Tables S1-S5 are available at .

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abeles

Porter

S. Y.

(1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 65–75. doi:10.2307/3344880

Asmus

E. P.

(1994). Motivation in music teaching and learning. Quarterly Journal of Music Teaching and Learning, 5(4), 5–32.

Bayley

J. G.

(2004). The procedure by which teachers prepare students to choose a musical instrument. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 23–34. doi:10.1177/87551233040220020104

Bazan

D. E.

(2005). An investigation of the instrument selection processes used by directors of beginning band. Contributions to Music Education, 32(1), 9–31.

Ben-Tovim

Boyd

(1985). The right instrument for your child: A practical guide for parents and teachers. New York, NY: Quill William Morrow.

Cannava

E. S.

(1994). Professionally guided instrument selection as a factor of beginning band retention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9506315)

Chang

(2007). Band instrument selection by middle and high school students in international schools: Personality predictors and various influences (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1447062)

Coffman

D. D.

Sehmann

K. H.

(1989). Musical instrument preference: Implications for music educators. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 7(2), 32–34.

Colwell

R. J.

Hewitt

M. P.

(2011). The teaching of instrumental music (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

10.

Conn-Selmer. (1976). Music aptitude test manual. Oak Brook, IL: Author.

11.

Cook

B. V.

(2013). An examination of factors contributing to orchestra students’ attrition in transition from elementary to middle school (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/97769

12.

Cooper

L. G.

(2004). Teaching band & orchestra: Methods and materials. Chicago, IL: GIA.

13.

Corenblum

Marshall

(1998). The band played on: Predicting students’ intentions to continue studying music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 128–140. doi:10.2307/3345765

14.

Cutietta

R. A.

McAllister

P. A.

(1997). Student personality and instrumental participation, continuation, and choice. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 282–294. doi:10.2307/3345587

15.

De Vous

N. R.

(2011). Societal influences on the musical instrument choices of 5th and 6th grade beginning band students in Folsom, California (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/handle/10211.9/1076

16.

Delzell

J. K.

Leppla

D. A.

(1992). Gender association of musical instruments and preferences of fourth-grade students for selected instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 93–103. doi:10.2307/3345559

17.

Dregalla

H. E.

(1983). A study of predictors of music achievement among students from selected high schools of Nebraska (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8314568)

18.

Duke

R. A.

(2009). Intelligent music teaching: Essays on the core principles of effective instruction. Austin, TX: Learning and Behavior Resources.

19.

Eros

(2008). Instrument selection and gender stereotypes: A review of recent literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 57–64. doi:10.1177/8755123308322379

20.

Fortney

P. M.

Boyle

J. D.

DeCarbo

N. J.

(1993). A study of middle school band students’ instrument choices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 28–39. doi:10.2307/3345477

21.

Gordon

E. E.

(1984). Instrument timbre preference test. Chicago, IL: GIA.

22.

Gordon

E. E.

(1995). Musical aptitude profile. Chicago, IL: GIA.

23.

Griswold

H. G.

(2008). Teaching woodwinds. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

24.

Griswold

P. A.

Chroback

D. A.

(1981). Sex-role associations of music instruments and occupations by gender and major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, 57–62. doi:10.2307/3344680

25.

Hardin

A. F.

(1990). An instrument matching procedure as a factor in predicting success in beginning flute, trumpet, and trombone students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9101462)

26.

Hoffman

A. R.

(2012). Exclusion, engagement and identity construction in a socioeconomically diverse middle school wind band classroom. Music Education Research, 14, 209–226. doi:10.1080/14613808.2012.685452

27.

House

R. W.

(1965). Instrumental music for today’s schools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

28.

Hudson

M. L.

(2004). Relationships among personality types, timbre preferences, and choice of instrument by beginning band students in selected schools in southern Mississippi (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3149913)

29.

Hufstader

R. A.

(1974). Predicting success in beginning instrumental music through use of selected tests. Journal of Research in Music Education, 22, 52–57. doi:10.2307/3344618

30.

Humphries

W. V.

(2012). Factors that improve student retention in school band programs (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1828/4004

31.

Jagow

(2007). Teaching instrumental music: Developing the complete band program. Galesville, MD: Meredith Music.

32.

Janzen

E. A.

(1985). Band director’s survival guide: Planning and conducting the successful school band program. West Nyack, NY: Parker.

33.

Johnson

C. M.

Stewart

E. E.

(2004). Effect of sex identification on instrument assignment by band directors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 130–140. doi:10.2307/3345435

34.

Johnson

(2002). Brass performance and pedagogy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Karma

(1983). Selecting students to music instruction. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 75, 23–32.

