CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

CLASSIC GUITAR: METHODS FOR THE

EVALUATON OF TECHNIQUE

AND THE GRADATION OF REPERTOIRE

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Music

by

Bonnie Jan Schwartzer

January, 1983
The Thesis of Bonnie Jan Schwartzer is approved:

Eric Jones

California State University, Northridge

ii
To My Father, Leon Schwartzer,
no greater teacher,
no greater loss

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Three years have passed since the inception of this project.

Many people graciously gave their time, effort, energy and support in

bringing this seemingly endless task to completion. I would like to

take this opportunity to thank them.

First of all, I would like to thank my teacher and mentor,

Dr. Ronald Purcell. He not only planted the seed for my involvement in

this study, but gave me his support, guidance and help throughout the

entire process. I especially appreciate the constancy of his respect

for me.

I am equally indebted to Dr. Vincent Myers who taught me the

procedures of social science, assisted in analyzing the data and became

a friend in need. And to Professor Mary Shamrock, I am very grateful

for the time and patience she put forth in editing this study.

I extend a special thanks to my observers--Charles Suovanen,

Robert Mayeur, Eric Jones, Bill Owen and Brad Benefield; to Professors

Scott Zeidel and David Grimes for their help in acquiring the sample

population for the study; and to the participants themselves.

The photographs in Chapter I I I were realized thru the talents

of John Bollinger. Dana Chalberg is responsible for the typing. I

thank both of these people for their patience and professionalism.

I extend a special thanks to Maestro Leo Brouwer, who not only

answered my letter promptly, but allowed me to incorporate his work--

/
Etudes Simples--in my thesis. Further appreciation is extended to the

Peer-Southern Organization for granting me permission to use Seis

Preludios Cortos by Manuel Ponce.l

iv
 I offer thanks to Julie Stroh who, having been my soundboard, must

have heard at least twenty versions of each written sentence. And I

extend to my sister Dena, sincere appreciation for her encouragement.

Finally, I am especially grateful and appreciative to my parents,

Abbey and Leon; though not finding my educational pursuits practical,

they always gave me support, love and encouragement.

lsEIS PRELUDIOS CORTOS

(SIX SHORT PRELUDES) by Manuel Ponce
Copyright 1953 by Peer International Corporation
Copyright Renewed by Peer International Corporation
International Copyright Secured
All Rights Reserved Including the Right of Public
Performance for Profit
Used by Permission

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ........................................................ iii

Acknowledgements .................................................. iv

Abstract .......................................................... ix

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................... . 1

Statement of the Problem ............................... 3

Statement of Purpose 4
Statement of Procedures 4
Outline of the Study 5

II. CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE OBSERVATIONAL PROTOCOL 7

Establishing Basic Technical Skills 7

Value to Students 8
Utility of Scientific Observation ...................... 9
Value in Research 10
Development of the Observational Protocol 10
Item Development .... 12
Construction of Items for Evaluation 12

III. AN OBSERVATIONAL SCALE FOR EVALUATING

CLASSICC GUITAR TECHNIQUE 15

The Observational Scale ................................ 15

Content Validity 15
Scoring Procedures 16
Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability 45
Procedures for Training Observers 45

IV. FIELD EXPERIENCES 55

Preliminary Procedures 55
Administration 57
Formal Observaitons 57
Field Constraints ...................................... 67
Recommendations for Applying the Scale 68

v. A METHOD FOR GRADING GUITAR REPERTOIRE 73

Outline of the Method for Grading Repertoire 76

Graded Examples . 92

vi
 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 153

Summary 153
Implications .................... 156

Bibliography ................ 158

List of Tables and Figures

Table

III-1 Rates of Agreement Among Observers on Total

Performance Score: Trial 1 47

III-2 Rates of Agreement Among Observers on Total

Performance Score: Trial II 47

III-3 Rates of Agreement Among Observers on Total

Dimensional Scores 48

III-4 Rates of Agreement by Trial and Scale

Dimension: Tuning 49

III-5 Rates of Agreement by Trial and Scale

Dimension: Sitting Position 50

III-6 Rates of Agreement by Trial and Scale

Dimension: Position of Guitar 51

III-7 Rates of Agreement by Trial and Scale

Dimension: Right Arm and Hand 52

III-8 Rates of Agreement by Trial and Scale

Dimension: Left Arm and Hand 53

IV-1 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student

Experience for Total Student Performance 60

IV-2 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student

Experience for Tuning 61

IV-3 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student

Experience for Sitting Position 62

IV-4 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student

Experience for Position of Guitar 63

IV-5 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student

Experience for Position of Right Arm and Hand 64

vii
 IV-6 Rates of Agreement Among Observers, by Student
Experience for Position of Left Arm and Hand 65

IV-7 Total Performance Scores, by Level of Student

and Observer Experience 66

Figure

III-1 An Observational Scale for Evaluating

Guitar Technique 16

V-1 Classification of Terms for Musical Texture 81

V-2 Chart: Beginning Levels of Instruction 82

V-3 Outline 85

viii
 ABSTRACT

CLASSIC GUITAR: METHODS FOR THE

EVALUATION OF TECHNIQUE

AND THE GRADATION OF REPERTOIRE

by

Bonnie Jan Schwartzer

Master of Arts in Music

The intent of this study is two-fold: the development of an

observational scale for measuring student proficiency in classic

guitar technique, and the development of a methodology for grading

guitar repertoire.

The observational scale, here tested through application, can

provide the researcher with a valid and reliable measurement tool and

the inservice and prospective teacher with an instructional aid for

assessing technical proficiency. The scale includes the full range of

basic technical skills along with definitions of correct and incorrect

ways to perform each skill. Photographs have been included illustra-

ting the correct method to perform many of the skills.

In establishing validity and reliability, the scale underwent

rigorous testing. Nine guitar majors attending California State

ix
University, Fullerton, during the Spring semester of 1982 provided the

population for the study. Based upon their college standing and length

of guitar tutelage the students were divided into three proficiency

levels: least, moderate and very experienced. Five guitar educators,

with three different degrees of teaching experience, observed and eval-

uated each student's technique according to the correct and incorrect

descriptors set down within the scale. The findings of the test

indicate that moderately experienced students scored higher than least

experienced students and very experienced students scored higher than

moderately experienced students. Furthermore, a minimum of 90%

agreement among observers was achieved for each student evaluated.

Accordingly, the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool.

The method for grading classic guitar repertoire provides educa-

tors with a comprehensive approach to grading music. Conventionally,

music has been graded primarily from two perspectives--technique and

fingerboard conceptualization. However, a student should be guided not

only in technical improvement but in the ability to understand the

music he performs as well. With this objective in mind, the repertoire

included in this study was graded from three perspectives--musical

texture, technique, and fingerboard conceptualization.

Included in the graded repertoire text are musical examples from

the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern periods. In

addition, a classification of terms for musical texture, an outline

stating the general objectives, and an outline of the specific objec-

tives for each musical example has been developed and incorporated.

X
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Although the guitar has appealed to audiences of diverse geograph-

ical, cultural and artistic backgrounds for more than 400 years,l it

has only been during the past two decades that the classic guitar has

enjoyed respectability within academic circles. Music educators, in

the past, have generally viewed the guitar as a "novelty instrument,

not worthy of a place in the school curriculum.2 The beginning of

academic status for the guitar came in 1960 when, according to

Dr. Ronald C. Purcell the guitar major was instituted at the Los

Angeles Conservatory of Music and Art.

The popularity of the guitar has been resounding on campuses

through the country. This phenomenon has taken many by surprise, not

the least being the guitar instructors themselves. Educators have

risen to the occasion and have sought to upgrade and improve educa-

tional materials as well as standards of performance and instruction.

Their goal has been to bridge a "pedagogical abyss in order to bring

guitar teaching standards in line with those of other traditional

instruments,'' 3 such as the piano and violin.

In spite of the plethora of books and articles about the guitar

and instructional materials for learning it which have appeared within

the last two decades,4 few attempts have been made to incorporate

concepts and principles that have been subjected to serious and orga-

nized testing. Hence, many educational materials for the guitar are

ad hoc and loosely developed.

1
 2

While other instruments traditionally taught in academic settings,

such as the piano, clarinet and trombone, have benefited from the

research techniques of the social sciences in establishing standards

for pedagogy, (Nellons, Charles Edward, 1974; Rogers, William

Forrest, Jr., 1974; Layne, Richard Dennis, 1974; Kidd, Robert Lee, III,

1975), the guitar, generally speaking, has not.S For example, there is

a fair amount of literature in which qualitative concepts and experi-

ential principles of guitar pedagogy are set forth.6 The validity and

reliability of these concepts and principles are difficult to gauge,

however, as one must rely almost exclusively upon the reputed expertise

of their authors. Accordingly, universally accepted standards perti-

nent to teaching the guitar do not exist. Therefore, consensus is

difficult to achieve regarding the proper elements of technique,

methods of evaluating skills and criteria for grading repertoire for

pedagogical purposes. Although most experienced teachers can address

these issues comprehensively, and routinely do so with their students,

less experienced teachers and students aspiring to pedagogy are left

with very general principles of guitar technique, no widely-accepted or

standardized way to gauge proficiency, and no method of evaluating the

technical and musical difficulties of the established repertoire for

the guitar.

