Proceedings of the Ninth Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, 17-22 August

2015, Manchester, UK
Ginsborg, J., Lamont, A., Phillips, M., Bramley, S. (Editors)

An examination of value judgements in criticism of Beethovens Piano Sonata

recordings
Elena Alessandri,*1 Victoria Williamson,*#^2 Hubert Eiholzer,+3 Aaron Williamon4
*

School of Music, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland

Centre for Performance Science, Royal College of Music, London, UK

#

Department of Music, University of Sheffield, UK

School of Advanced Study, University of London, UK

Department of Research and Development, Conservatory of Southern Switzerland, Switzerland

elena.alessandri@hslu.ch,

v.williamson@sheffield.ac.uk 3hubert.eiholzer@conservatorio.ch,
4
aaron.williamon@rcm.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
Background
The question of what sets a great performance apart from a
mediocre one has engaged philosophers, artists and scientists
for centuries, back to the eighteenth century debate on taste in
aesthetics (Hume, 1757) and Helmholtzs (1877) first empirical
work on physiological response to music.
In the present study this question has been addressed through
an investigation of value judgements in the written criticism of
recorded performance. Music performance criticism is a
common form of evaluative response to music, relevant to
musicians careers but about which we still know little.
Research on performance evaluation in recent decades has
focused on holistic and segmented assessment in the
educational environment, furthering our understanding of the
phenomena underpinning the evaluation process (for an
overview see Alessandri, 2014).
However, there is still no consensus on the nature of
performance judgements and on the existence, or not, of criteria
that may reliably drive critical evaluation (McDermott, 2012;
Wrigley & Emmerson, 2013). Gabrielsson (2003) and more
recently McDermott (2012) and Wrigley and Emmerson (2013)
all made calls for further research to explore value judgements
by experts in different musical settings in order to obtain new
perspectives on this debate.
Aims
Employing an inductive, qualitative/quantitative approach,
the aim of this study was to offer a systematic investigation of
the evaluation criteria used in recorded performance critical
review, as reasons given to support value judgements.
Method
First, reviews of Beethovens piano sonata recordings
published in the monthly British magazine Gramophone
between 1923 and 2010 were collated (N = 845) and metadata
analyzed to obtain an overview of review structure, repertoire,
as well as pianists and critics involved (Alessandri, Eiholzer, &
Williamon, 2014).
Next, a series of quantitative/qualitative data reduction
procedures was applied to the dataset to produce a representa-

tive selection of reviews suitable for in-depth qualitative

investigation. This included an analysis of vocabulary and word
patterns, which were compared between critics and different
periods. The resulting selection of reviews (n = 100, written by
10 critics, published between 1934 and 2010) was subjected to
thematic analysis using a double-coder protocol in order to
develop a visual descriptive model of critical text content. This
content was summarized in terms of musical sound properties,
energy level and delivery mechanics (primary descriptors, n =
719), higher-order characterizations of the performance
(supervenient descriptors, n = 1,404), and the value of these
properties (evaluative judgements n = 1,502) (Alessandri,
Williamson, Eiholzer, & Williamon, 2015).
Finally, based on this model, the relationship between the
emergent descriptors (primary and supervenient) and the
valence of critics evaluative judgements was examined
through a three-step, double-coder qualitative analysis. The
valence of critics statements (n = 943) was analyzed
independently by two researchers. Then, lists of valence loaded
statements were retrieved for each performance primary and
supervenient descriptor (n = 30 quote lists) and qualitatively
analyzed by the first author to identify descriptor qualities
praised by critics. This led to the development of a set of value
adding descriptor qualities used in reviews to support value
judgements. The emergent qualities were then compared and
organized into areas of evaluation that represent an initial
model of the basic performance evaluation criteria used by
critics in our sample (Alessandri, 2014).
Results
The majority of critical review statements (87.57%) emerged
as valence loaded (positive, negative, or mixed that is, partly
positive and partly negative), with a bias towards positive
loaded statements (49.73% positive, 23.49% negative, 14.35%
mixed, 7.33% neutral, 5.10% unclear). Reviews were
characterized by a juxtaposition of positive and negative
statements: on average, each review entailed 50.08% (SD =
0.26) of positive, 23.61% (SD = 0.23) of negative and 16.71%
(SD = 0.19) of valence mixed statements. Evaluations were
expressed explicitly through purely evaluative terms (e.g., good,
poor, excellent, unduly) and implicitly through the use of
value-laden terms (e.g., dainty vs. emasculated playing).