36.

Katzenmoyer

S. P.

(2003). A study of the factors that influence the musical instrument selections of students: A comparison of teacher and student perceptions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3093407)

37.

Kemp

A. E.

(1996). The musical temperament: Psychology and personality of musicians. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

38.

Kinney

D. W.

(2010). Selected nonmusic predictors of urban students’ decisions to enroll and persist in middle school band programs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 334–350. doi:10.1177/0022429409350086

39.

Klinedinst

R. E.

(1991). Predicting performance achievement and retention of fifth-grade instrumental students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 39, 225–238. doi:10.2307/3344722

40.

Kovacs

B. E.

(1985). An exploratory study of the relationships of flute, clarinet, and trumpet playing achievement, psychomotor ability, and selected physical characteristics of fifth and sixth graders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8528985)

41.

Kuhlman

(2005). Musical aptitude versus academic ability as a predictor of beginning instrumental music achievement and retention: Research and implications. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 24(1), 34–43. doi:10.1177/87551233050240010105

42.

Lamp

C. J.

Keys

(1935). Can aptitude for specific musical instruments be predicted? Journal of Educational Psychology, 26, 587–596.

43.

Langendorfer

(2008). Personality differences among orchestra groups: Just a stereotype? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 610–620. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.027

44.

Martignetti

A. J.

(1965). Causes of elementary instrumental music dropouts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 13, 177–183. doi:10.2307/3343672

45.

McPherson

G. E.

McCormick

(1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of musical practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–102.

46.

Millican

J. S.

(2012). Starting out right: Beginning band pedagogy. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

47.

Mixon

(2007). Reaching and teaching all instrumental music students. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

48.

Nierman

G. E.

Veak

M. H.

(1997). Effects of selected recruiting strategies on beginning students’ participation decisions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 380–389. doi:10.2307/3345533

49.

O’Neill

S. A.

Boultona

M. J.

(1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: A function of gender? Psychology of Music, 24, 171–183. doi:10.1177/0305735696242009

50.

Payne

P. D.

(2009). An investigation of relationships between timbre preference, personality traits, gender, and music instrument selection of public school band students. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3366051)

51.

Pearson

Nowlin

(2011). Teaching band with excellence. San Diego, CA: Neil A. Kjos Music.

52.

Pizer

R. A.

(1978). Fourth graders vs. band instruments. The Instrumentalist, 33(2), 30–31.

53.

Pizer

R. A.

(1987). Instrumental music evaluation kit: Forms and procedures for assessing student performance. West Nyack, NY: Parker.

54.

Poor

M. L.

(1978). Guide to flute teaching. New York, NY: Envolve Music.

55.

Powell

(1982). The embouchure speaks. The Instrumentalist, 36(9), 14–15.

56.

Rideout

R. R.

(1988). An informal application of Gordon’s timbre preference test. Journal of Band Research, 24(1), 59–66.

57.

Schleuter

S. L.

(1978). Effects of certain lateral dominance traits, music aptitude, and sex differences with instrumental music achievement. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, 22–31. doi:10.2307/3344786

58.

Sichivitsa

V. O.

(2004). A study of fourth, fifth and sixth graders’ intentions to persist in music. Contributions to Music Education, 31, 27–41.

59.

Sinsel

T. J.

Dixon

W. E.

Blades-Zeller

(1997). Psychological sex type and preferences for musical instruments in fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 390–366. doi:10.2307/3345534

60.

Solomon

(1982). Selecting beginning students. The Instrumentalist, 36(9), 10–13.

61.

Solomon

(1983). The student and the instrument: A matched pair. The Instrumentalist, 38(3), 16–20.

62.

Taylor

D. M.

(2009). Support structures contributing to instrument choice and achievement among Texas all-state male flutists. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 179, 45–60.

63.

Whitis

(2014). Insights on dealing with braces. SBO School Band & Orchestra, 17(9), 36–46.

64.

Young

W. T.

(1971). The role of musical aptitude, intelligence, and academic achievement in predicting the musical attainment of elementary instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 19, 385–398. doi:10.2307/3344291

65.

Zdzinski

S. F.

(1992). Relationships among parental involvement, music aptitude, and musical achievement of instrumental music students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 114–125. doi:10.2307/3345561

66.

Zdzinski

S. F.

(1996). Parental involvement, selected student attributes, and learning outcomes in instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 34–48. doi:10.2307/3345412

67.

Zervoudakes

Tanur

J. M.

(1994). Gender and musical instruments: Winds of change? Journal of Research in Music Education, 42, 58–67. doi:10.2307/3345337