As initially conceived, this inquiry was to be an exploratory

study to determine if, and in what ways, prior experience with non-

classic forms of guitar (i.e., folk, rock, jazz or blues) impeded or

enhanced the development of a beginning student of classic technique.

However, upon completion of an extensive review of the literature in

search of established measuring devices, it was found that none

 3

existed for measuring classic guitar technique. It then became appar-

ent that the development and validation of a tool for the description,

measurement, and evaluation of technique would not only preclude the

proposed experiment but be a more significant contribution to pedagogy.

What follows, then, is a statement of the problem under inquiry--its

purpose, the procedures employed, and an outline of the study.

Statement of the Problem

Guitar educators desirous of utilizing the research techniques of

the social sciences, in either improving upon teaching techniques, or

establishing standards for pedagogy, will very likely experience two

major problems: 1) no pre-established measuring devices, and 2) scant

information focusing specifically on guitar research.

During the last 20 years guitar educators have flooded the market

with teaching materials relevant to playing the guitar. Although many

of these methodologies have conceptual similarites, there is neither

a method for comprehensively grading repertoire nor is there any

statistical evidence demonstrating the viability of their books.

Furthermore, the literature on measurement of guitar technique consists

largely of intuitive judgments of student proficiency by experienced

teachers. Although this has been the conventional methodology for

evaluation, it falls short of the standards set in the social sciences,

because criteria for judgment are unclear and the validity and relia-

bility of the criteria and their application are most often unknown.
 4

Statement of Purpose

One intent of this study is to provide guitar educators with a

valid and reliable observational scale for evaluating technique. And,

as classic guitar technique is the foundation for playing the guitar

in that style, the observational scale will be useful to any pertinent

research.

After a guitar student has acquired the basic technical skills and

the rudiments of reading crusic, a teacher must present selections from

the repertoire that are progressive, instructive, and attractive to the

student. Accordingly, the second purpose of this study is to offer

educators a methodology for selecting and grading the repertoire along

with a group of pieces exemplifying these procedures. The method

grades repertoire both according to technical skills and musical

texture. Upon completion of these works, the student will not only be

able to play the guitar with greater proficiency, but should have a

better understanding of the music he is performing.

Statement of Procedures

This study is comprised of two parts:

1. the establishment of the reliability and validity of an

observational scale designed to gauge the proficiency of

classic guitar technique.

2. the organization of a method for grading guitar repertoire.

In developing the observational scale the researcher was assisted

by a guitar educator (Dr. Ronald C. Purcell) and a social scientist

(Dr. Vincent Myers). Later, a jury comprised of guitar educators was

 5

convened and content validity obtained. The effectiveness of the

observational scale was checked by testing both its reliability and

validity.

In the second section of this study, the first procedure used was

the formulation of the method for grading the repertoire. Music was

sought and then graded according to musical texture, technique, and

conceptualization of the fingerboard. Next, a summary of the techni-

cal objectives in each musical texture, along with a definition of the

applicable musical terms (monophony, homophony, polyphony and counter-

point), was set down. The objectives for each piece were then outlined.

Outline of the Study

The two problems under inquiry, as well as the background and pur-

pose of the study have been set forth in this chapter. In Chapter II

the conceptual foundations for the observational scale are delineated

including the major assumptions made during its development, and the

procedures by which the scale was developed are described. The obser-

vational scale is set forth in Chapter III along with consideration of

content validity, scoring procedures, scoring reliability and proce-

dures for training observers. Chapter IV presents a detailed account

of the field work involved in testing the scale, the findings, the

field constraints that developed and recommendations for future appli-

cation. The method of grading guitar repertoire is set forth in

Chapter V, along with the conceptual foundations for its development

and an outline of the text for grading repertoire. The final chapter

discusses conclusions and implications for both the observational

scale and the method for grading repertoire.

 6

Footnotes

lThis phenomenon has been sufficiently recorded and illustrated

in Grunfeld's The Art and Times of the Guitar and Bellow's The Illus-
trated History of the Guitar.

2Rix Tillman, "The Guitar--A Part of Your Program," The Instru-

mentalist, XXVII (Feb., 1973), 20, 22.

3Robert Mayeur, "Classroom Guitar," Soundboard, VIII (Feb.,

1981), 31-33.

4During the past two decades methods, books, and articles about
playing the guitar that have been cited in the Music Index, not
including duplications, total 1,448.

5Attempts that have employed these techniques are: Phillip H.

Fink, The Development and Evaluation of Instrumental Materials for a
Beginning Class in Heterogeneous Strings including Guitar (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Miami, 1973); Donald E. Michel, "Self
Esteem and Academic Achievement in Black Junior High School Students:
Effects of Automated Guitar Instruction," Council for Research in
Music Education, XXIV (Spring, 1971), 15-23; Roy Earl Petschauer,
The Development and Testing of a Guitar Method to Enable Educators
to Play and Teach the Guitar in the Schools (Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Oregon, 1972); W. Tiller, "The Development and
Experimental Application of programme-assisted instruction in
Teaching of Beginning Guitarists," Music Educators Journal, XXI
(October, 1977), 57.

6Listings in the Music Index for the last two decades total 414.

6The only source discovered for this area is "Judges evaluation

of student's technique." Petschauer, op. cit., p. 135.
 CHAPTER II

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE OBSERVATIONAL PROTOCOL

The need for guitar educators to develop insight into how social

science procedures can contribute to pedagogy, along with the reason

for developing an observational scale to measure technical profici-

ency, was reviewed in Chapter I. In this chapter, the design and

development of the observational scale are discussed including criteria

and categories.

The development of this scale evolved from four major assumptions:

1) basic technical skills must be established early in the education of

the student, 2) measuring and evaluating technical proficiency with a

systematic method will yield conclusions more quickly and accurately

than the "conventional procedures" for evalutaion, 3) utility of social

science methods will solve some of the problems which beset guitar

pedagogy, and 4) establishing an observational scale to measure

technique will be an invaluable aid for ongoing research.

Establishing Basic Technical Skills

The importance of establishing correct technical skills early in

the student's education is assumed, but not well documented. I have

found from personal experience as a student and a teacher that they are

imperative and should be introduced from the onset of instruction. As

a student of guitar, I wasted many years because I was not instructed

in proper techniques for developing the neuro-muscular skills required

for difficult compostions. Subsequently, a great deal of my college

7
 8

time was spent in correcting the faulty habits. As a teacher I have

found that most students are either discouraged or frustrated when

they realize that further progress depends upon correction of faulty

habits through tedious technical exercises. Many students are either

unwilling or lack the necessary patience and determination to begin

again. Therefore, early instruction in the development of correct

technical skills is crucial to the optimum development of a capable

performer.

It is beyond the scope of this study to determine the reasons for

the lack of early emphasis upon technique. The observational scale and

related materials described in subsequent parts of this chapter will

focus on technical elements of guitar proficiency. Because each skill

within the scope of classic guitar technique is to be precisely

defined, an instructor and/or student using the scale will have a basis

upon which to independently evaluate his/her own levels of proficiency.

Value to Students

The significance and benefits of the findings to be drawn from the

observational scale will be at least equal to and often greater for the

student than conventional methods of evaluation. The conventional

evaluation relies exclusively upon the relative competence and aware-

ness of the observer. As there is rarely any itemized check list or

evidence for substantiation available, the student may well question

the credibility of the evaluation. Within the observational scale,

however, the content to be evaluated is systematically itemized and

defined. Therefore, the findings can be substantiated concretely and a

 9

specific critique with clear examples can be given. Such an evaluation

should be significantly more meaningful to the student.

Beyond the foregoing, using the observational scale as the method

for evaluation should impress upon the student the importance of

acquiring and putting into practice the correct technique.

Utility of Scientific Observation

In the past, guitar educators have relied on their own facilities

of perception and interpretation, along with the expertise of other

pedagogues, as a means of formulating principles for teaching the

guitar. The researcher does not deny that this method is an invaluable

tool for acquiring information. However, there is no reason to accept

it as the only method for gathering knowledge. According to Selltiz

~ al, "We are all constantly observing and noticing what is going on

around us;" however, "just looking does not always yield true

conclusions" and "scientific observation is something more than just

looking."l The acceptance of scientific observation as a means for

gathering knowledge will enable guitar educators to formulate and test

theories and to establish standards for pedagogy.

Heretofore, many basic questions pertinent to playing the guitar

have been side-stepped, dismissed as undeterminable, or answered on the

grounds of personal experience. For example, I have often been asked,

by composers and non-guitarist musicians alike, why it is that the

guitar student generally has such a difficult time sight-reading new

music and articulating difficult rhythmic patterns. I have tried to

avoid answering this question; when that was not acceptable, I relied

on personal experience for the answer. Such experiences have always

 10

left me feeling frustrated and unprofessional. Utilization of scienti-

fic research techniques will provide data that has been obtained thru

objective and systematic procedures. And if the sampling is large

enough, there can be little dispute among educators as to the validity

of the findings. Accordingly, standards can be set for pedagogy.