Proceedings of the Ninth Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, 17-22 August 2015, Manchester, UK
Ginsborg, J., Lamont, A., Phillips, M., Bramley, S. (Editors)

Across all primary and supervenient descriptors thirty-five

value adding descriptor qualities were identified. These were
grouped into seven areas of evaluation, linked to the aesthetic
value of the performance (intensity (n = 300), coherence (n =
248), and complexity (n = 221)), to its achievement-related
value (sureness (n = 129), understanding (n = 118), and
endeavor (n = 94)), and to the appropriateness of each quality
to the given musical context (suitability (n = 286)). Evaluation
criteria were reliably used across all critics (Cronbachs
= .928). A tension characterized the relationship between
evaluation criteria. Performance properties emerged as
interdependent, so that an increase in one of them may
neutralise, decrease or increase the value assigned to other
qualities. The ability to balance two or more evaluation areas in
a performance (e.g., an impetuous (intensity) but disciplined (sureness) performance) was discussed as added value
by critics.
Conclusions
This study offers the first empirically developed model of
performance evaluation criteria in critical review. The findings
have both pedagogical and conceptual implications.
Judgements on the aesthetic value of a musical performance
were grounded in three criteria: intensity, coherence, and
complexity. This finding overlaps with Beardsleys proposed
triadic theory of aesthetic value (Beardsley, 1962, 1968) and
resonates with Kaplan and Kaplans (1989) model of aesthetic
appreciation of nature. In addition to aesthetic value, three
achievement-related criteria emerged as comprising a
substantial portion of critics value judgements (sureness,
understanding, and endeavor). Taken together the findings
from the present analysis emphasise the importance of the
construct performers achievement when it comes to our
appreciation of a recorded piano performance, supporting
Carrolls success value theory (Carroll, 2009).
The emerging themes and criteria from the present analysis
were reliably used in review by critics born generations apart.
However, the relative weight in the present sample given to the
seventh criterion, suitability, and the existence of tension
between criteria are factors that emphasise the context dependency of value judgements, supporting Carrolls (2009) and
Sibleys (Dickie, 1987) context-aware generalism. The
interdependency between criteria suggested by the findings is in
line with the widely discussed uniformity-in-variety theory of
experimental aesthetics (Berlyne, 1971; McDermott, 2012) and
with interactionist perspectives on the aesthetic experience,
such as the processing fluency framework proposed by Reber,
Schwarz, and Winkielman (2004).
Finally, our emergent model of recorded music performance
evaluation offers a new perspective and insights on the nature of
professional review that may be used to promote discussion in
music schools, not least in the context of the continuous
development of assessment schemes and procedures. The
model also furthers our understanding of music performance
criticism as a form of written response to music that is both
complex and contextual.

Keywords
Music criticism, Beethoven, recorded performance, aesthetic
judgement, success value.

REFERENCES
Alessandri, E. (2014). Evaluating recorded performance: An
investigation of music criticism through Gramophone reviews of
Beethovens piano sonata recordings (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Royal College of Music, London.
Alessandri, E., Eiholzer, H., and Williamon, A. (2014). Reviewing
critical practice: An analysis of Gramophones reviews of
Beethovens piano sonatas, 1923-2010. Musicae Scientiae, 18,
131-149. doi: 10.1177/1029864913519466
Alessandri, E., Williamson, V. J., Eiholzer, H., Williamon, A. (2015).
Beethoven recordings reviewed: a systematic method for mapping
the content of music performance criticism. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6:57. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00057
Beardsley, M. C. (1962). On the generality of critical reason. Journal
of Philosophy, 59, 477-486.
Beardsley, M. C. (1968). The classification of critical reasons. Journal
of Aesthetic Education, 2(3), 55-63.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York:
Appleton.
Carroll, N. (2009). On criticism. New York: Routledge.
Dickie, G. (1987). Beardsley, Sibley and critical principles. The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 46, 229-237.
Gabrielsson, A. (2003). Music performance research at the
millennium. Psychology of Music, 31, 221-272.
Helmholtz, H. (1877). Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen, als
physiologische Grundlage fr die Theorie der Musik (4th edition).
Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn Verlag.
Hume, D. (1757). Of the standard of taste. In Four Dissertation.
London. Retrieved September 26, 2014 from <http://www.
davidhume.org/texts/fd.html>
Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1989). The Experience of Nature: a
Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
McDermott, J. H. (2012). Auditory preferences and aesthetics: Music,
voices, and everyday sounds. In R. J. Dolan & T. Sharot (Eds.)
Neuroscience of preference and choice: Cognitive and neural
mechanisms (pp. 227-256). London: Academic Press.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., and Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing
fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceivers
processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8(4), 364-382.
Wrigley, W. J. & Emmerson, S. B. (2013). Ecological development
and validation of a music performance rating scale for five
instrument families. Psychology of Music, 41, 97-118. doi:
10.1177/03057 35611418552