Value in Research

Finally, an established observational scale by which guitar

technique can be described, measured, and evaluated will prove to be

an invaluable aid for ongoing research. Presently there are no system-

atic measurement tools, standarized tests, or reliable criteria. A

valid, reliable observational scale will take researchers beyond such

common observational errors resulting from selective perception,

distorted interpretation, faulty recall, and inac~urate recording.2

Furthermore, an established observational scale will not only serve as

a model for developing other such scales, but will save many

researchers the task of developing and demonstrating the validity of

their own evaluative instrument to measure technique.

Development of the Observational Protocol

Because there were no existing measures or comparable tests, the

observational scale was an original formulation of the researcher, with

the aid of an experienced guitar educator and a senior social scientist

who is also a student of guitar. The scale was constructed specifi-

cally to include the technical skills pertinent to a beginning guitar

student.
 11

During the early phases of development, the available literature

concerning guitar technique was reviewed and taken into consideration.3

Although generally informative, nothing in the literature was specifi-

cally appropriate to the interests of this study.

Regarding the observation of guitar technique, two issues were

addressed: 1) what skills should be included, and 2) against what

standard should technical performance be evaluated. Analysis yielded

33 skills distributed within seven categories of guitar technique. As

conceived, the categories relevant to a beginning student are:

1. Tuning

2. Sitting position

3. Position of guitar

4. Position of right arm

5. Position of right hand

6. Position of left arm

7. Position of left hand

At first glance, one might argue that "tuning" should not be

placed at the beginning but after the categories of "sitting position"

and "position of guitar". By evaluating "tuning" first, observations

of the physically-oriented factors need not even begin until the

aspects of tuning are completed, and the student's concentration on

technique need not be broken midway by having to demonstrate the

ability to tune.

After establishing the categories relevant to a beginning guitar

student, items for evaluation were developed and defined. Due to the

limited amount of extant information about guitar technique, each item

and its definition evolved de novo.

 12

Item Development

In accordance with the conceptual foundations for the observa-

tional scale and the established conditions for guitar technique,5 a

preliminary item pool was developed. These were then submitted to an

advisory committee. Upon their recommendations additional items were

included and the item pool was recast into an order that would facili-

tate the evaluation.

To ensure that interpretive bias would not undermine validity, a

qualitative statement defining correct and incorrect technical perfor-

mance along with photographs of many of the correct descriptors was

added to each observational item. A simple "correct-incorrect" scoring

mode was then established for each item.

Construction of Items for Evaluation

Several versions of items were written and tested in exchanges

among consultants and observer-trainees. Nuances of meaning and

possible ambiguity were explored.

Further discussion was directed toward what can be expected from

a beginning student. In accordance with that discussion, the modifi-

cation of one item is illustrative:

1. First version:

Dimension: Left hand.

Item: Depression of fingers.

Correct Performance: Playing on the tips of the fingers.

 13

2. Second version:

Dimension: Left hand.

Item: Depression of fingers.

Correct Performance: The first three fingers playing on the tips.

The first version raised the issue of whether the beginning

student would have sufficient flexibility in his left hand to execute

this skill correctly. It was decided that although such flexibility

might be possible, the average student would not be able to do it.

Therefore, it was decided that when the scale is to be used with a

beginning student, only the first three fingers should be included.

Prior to formal observations, a panel of guitar educators evalu-

ated the instrument in several ways: 1) the degree to which the

instrument reflects guitar technique, 2) clarity of the items, and

3) the extent to which each item applies to a beginning student.

Following these deliberations, the final version of the observa-

tional scale was drawn up (see Chapter III).

 14

Footnotes

lclaire Selltiz, et al, Research Methods in Social Relations,

(3rd ed.; New York: Holt,~inehart and Winston, 1976), p. 252.

2For a detailed discussion about measurements see Claire

Selltiz, et al, Research Methods in Social Relations, (revised ed.;
New York:-rroit, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), pp. 145-198.

3For example, Dionysio Aguado, Methodo Completo de Guitarra,

(Buenos Aires: Ricordi Americana), pp. 11-14; Paul Wathen Cox,
Classic Guitar Techniques and its Evolution as Reflected in the
Method Books ca. 1770-1858 (Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University,
1978); John Duarte, The Bases of Classic Guitar Technique,
(Sevenoaks, Kent: Novello, 1975); Michael Lorimer, "Classical
Guitar: Left Hand Postion," Guitar Player, X (December, 1976), 101;
Michael Lorimer, "Classical Guitar: Fingernail Shape and Length,"
Guitar Player, XI (February, 1977), 14; Frederick M. Noad, Solo
Guitar Playing, (2nd ed.; New York: Schirmer Books, 1976), ~26-33,
35-38; John C. Tanno, "Reflections on Classical Guitar Technique,"
Soundboard, (September, 1976), 41-2.

4This was derived primarily by evaluating the universally

accepted techniques of Andres Segovia.
 CHAPTER III

AN OBSERVATIONAL SCALE FOR EVALUATING

CLASSIC GUITAR TECHNIQUE

The observational scale for describing and measuring classic

guitar technique is set forth in this chapter. The scale consists of

seven major behavioral dimensions and 33 items for evaluation, along

with content validity, scoring procedures, scoring reliability and

procedures for training observers.

The Observational Scale

The observational scale has been designed to gauge technical pro-

ficiency within seven behavioral dimensions: 1) tuning, 2) sitting

position, 3) position of guitar, 4) position of right arm, 5) position

of right hand, 6) position of left arm, 7) position of left hand

(Figure III-1). Each behavioral dimension contains one or more items

for evaluation defined in terms of correct or incorrect performance.

Along with verbal definitions, illustrative photographs of the correct

performances are included in the scale.

Content Validity

Content validity for the scale was secured by a panel of experts,

each being an experienced guitar pedagogue.1 Independent judgments

about the scope of the scale vis-a-vis conventional elements of guitar

technique were made by each panel member. Independent conclusions and

15
 16

recommendations were then incorporated into the final version of the

scale for final review by the panel.

Scoring Procedures

The descriptions of correct and incorrect performance (followed by

illustrative photographs) for each observational category are as

follows:

FIGURE III-1

AN OBSERVATIONAL SCALE
FOR EVALUATING GUITAR TECHNIQUE

DIMENSION: TUNING*

INCORRECT CORRECT

1. Recognition of Cannot distinguish Can recognize

whether the guitar if guitar is in tune if the guitar is
is in tune or not. or if it is not. in tune or not.

2. Procedure of Does not know the Can demonstrate

relative tuning. procedure of relative the procedure of
tuning. relative tuning.

3. Can identify Cannot Can Can identify

what strings identify any identify both strings
are not in tune. strings one out of tune.
of tune. string.

4. Tuning the guitar. Cannot tune Can tune Can tune very
at all. moderately. well.

SCORE:

*When administering this section, put 2 strings out of tune--any string

but the 6th.
 17

DIMENSION: SITTING POSITION

INCORRECT CORRECT

5. Relationship of Sitting in the middle Sitting on the

buttocks to chair. or the back of the front section of
chair. the chair.

6. Angle of buttocks Facing forward or Angled somewhat

in relationship angled to the right. to the left.
to chair.

7. Angle of back. Back is hunched. Back is straight.

8. Relationship of Person's back Person's back

person's back to reclining on the not supported by
the chair. chair. the chair.

9. Left leg. Not elevated. Elevated on foot-

stool or other foot
support.

10. Right Leg. Elevated in some Flat on the ground.

form.

11. Space between Inadequate space Adequate space be-

legs. between legs. tween legs, allowing
the guitar to be in
the correct position.

SCORE:
---

DIMENSION: POSITION OF GUITAR

INCORRECT CORRECT

12. Guitar resting on Guitar resting on Guitar resting on

the right or left the right leg. the left leg.
leg.

13. Horizontal angle Head of the guitar Head of the guitar

of the guitar. angled below the chin should be at eye
or above the eyes. level.

14. Vertical angle of Not perpendicular to Almost perpendicular

the guitar. person's chest, large to person's chest,
bow not extending with the large bow
outward or too far slightly outward.
outward.

SCORE:
 18

DIMENSION: POSITION OF RIGHT ARM

INCORRECT CORRECT

15. Right arm Right arm resting on Right arm resting on

placement. the waist of the the hip of the
guitar or the guitar.
shoulder.

16. The elbow. Elbow projects over, Elbow is behind the

or rests on the face face edge of the
edge of the guitar. guitar.

DIMENSION: POSITION OF RIGHT HAND

INCORRECT CORRECT

17. Horizontal rela- Too close to the Slightly to the right

tionship to the bridge or to the of the soundhole.
soundhole. fingerboard.

18. Horizontal angle At a 90 angle or A 45 angle.

of the wrist. a 180 angle.

19. Vertical angle of Must not rest on sur- About 3 1/2 inches
the wrist. face of the guitar, from the surface of
or, protrude out too the guitar.
far.

20. Position of Knuckles not in line Knuckles along the

fingers. with the strings. same line as the
strings.

21. Position of Resting on strings Not resting on

fingers. for support. strings for support.

22. Curvature of Fingers straight out Fingers should be

fingers. or curved too much curved as though
into palm. they were holding a
tennis ball.

23. Relationship of Thumb under fingers, Thumb should extend

thumb to fingers. against hand, or to the left of the
resting on the fingers, forming the
strings. shape of a V.

24. Alternating of Fingers do not alter- Fingers do alternate

fingers. nate when playing when playing more
more than one note. than one note.
 19

25. Shape of finger- No nails or too long. Nails should barely

nails. appear over the
finger tips when
viewed palm side-up.

SCORE:

DIMENSION: POSITION OF LEFT ARM

INCORRECT CORRECT

26. Angle of elbow. Elbow too close to Elbow should be at a

body or sticking out 45 angle.
too far.

DIMENSION: POSITION OF LEFT HAND

INCORRECT CORRECT

27. Shape of nails. Fingernails above the Fingernails should be

tips of the fingers. below the tips of the
fingers.

28. Vertical position Hanging over the top In the middle of the
of the thumb. of the fingerboard. neck.

29. Horizontal posi- Under the index or Under the middle or

tion of the thumb. little finger. near the ring finger.

30. Vertical angle of Angle of wrist Angle of wrist about

wrist. falling too far under 20.
neck of guitar.

31. Curavture of Fingers not curved, Fingers should curve,

fingers. or knuckles collapsed with each knuckle
inward. bent slightly outward
from the palm.

32. Depression of Not playing on the The fingers playing

fingers. fingertips. on the tips.

33. Horizontal rela- On the fret or not As close to the fret

tionship of close enough to it, as possible but not
fingers to fret. allowing for a buzz. on it.

SCORE:

TOTAL SCORE:
 20

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

#5. Relationship of Sitting on the front

buttocks to chair. section of the chair.
 21

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

#6. Angle of buttocks Angled somewhat to

in relationship to the left.
chair.
 22

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

#7. Angle of back. Back is straight.

 23

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

#8. Relationship of Person's back not

person's back supported by the chair.
to the chair.
 24

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

119. Left leg. Elevated on footstool

or other foot support.

# 10. Right leg. Flat on the ground.

 25

DIMENSION: SITTING
POSITION
CORRECT

#11. Space between Adequate space between

legs. legs, allowing the
guitar to be in the
correct position.
 26

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
GUITAR
CORRECT

#12. Resting on the Guitar resting on the

right or left leg. left leg.
 27

DIMENSION: POSITION
OF GUITAR
CORRECT

# 13. Horizontal angle of Head of the guitar should

guitar. be at eye level.
 28

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
GUITAR
CORRECT

#14. Vertical angle Almost perpendicular to

of the guitar. person's chest, large
bow slightly outward.
 29

Another Angle of #14.

 30

~. ," rr , ,_l~
.~-,;f<.;t. ...
' .".
'"- - -~''"''"

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT ARM
CORRECT

1115. Right arm Right arm resting on the

placement. hip of the guitar.

t/ 16. The elbow. Elbow is behind the face

edge of the guitar.
 31

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#17. Horizontal Slightly to the right of

relationship to of the soundhole.
the soundhole.

#18. Horizontal angle A 45 angle.

of the wrist.
 32

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#19. Vertical angle About 3 1/2 inches from

of the wrist. the surface of the guitar.
 33

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

# 20. Position of Knuckles along the same

fingers. line as the strings.
 34

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#21. Position of Not resting on strings

fingers. for support.
 35

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#22. Curvature of Fingers should be curved

fingers. as though they were
holding a tennis ball.
 36 ' '

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#23. Relationship of Thumb should extend to

thumb to fingers. the left of the fingers,
forming the shape of a V.
 37

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
RIGHT HAND
CORRECT

#25. Shape of finger- Nails should barely

nails. appear over the finger
tips.
 38

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT ARM
CORRECT

1126. Angle of Elbow should be at a

elbow. 45 angle.
 39

., ..
~~~i ~

Another Angle of 1/26.

 40

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT HAND
CORRECT

#28. Vertical position In the middle of the

of the thumb. neck.

#29. Horizontal position Under the middle or

of the thumb. near the ring finger.
 41

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT HAND
CORRECT

#30. Vertical angle Angle of wrist about 20.

of wrist.
 42

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT HAND
CORRECT

#31. Curvature of Fingers should curve,

fingers . with each knuckle
bent slightly outward
from the palm.
 43

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT HAND
CORRECT

#32. Depression of The fingers playing on

fingers. the tips .
 44

DIMENSION: POSITION OF
LEFT HAND
CORRECT

#33. Horizontal relation- As close to the fret as

ship of fingers to possible but not on it.
fret.
 45

A value of 1 for "correct" and 0 for "incorrect' is to be assigned

to each item. If the item is considered correct, according to the

definitions and photographs, the observer should place a check next to

the correct descriptor of the item. At the conclusion of the observa-

tions, the number of checks in the "correct" column are to be added,

thereby yielding the total performance scores. Sub-scores for each

behavioral dimension are to be computed similarly.

Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability

Five guitar educators with long-term experience as private,

college and university-based instructors were selected to establish the

validity and reliability of the scale.2 Prior to formal observations,

a trial run was conducted to ensure that inter-rater and intra-rater

reliability scores would be within the margin of error acceptable

within scientific research procedure. The conventional standard of

not less than 90 percent agreement among observers on both total per-

formance score and scores within each sub-section was achieved.

Procedures for Training Observers

Prior to the trial run, each observer trainee was given a copy of

the scale for review and clarification. Following that, photographs of

the correct performance were passed out and a demonstration of the

correct and incorrect descriptors of each technique was given. Next,

scoring procedures were explained and instructions for operational

procedures were given. Five major points were discussed:

1. The division of observations into five segments.

 46 Q '

A. Tuning (items 1-4).

B. Sitting position (items 5-11).

C. Position of guitar (items 12-14).

D. Positions of right arm and right hand (items 15-25).

E. Positions of left arm and left hand (items 26-33).

2. Before evaluating the "tuning" category, the observer is to

place any two strings except number 6 out of tune.

3. Before evaluating sitting position and position of guitar,

the participant is to be instructed to sit down and place

the guitar in the correct position.

4. Before evaluating right arm and right hand skills, the parti-

cipant is to be told to place his right arm and right hand in

the correct positions and to play repetitively the third

string open with the index and middle fingers until he is

instructed to stop.

5. Before evaluating left arm and left hand skills, the parti-

cipant is to be asked to play on the third string a sequence

of semi-tones (half steps) beginning with the first finger and

ending with the fourth, and to repeat this pattern until asked

to stop.

Following the clarification of scoring and operational procedures

the scale was administered three different times on one participant.

The first observation was a trial test and involved only administering

the scale in sub-sections. At the conclusion of each sub-section,

scores were compared and any disagreements were discussed. Following

that, two observational trials yielded reliability rates of .95 and .96

on total performance scores (Tables III-1 and III-2, respectively).

 47

TABLE III-1

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS ON TOTAL

PERFORMANCE SCORE: TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 .92 .92 1. 00 .96

B 1.00 .92 .92 1.00 .96

c .92 .92 1.00 .92 .94

D .92 .92 1.00 .92 .94

E 1.00 1.00 .92 .92 .96

Total .96 .96 .94 .94 .96 .95

TABLE III-2

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS ON TOTAL

PERFORMANCE SCORE: Trial II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A .92 .92 96 .96 .94

B .92 1.00 .96 .96 .96

c .92 1.00 .96 .96 .96

D .96 .96 .96 1.00 .97

E .96 .96 .96 1.00 .97

Total .94 .96 .96 .97 .97 .96

 48

Detailed analysis with scale dimensions controlled reveal intra-rater

reliability rates, or reliability rates within each sub-section, above

the conventional standard of not less than 90% agreement among

observers (Tables III-3 thru III-8).

With very little orientation and training (approximately 1 1/2

hours), observers achieved scientifically acceptable levels of agree-

ment (.90). Therefore, application of the scale can be considered

practical for evaluating proficiency of guitar technique.

TABLE III-3

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS ON TOTAL

DIMENSIONAL SCORES

Trial

Dimesnions I II Average

Tuning 1.00 1.00 1.00

Sitting Position .90 1.00 .95

Position of Guitar 1.00 1.00 1.00

Position of Right .93 .95 .94

Arm and Hand

Position of Left .96 .92 .94

Arm and Hand

Total .96 .97 .97

 49

TABLE III-4

RATES OF AGREEMENT BY TRIAL

AND SCALE DIMENSION: TUNING

TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

TRIAL II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00'

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 so

TABLE III-5

RATES OF AGREEMENT BY TRIAL

AND SCALE DIMENSION: SITTING POSITION

TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A .83 1.00 1.00 .83 .92

B .83 .83 .83 1.00 .87

c 1.00 .83 1.00 .83 .92

D 1.00 .83 1.00 .83 .92

E .83 1.00 .83 .83 .87

Total .92 .87 .92 .92 .87 .90

TRIAL II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 51

TABLE III-6

RATES OF AGREEMENT BY TRIAL

AND SCALE DIMENSION: POSITION OF GUITAR

TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total
A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

TRIAL II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

B 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

c 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 52

TABLE III-7

RATES OF AGREEMENT BY TRIAL

AND SCALE DIMENSION: RIGHT ARM AND HAND

TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A 1.00 .88 .88 1.00 .94

B 1.00 .88 .88 1.00 .94

c .88 .88 1.00 .88 .91

D .88 .88 1.00 .88 .91

E 1.00 1.00 .88 .88 .94

Total .94 .94 .91 .91 .94 .93

TRIAL II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A .90 .90 1.00 1.00 .95

B .90 1.00 .90 1.00 .95

c .90 1.00 .90 1.00 .95

D 1.00 .90 .90 .90 .93

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 .90 .98

Total .95 .95 .95 .93 .98 .95

 53

TABLE III-8

RATES OF AGREEMENT BY TRIAL

AND SCALE DIMENSION: LEFT ARM AND HAND

TRIAL I

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A .86 .86 .86 1.00 .90

B .86 1.00 1.00 1.00 .97

c .86 1.00 1.00 1.00 .97

D .86 1.00 1.00 1.00 .97

E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total .90 .97 .97 .97 1.00 .96

TRIAL II

Observer

Observer A B c D E Total

A .86 .86 .86 1.00 .90

B .86 1.00 1.00 .86 .93

c .86 1.00 1.00 .86 .93

D .86 1.00 1.00 .86 .93

E 1.00 .86 .86 .86 .90

Total .90 .93 .93 .93 .90 .92

 54

Footnotes

lMembers of the panel were Professors Ronald c. Purcell, Eric

Jones, Charles Suovanen and George Vick.

2The observers who participated in this study are Brad Benefield,

Eric Jones, Bill Owen, Robert Mayeur and Charles Suovanen.
 CHAPTER IV

FIELD EXPERIENCES

Having developed the observational scale described in Chapter III,

my aim was to conduct formal observations on a variety of students in

order to establish that the scale was both valid and reliable. Vali-

dity would be demonstrated if less experienced students scored lower

than advanced students. Reliability would be established if teachers

with differing levels of teaching experience came up with the same

scores. To meet these requirements, nine participants, grouped into

three different proficiency levels, were selected; they were guitar

students from California State University, Fullerton, and constituted a

random sampling. Five observers, with teaching experience representing

three levels, were chosen systematically. Permission to conduct

observations was requested, access to the facilities to conduct the

observations was obtained, scheduling logistics were formulated, and

formal observations were conducted.

Preliminary Procedures

Observations required the approval and cooperation of university

personnel at two colleges: persons responsible for monitoring the

activities within the guitar department at California State University,

Northridge, and the instructors of the students under observation at

CSUF.

Participation, support, and assistance were requested from each of

these three instructors, to whom the goals, field requirements, and

55
 56

potential outcome of the effort were explained. These plans were met

with interest and approval and each of the instructors, whenever

possible, assisted in assuring the success of the project.

Dr. Ronald C. Purcell, the director of the guitar program at CSUN,

offered aid in securing both observers and a classroom to train them.

Although veteran and intermediate teachers were easily recruited as

observers, many inexperienced teachers of beginning students were

approached before two could be enlisted. The problem of recruiting

these teachers was due, in part, to their lack of interest in the

project! and their failure to understand that scientific research could

be of value to guitar pedagogy. Each observer who did participate

donated approximately eight hours of their time; many of the refusals

were a matter of previous personal commitments.

Although Professors Scott Zeidel and David Grimes of CSUF were

hard pressed to find three students who could be considered novice

guitar students and nine students whose availability coordinated with

that of the observers, in the final hour they provided both. Professor

Zeidel also secured a classroom on the CSUF campus, where the observa-

tions took place.

Each of the nine participants was to be evaluated individually by

each observer. It was estimated, from previous experience, that the

scale could be administered in ten minutes. It was my task to coordi-

nate the observations, including the distribution and collection of

observational materials, keeping a guitar out of tune, and controlling

the time allotted for evaluation of each item.

 57

Administration

Observations were to begin at 2:00 P.M., with a different partici-

pant arriving every ten minutes. Unfortunately, I and four of the

observers arrived twenty minutes late, which set back the schedule for

the entire session. The first participant was evaluated as a practice

observation; this score was not included in the final analysis. Each

observation took approximately ten minutes, of which half of the time

was spent on the tuning items. Midway through the session the

observers adjourned for a ten ~inute rest period, after which the

remaining observations were completed. A total of nine observations

were scored for analysis.

Formal Observations

Design

Although acceptable rates of agreement were achieved at the time

the observers were trained and the scale is valid vis-a-vis expert

judgments, a more rigorous test of reliability and validity was under-

taken.

In establishing the scale's reliability two points had to be

demonstrated: 1) that rates of agreement do not vary between teachers

with different levels of experience, and 2) that acceptable rates of

agreement among observers will be achieved for least experienced,

moderately experienced and very experienced students.

In testing the validity of the scale it had to be shown that

moderately experienced students scored higher than least experienced

 58

students, whereas very experienced students scored higher than

moderately experienced students. This is illustrated in Example IV-1:

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Experience
of Students A B c D E

Least -------------- Lowest Scores ------------

Moderate

Most -------------- Highest Scores -----------

As stated previously, all the participants were students currently

enrolled at CSUF. As such, all had considerable experience. Based

upon the length of study of each participant coupled with the instruc-

tor's opinion of the student's technical status, the participants were

classified into three levels of proficiency: least, moderate and most

experienced. The average length of study for the least experienced

student was 2 years; moderately experienced students averaged 4 and the

most experienced students averaged 8. It was decided that the validity

of the scale would be amply demonstrated if it could distinguish

between the most and least experienced players in what was basically a

rather experienced group.

Findings: Reliability

To check the scale's reliability, rates of agreement among

observers, by student experience, were computed for both the student's

total performance and by scale dimension. Evaluation of the data indi-

cates that average rates of agreement among observers on total student

performance are significantly similar and there are no significant

 59 ' .

variations by level of student experience (Table (IV-1). Detailed

analysis reveals that the average rates of agreement by student

experience are .97, .98, .97.

For each scale dimension, rates of agreement among observers, by

student experience, are shown in Tables IV-2 through IV-6. As indica-

ted by these tables there are 54 overall rates of agreement (9 students

multiplied by 6 dimensions), of which 53 are .90 or higher. Of the

53, 28 are perfect or 1.00.

Conclusions: Reliability

Rates of agreement achieved during orientation and training

carried over into nine sets of observations. Because rates of agree-

ment among observers did not vary between teachers of different

experience nor did they vary by level of student experience, it has

been demonstrated that the scale is reliable.

Findings: Validity

The data set forth in Table IV-7 reflects the participants total

performance scores. The data indicates that all students scored above

22 points, which puts them in the upper third of the scale. Accord-

ingly, all students are considerably experienced. The average score

for the least experienced students is 23, for the moderately experi-

enced students 28 and for the most experienced students 31. Every

observer gave the highest scores to the most experienced students and

the lowest scores to the least experienced students.

Conclusions: Validity

Although prior to formal observations a panel of experts had

considered the scale valid, a very rigorous test demonstrated that the
 60

TABLE IV-1

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR TOTAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Average

Least 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 2 .98 .98 .95 .98 .95 .97

Least 3 .96 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95

Average .97

Moderate 1 .96 .94 .97 .97 .97 .96

Moderate 2 .98 .98 .99 .99 .99 .99

Moderate 3 .97 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99

Average .98

Most 1 .99 .99 .97 .99 .99 .99

Most 2 .97 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99

Most 3 .97 .86 .97 .97 .97 .95

Average .97
 61

TABLE IV-2

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR TUNING

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Total

Least 1 .83 .83 .83 .75 .75 .80

Least 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 1 .94 .94 75 .94 .94 .90

Moderate 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 62

TABLE IV-3

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR SITTING POSITION

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Total

Least 1 .80 .95 .95 .95 .95 .92

Least 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 1 .80 .95 .95 .95 .95 .92

Moderate 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 3 .97 .86 .97 .97 .97 95

 63

TABLE IV-4

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR POSITION OF GUITAR

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Total

Least 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 64

TABLE IV-5

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR POSITION OF RIGHT ARM AND HAND

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Total

Least 1 .91 .94 .94 .94 .91 .93

Least 2 .94 .94 .86 .94 .86 .91

Least 3 .95 .95 .92 .92 .95 .94

Moderate 1 .95 .95 .92 .95 .95 .94

Moderate 2 .82 .90 .93 .93 .93 .90

Moderate 3 .95 .93 .95 .95 .93 .94

Most 1 .98 .98 .91 .98 .98 .97

Most 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 65

TABLE IV-6

RATES OF AGREEMENT AMONG OBSERVERS

BY STUDENT EXPERIENCE
FOR POSITION OF LEFT ARM AND HAND

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student
Experience A B c D E Total

Least 1 .97 .97 .97 .86 .97 .95

Least 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Least 3 .94 .91 .94 .94 .91 .93

Moderate 1 .97 .88 .97 .97 .97 .95

Moderate 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Moderate 3 .88 .97 .97 .97 .97 .95

Most 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Most 2 .88 .97 .97 .97 .97 .95

Most 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 66

TABLE IV-7

TOTAL PERFORMANCE SCORES

BY LEVEL OF
STUDENT--AND OBSERVER~-EXPERIENCE

Experience of Observers

Least Moderate Most

Student Average
Experience A B c D E Score

Least 1 23 23 23 23 23 23

Least 2 23 23 24 23 23 23

Least 3 23 22 24 24 22 23

(Average) (23) (23) (24) (23) (23) (23)

Moderate 1 26 25 27 27 27 26

Moderate 2 28 28 29 29 29 29

Moderate 3 28 29 29 29 29 29

(Average) (27) (27) ( 28) ( 28) ( 28) ( 28)

Most 1 30 30 31 30 30 30

Most 2 30 31 31 31 31 31

Most 3 32 33 32 32 32 32

(Average) (31) (31) (31) (31) ( 31) (31)

 67

scale not only has a sound basis in theory, but, is able to distinguish

the least, the moderate and the most experienced among a group of

students having considerable proficiency. Without exception, all

moderately experienced students scored higher than least experienced

students and all very experienced students scored higher than moder-

ately experienced students. Therefore, the validity of the scale has

been demonstrated.

Field Constraints

The most difficult problem was in obtaining people to participate

in the study, both as students and as observers. For instance, eleven

inexperienced teachers were approached before two agreed to partici-

pate, (in fact, the second inexperienced teacher that did participate

was recruited only two days before the teachers were trained). Initi-

ally the study's design called for six observers; however, five minutes

before the training session began I was informed by one of the

observers that he would not be able to participate. Therefore, the

study's design was altered to include only five observers. The initial

design called for twelve students. The night before the observations

were to take place, I was informed by Professor Zeidel at CSUF that only

seven students had agreed to participate. Fortunately, by the time

observations began the total was increased to ten.

During formal observations two unforeseen problems were encoun-

tered: 1) in administering the items under "tuning" it was found that

many students were unfamiliar with the term "relative tuning". Conse-

quently, they were unable to demonstrate its procedure. 2) I had not

anticipated, nor provide in the scale, for women wearing dresses.

 68

This caused quite a disturbance in the evaluation of item 11, having to

do with adequate space between the legs (refer to the photograph on

page 25). I instructed the observers to score it as incorrect and

consideration would be given to this question later.2

Despite these few field impediments, the observations went more

smoothly than anticipated.

Recommendations for Applying the Scale

In conducting these observations, a number of ideas for training

observers and administering the scale developed. The foundation for

many of the recommendations evolved when the scale was applied in 1980.

The recommendations that were formulated from that pilot study, when

relevant, were employed in the present study.

Two years prior to training observers for formal observations,

four observers administered the scale to a participant to find out

whether or not there were any defects in either the scale itself, or

the operational procedures utilized in its application. Several

problems with the operational procedures surfaced. The participant

involved in the observations was a beginning guitar student. When

there was a discrepancy in scoring among the observers the participant

was asked to repeat a particular section. More often than not the

participant was unable to imitate his previous performance. It became

evident that there could be no discussion regarding disagreement among

the observers. And for the training of observers it was necessary to

obtain a student performance which could be repeated as consistently

as possible.
 69

Two solutions were considered. The first, that of videotaping or

filming the participant's performance, was rejected because the camera

does not always yield a picture that completely documents the live

performance. Therefore, the particiapnt's position and/or angle would

have to be manipulated in order to compensate for the camera. Although

this can be easily achieved when producing still photographs, it would

be very disruptive during a live performance. The second solution

considered was adopted: the test would be pre-determined, and the

researcher would assume the role of the student. Thus a performance

could be repeated, for purposes of discussion and for training

observers.

The second problem was this: although several observers may

evaluate the same item, unless they observe the student during the same

time span they may each see something different. For example, a parti-

cipant was instructed to play a major scale repetitively for three

minutes. Three observers were asked to evaluate the student's profi-

ciency with respect to accuracy of pitch, fingerings and right hand

finger alternation. During minute one, observer "A" decided to evalu-

ate the student's right hand technique, whereas observer "B" was

rating the left hand fingerings and observer "C" was listening for

pitch accuracy. In the first minute, although the participant played

all the pitches correctly and consistently alternated between the index

and middle fingers of the right hand, many left hand fingering errors

were made. In the two minutes that followed, the participant played

everything correctly and the observers, depending upon what they were

evaluating, judged him accordingly. However, as observer "B" during

minute one was the only observer evaluating the participant's left
 70

hand fingers, he alone marked it as incorrect. The total performance

score is as follows:

Observer Total Score

A 3

B 2

c 3

And the reliability rates of this evaluation are illustrative:

Observer

Observer A B c Total

A .83 1.00 .91

B .83 .83 .83

c 1.00 .83 .91

Total .91 .83 .91 .88

Because the observers were not viewing exactly the same situation at

exactly the same time, the total reliability rates were .88, which are

below the scientifically (.90) acceptable limits of error. The solu-

tion to this problem was to have someone announce the number of each

item and have all the observers rate the same item at the same time.

This brought inter-rater and intra-rater reliability scores up to

acceptable limits of error.

During the recent observations five recommendations were formu-

lated:

1) in order to prevent the observers from forgetting what they had

learned during the training session, minimize the span of time between

the day the observers are trained and the day of the formal observa-

tions.
 71

2) the research director should provide for at least one practice

observation. Without this the observers' memory loss might bias the

final analysis.

3) during observations, the investigator should be equipped with

a guitar and a footstool. A guitar will then be available if a parti-

cipant does not bring one to the observations,3 and it also can be

used for the items related to tuning. Having a footstool readily

available will prove useful if the participant does not bring a suita-

ble foot support. From this study, it was found that if the partici-

pant had no object with which to raise his left leg, he would utilize

his right foot. This, in turn, affected other skills being evaluated

(i.e., right foot flat on the ground).

4) prior to beginning observations a chair with a straight back

should be placed in the center of the room. The participants will

realize that they are to sit in this chair,4 and the observers will

have adequate mobility to view the participants.

5) with due respect to the number of observations to be conducted,

one or more rest periods should be scheduled. According to Selltiz

~ al, "a satiated coder may glance at rather than read the item to be

coded," and "a tired observer may not be able to keep recording the

constantly changing group process."S Inaccurate recording due to

overloading "can be prevented by standardized rest periods."6

Conclusions and implications drawn from this study will be dis-

cussed in the final chapter.

 72

Footnotes

lane undergraduate, in fact, felt that he "would get nothing from

the experience" unless he would be financially reimbursed.

2rt was later decided to mark that observational category as

correct. Accordingly, credit was given to the women who wore dresses.

3Two participants involved in the study did not bring guitars to

the observations.

4prior to placing a chair in the middle of the room, one parti-

cipant wanted to sit with her legs crossed on a countertop. Although
she said she preferred the countertop, her rationale being that she
always sits on the floor while practicing, when presented a chair she
sat in it. If she had sat on the countertop her score would not have
justified her status as an advanced guitar student. However, as we
had biased her natural instincts, her evaluation was not included in
the final analysis.

5claire Selltiz, et al, Research Methods in Social Relations,

(revised ed.; New York:-Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959), p. 152.

6rbid., p. 232.
 CHAPTER V

A METHOD FOR GRADING

GUITAR REPERTOIRE

After learning the basic technical skills and the rudiments of

reading musical notation, a guitar student must put into practice what

has been acquired. Accordingly, a teacher must select and present

musical examples that are systematically graded. In order to provide

such a repertoire, a teacher has four options: 1) to organize

selections from the literature on his own; 2) to employ a book of

graded repertoire (Kraft, Norbert, 1980); 3) to utilize the graded

repertoire in a methodology book (Noad, Frederick, 1976); and 4) any

combination of the preceding options. The primary concern of this

aspect of the present study is to assist the pedagogue organizing a

group of pieces on his own and the educator utilizing pre-graded

repertoire.

Conventionally, grading of teaching materials for the guitar has

been based on two considerations--conceptualization of the fingerboard

and development of the appropriate motor skills. This system for

grading repertoire is not adequate, in the opinion of this researcher.

It is important for a beginning student to become proficient from a

technical standpoint; however, from the onset of instruction the stu-

dent must also develop skills that will enable him to interpret music

effectively. In an address to the Liszt Academy in 1953, the renowned

pedagogue Zolt'n Kodaly stated, "Agile fingers do not suffice; the music

must be deeply understood and appreciated."1

73
 74

This concept has two important implications for developing a

pedagogy: 1) that the musical interpretation of a piece is as

important in a technically simple piece as it is in something more

complex; and 2) that acquisition of basic interpretive skills during

a student's early training will enable him to advance more rapidly in

later years. For many guitar students, instruction in the skills

required to interpret music has been left until they are, from a

technical standpoint, intermediate or advanced students. As it is

usual for the technical and interpretive complexities of music to

increase in direct proportion, a student whose development in these

areas has not had a parallel progression will find himself unprepared

to deal with more difficult interpretive challenges. For example, a

student who has not learned in his early training that within a homo-

phonic texture there are two parts (a melody and accompaniment), and

that the accompaniment is subordinate to the melody, cannot be

expected in later years to understand the treatment of several parts

within a polyphonic texture. Basic concepts such as melody and accom-

paniment can be more easily explained through clear-cut examples such

as are commonly used as beginning repertoire.

Although acquiring the knowledge that enables one to interpret

music requires an in-depth study of many musical areas (i.e., theory,

harmony, form, history, style and interpretation), a teacher of begin-

ning students can initiate the process by addressing the issue of

musical texture. Not only is an understanding of texture funda-

mental to the performance of a composition, it is a basis from which

other more complex musical concepts can be developed. For example,

from a monophonic texture the idea of coloration can be presented;

 75

from a homophonic texture the concepts of melody and accompaniment can

be introduced; from a polyphonic texture the elements of motive and

imitation can be approached; and from a contraputal texture, discus-

sions of motivic development, accentuation, and an introduction to

musical forms (i.e., prelude, fugue and minuet) can be initiated. The

student will begin to acquire and put into practice basic analytical

skills, will begin to discriminate and understand the function of the

individual parts, and in general gain a better understanding of the

music being performed. Furthermore, the student at an early stage will

be made aware that musical analysis plays a crucial role in perfor-

mance.

Because of the conviction that understanding of texture is funda-

mental to both interpretation and musical analysis and that from the

onset of instruction the student should develop both technical and

interpretive skills, the researcher has selected and compiled music

that is graded according to musical texture, technique and conceptuali-

zation of the fingerboard.

Three procedures were used in formulating the method for grading

repertoire: 1) the basic textures were identified; 2) a definition of

each texture--monophony, homophony, polyphony and counterpoint--was

determined (see page 81); and 3) the basic objectives within each area

(musical texture, te~hnique, and conceptualization of the fingerboard)

were formulated separately and then organized in a parallel progression

(see Figure V-2: "Chart: Beginning Levels of Instruction" on pages 82

through 84). Based upon these considerations, music from the various

musical periods (Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern)

was reviewed and analyzed. Exemplary pieces for each musical texture
 76

were selected and then graded according to the objectives set down

within the broad outline.

Outline of the Method for Grading Repertoire

The method is divided into four sections. The first section,

entitled Figure V-1: "Classifications of Terms for Musical Texture,"

consists of a succinct definition for the textures "monophony," "homo-

phony," "polyphony" and "counterpoint." The definitions are condensa-

tions of those set forth within the Harvard Dictionary of Music2 and

Structural Functions in Music.3 The only purpose in clarifying these

terms is to give the reader background for understanding the grading

of repertoire. It is not meant to be an authoritative statement on the

subject.

Figure V-2: "Chart: Beginning Levels of Instruction" is the second

section, and it illustrates in outline form the broad objectives within

each area (i.e., texture, technique and conceptualization of finger-

board) and each section of texture (monophony, homophony, polyphony

and counterpoint). These objectives are expanded in detail in the

third section, Figure V-3: "Outline." Not only are the objectives for

the entire method set forth in this outline, but specific goals are

stated for every graded example. This outline may be used as a pedago-

gical tool when the graded music is presented to the student.

The graded examples are presented in the fourth and final section.

Each element is reviewed and developed with each successive piece.

Beginning with the first section, "Monophony," the three primary

elements are arpeggios, thirds, and chords. Example IB-1--Study #2

by Dionysio Aguado (1784-1849), is a single-line, single-voiced texture

 77

using a rudimentary arpeggio pattern (pimi). Example IB-2--Study #4 by

Aguado, is a two-line, single-voiced texture primarily using thirds.

The right hand fingering is ~a and sixths ~. Example IB-3--Study Ill

1m 1

by Aguado, is a three-line, single-voiced texture in which chords are

employed. The right hand employs the thumb with the index and middle
m
fingers (i). Both examples IB-1 and IB-2 are in the key of A minor
a
and as such use many of the same notes with similar fingering patterns.

However, there are vertical thirds in Study #4, and the index and

middle fingers are used simultaneously here. Examples IB-4, IB-5,

IB-6 and IB-7--Andantino by Anton Diabelli (1781-1858), Walzer by

Ferdinand Carulli (1770-1841), Study No. 2 by Aguado, and Study #3 by

Fernando Sor (1778-1839)--include various combinations of the primary

elements employed in the first three examples; however, various techni-

cal and conceptual elements become more intricate (see pages 92-105).

The objective in the second section, "Homophony," is to present

melodies with various types of subordinate parts. This section is

divided into two parts: the first presents the melody in the soprano

with various accompaniments, and the second presents the melody in the

right hand thumb with various accompaniments. Examples IIB-1 and

IIB-2--Study #3 by Aguado and Waltz (op. 12 no. 1) by Carulli--are

extensions of example IB-1 with respect to being arpeggio studies.

However, here there is a melody and accompaniment and in both examples

(IIB-1 and IIB-2) the melody is interpolated with the arpeggio accom-

paniment. Example IIB-3--Country Dance by Carulli--is an extension

of the examples in which thirds are employed. As this piece not

only utilizes thirds but also vertical fourths, fifths, sixths and

octaves, it is a continuation of the elements presented in example

 78

IB-6. Two new elements introduced in this example are the ostinato

bass and the rest stroke with i and m. Example IIB-4--Poco Allegretto

by Carulli-uses a melody with accompanying bass, arpeggios, thirds

and fifths. Beginning with example IIB-5--Espanoleta by Gaspar Sanz

(mid 17th-early 18th Century)--and including examples IIB-6 and IIB-7--

Calleno Costure Me (Anonymous 16th Century) and Andante Grazioso by

Carulli--the objective is to increase the vertical texture in the

accompaniment. As the texture becomes denser the technical aspects

for both right and left hand become more complex. Furthermore, in

examples IIB-5 and IIB-6 the student is introduced to some of the

notes and fingerings in the second position and the rest stroke is

employed almost exclusively. Example IIB-8--Study #7 by Diabelli--is

a continuation of the techniques employed in example IIB-5. Utiliza-

tion of scale-like melody continues, and shifts between first and

second positions become more pronounced. Example IIB-9--Ecossaise,

op. 33 no. 2, by Mauro Giuliani (1781-1829)-is a continuation of

example IIB-5, with slurs being the added element (see pages 106-123).

Although in the second part of the homophonic section various

accompaniments are employed while the melody is played by the right

hand thumb, specific objectives within each piece are primarily

technical. To illustrate, in example IIC-1--Six Short Preludes #1 by

Manuel M. Ponce (1882-1948)--the melody is in the thumb and the accom-

paniment alternates between arpeggios and tremolo. Technical objec-

tives are grouped left hand fingerings or a half bar, damping of thumb

and contraction and expansion of the space between the thumb or the
/
fingers. Example IIC-2--Etudes Simples #III by Leo Brouwer (b. 1939)--

employs a repeated-note accompaniment, with the melody played by the

 79

thumb. New technical objectives are tonal balance between thumb and
12
fingers, dynamic control, and a grouping of three notes in a 8 meter.

The expanding technical objective is the contraction of the space

between the thumb and the fingers. Example IIC-3--Etudes Simples #I

by Brouwer--expands two elements from example IIC-2. The repeated

notes in the accompaniment are now seen as vertical thirds, fourths and

fifths, and the tonal balance is now between the thumb and the simul-

taneous use of index and middle fingers. The new elements in this

piece are syncopation and seconds in the accompaniment. The final

selection in this section, Study #14 by Diabelli, alternates between

many different accompanying techniques, including vertical intervals

(seconds and thirds), arpeggios, and scale-like patterns. New techni-

cal objectives are the half bar on the first fret and the left hand

finger stretching and endurance (see pages 124-131).

The textural objective in the third section is to introduce music

with two or more voices within a polyphonic texture. Broadly speaking,

the technical objective is to increase the difficulty of previously

acquired right and left hand skills. The first four examples--Study #5

by Aguado, Etude by Sor, Etude by Aguado and Study No. 4, op. 51 no. 1,

by Giuliani--demonstrate a two-part imitative texture. From a techni-

cal standpoint the four are very similar; however, with each successive

piece increasing endurance is demanded from the left hand. Example

IIIB-5--What is a Day? by Philip Rosseter (1568-1623)--demonstrates a

two-part polyphonic texture with chords, while example IIIB-6--

Six Short Preludes #3 by Ponce--demonstrates two-part polyphony in a

homophonic style (see pages 132-143).

 80

In the final section the goal is to introduce the student to

various contrapuntal techniques. For example, Allegretto by Giuliani

(example IVB-1) demonstrates intervallic counterpoint between p and

i m, whereas example IVB-2--Study #7 by Aguado--employs rhythmic coun-

terpoint between two voices, and Study #6 by Aguado (example IVB-3)

utilizes intervallic and directional counterpoint. The fourth example--

~

Etudes Simples #VIII by Brouwer--combines the contrapuntal techniques

of the three preceding examples (intervallic, directional and rhythmic)

with an accompaniment pattern in the middle section. The technical

objectives in example IVB-1 are balancing the tone between a rest

stroke and free stroke in i m, half bar and five string bar on the

first fret, left hand finger stretching, and the left hand fingering

shifts between open, second and third positions. The new objective in

example IVB-2 is playing in the fourth position. There are no new

objectives in example IVB-3, although the piece is played primarily in

the second position, and in example IV-B4 triplets are employed for the

first time (see pages 144-151).

 81

A METHOD FOR GRADING CLASSIC GUITAR REPERTOIRE

Figure V-1

Classification of Terms
for Musical Texture

1 MONOPHONY: Single-voiced texture. However, "in discussion

of musical texture, monophonic (single-voiced)
texture can of course be multilinear;"4 single-
voiced line is a more generic concept.

2. HOMOPHONY: Bass and melody; traditionally a melody

supported by a bass or accompaniment.

3. POLYPHONY: Multi-voiced texture, interlinear independence

and somewhat imitative or contrapuntal.

4. COUNTERPOINT: Multi-voiced texture, interlinear interaction

between voices; either intervallic, direc-
tional or rhythmic diversification.
 82

FIGURE V-2

CHART: BEGINNING LEVELS OF INSTRUCTION

Musical Conceptualization
Texture Techni ue of Fin erboard

I. Monophony Objectives: Objectives:

A. Building two A. Introducing various right A. Open strings
or more hand fingerings. and first
voices in a position.
1. Arpeggios:
monophonic
texture. a. p i m i
(see page 93).
b. p i m a
(see page 99).
c. p m i and p a i
(see page 101).
2. Thirds:
m a a
a. i, m and i
(see pages 95
and 117).
3. Triads:
m a a
a. i, m and i
p p p
(see page 97).
4. Chords:
a
m
a. i (see page 99).
p

B. Increasing the use of

left hand fingers.
1. Two fingers placed
singularly: (see
page 93).
a. Primarily 1 and 2.
2. Two fingers placed
simultaneously: (see
page 95).
. "1 y 1
a. Pr1mar1
2
 83

Musical Conceptualization
Texture Technique of Fingerboard

3. Three fingers placed

simultaneously (see
page 97).
1 4 4 4
a. 2, 3, 2 and 2.
3 2 3 1
4. Alternates between
three fingers singu-
larly and together
(see pages 98
and 105).

II. Homophony Objectives: Objectives:

A. Building two A. Expansion of previous A. Introducing
or more right hand techniques. second
voices in a position.
1. Various combinations
homophonic
of i m a melodies or
texture.
bringing in p with
1. Melody in i m a (see pages
soprano 107-123).
with vari-
2. Melody in p.
ous types
of sup- a. Damping of p (see
porting page 125).
accompani-
b. Dynamic control
ments.
(see pages
2. Melody in 125-131).
bass with
c. Balance control
various
between p and i m
types of
(see pages
supporting
125-129).
accompani-
ments. B. Expansion of previous
left hand techniques.
1. Playing in open and
second positions
(see pages 107-131).
2. Finger stretching
(see page 131) .
3. Slurs (see page 123).
4. Half bar (see
page 125).
 84

Musical Conceptualization
Texture Techni ue of Fingerboard

III. Polyphony Objectives: Objectives:

A. Two or more A. Expansion of previous A. Continuation
voices in a right hand techniques. of first and
polyphonic second posi-
1. Balance control
texture; tions with an
between p and i m a introduction
introducing
(see pages 133-143).
and expanding to the third.
linear B. Expansion of previous
independence. left hand techniques.
1. First-finger pivot
(see page 133).
2. Playing in open,
second and third
positions (see
pages 133-143).

IV. Counterpoint Objectives: Objectives:

A. Two part A. Continuation of right A. Confirming
counterpoint; hand techniques. second posi-
either inter- tion, contin-
1. Balance control
vallic direc- uing into
between rest stroke third and
tional or
and free stroke (see
rhythmic introducing
pages 145-151). fourth
interaction
between B. Continuation of left positions.
voices. hand techniques.
CX:

mfl:r mi
I I . J/1. to " I.

1. Maintaining legato
effect (see pages
145-151). p
2. Five string bar on
the first fret (see
page 145).
3. Playing in open,
second, third and
fourth positions
(see pages 145-151).
 85

FIGURE V-3

OUTLINE

I. MONO PHONY

A. Objectives:

1. Building two or more parts in a monophonic texture;

this represents a one line texture but builds chords
vertically.

2. Introducing various right hand finger skills.

3. Increasing the amount of left hand fingers.

4. Use of open strings and first position.

B. Graded examples:

1. Study #2--Dionysio Aguado (1784-1849)

a. Arpeggio.

b. Free stroke: p i m i.

c. Left hand: two and three finger placement.

2. Study #4--Dionysio Aguado

a. Thirds.

b. Free stroke: m a and sixths a

i' m i
3. Study #1--Dionysio Aguado

a. Chords.
m
b. Free stroke: i.
p
4. Andantino--Anton Diabelli (1781-1858)

a. Combining arpeggio, chords and thirds, p i m a.

b. Scale-like passage with restroke m i in alternation.

 86

5. Walzer--Ferdinand Carulli (1770-1841)

a. Combining thirds, arpeggio and chords.

m
b. Free stroke ., p m i and p a i.
l

6. Study #2--Dionysio Aguado

a. Combination of preceeding examples.

b. Left hand chromatic thirds and finger

combinations of 3 and 4 with 1 and 2.

7. Study I/3--Fernando Sor (1778-1839)

a. Combination of the preceeding examples

with a V I sequence.

II. HOMOPHONY

A. Objectives:

1. Building two or more voices in a homophonic texture;

melodies with various types of subordinate parts.

a. Melody in soprano with accompaniment.

b. Melody in bass with accompaniment.

2. Continuation of right and left hand techniques.

i m a
a. Bringing in p with i m a: and/or
p' p p
3. Introducing second position.

B. Graded examples presenting melody in soprano with various

accompaniments.

1. Study #3--Dionysio Aguado

a. Melody in and with arpeggio accompaniments.

b. Free stroke: p i m i and p i a i.

2. Waltz, op. 121 no. 1--Ferdinand Carulli

a. Melody in and with arpeggio accompaniment.

b. Free stroke: p i a i a i, p i m i a i and

p i m i p m.
 87

3. Country Dance--Ferdinand Carulli

a. Melody with accompanying thirds and ostinato bass.

m a
b. Free stroke: i p, m p, p 1 m a, p m p 1.

c. Rest stroke: i m.

4. Poco Allegretto--Ferdinand Carulli

a. Melody with accompanying bass, arpeggios, thirds

and fifths.
m i
b. Right hand: i m a, a m i and arpeggio p m a m.
p p
5. Espanoleta--Gaspar Sanz (mid 17th-early 18th century)

a. Linear melody with accompaniment at the bar line.

b. a used with i and m for a melody played rest stroke.

c. Playing a on the fifth fret of the first string.

6. Calleno Costure Me--Anonymous, 16th century

a. Melody with chords.

m
b. Free stroke: i and rest stroke a m.
p
c. Moves to second position on first string.

7. Andante Grazioso--Ferdinand Carulli

a. Melody with chords and a linear bass.

b. Parallel motion between soprano and bass.

c. Right hand: p a p p m p p i p.

8. Study #7--Anton Diabelli

a. Continuation of example IIB-5 with scale-like

melody.

b. Shifts between first and second positions.

9. Ecossaise, op. 33 no. 2--Mauro Giuliani (1781-1829)

a. Continuation of example IIB-5 with slurs.

 88

C. Graded examples; melody in right hand thumb.

1. Six Short Preludes #1--Manuel M. Ponce (1882-1948)

a. Melody primarily in p with arpeggio and tremolo.

b. Arpeggio: p m i m or p a m a and a m i m.

c. Grouped left hand fingering or half bar.

d. Damping of p.

e. Contracting and expanding the space between either

the thumb or the fingers.
~ ~
2. Etudes Simples #III--Leo Brouwer (b. 1939)

a. Melody in p with a repeated note for the accom-

paniment.

b. Tonal balance between thumb and fingers.

c. Dynamic control.

d. Contraction and expansion between thumb and fingers.

e. Grouping of 3 notes ( m) in a
12
8
meter.
~ ,
3. Etudes Simples #I--Leo Brouwer

a. Melody in p with thirds, fourths, fifths and

seconds as the accompaniment.
i
b. Tonal balance between p and
m
c. Dynamic control.

d. Syncopation.

4. Study #14--Anton Diabelli

a. Melody in p with seconds, thirds, arpeggio and

scale-like accompaniments.

b. Half bar on the first fret.

c. Left hand finger stretching and endurance.

 89

III. POLYPHONY

A. Objectives:

1. Two or more voices in a polyphonic texture; introducing

and expanding linear independence.

2. Increasing the difficulty of the previously acquired

right and left hand skills.

3. Continuation of first, second and third positions.

B. Graded examples:

1. Study #5--Dionysio Aguado

a. Two-part imitative texture.

b. Balance control between p and i m a.

c. Left hand first-finger pivot.

2. Etude--Fernando Sor

a. Continuation of skills in preceding example.

b. Increased independence of sustained lines.

c. Syncopation of one voice.

d. Damping of P.

3. Etude--Dionysio Aguado

a. Continuation of skills in preceding example with

increased right ana left hand difficulty.

b. Increased activity of each voice.

4. Study #4, op. 51 no. 1--Mauro Giuliani

a. Continuation of preceding examples with increased

use of thumb.

b. Sustaining three voices while employing a half

bar and pivot.

5. What is a Day?--Philip Rosseter (1568-1623)

a. Two-part polyphony with chords.

b. Canon-like entrance of voices.

c. Balancing of tone between p and i m a.

 90

6. Six Short Preludes #3--Manuel Ponce

a. Two-part polyphony in a homophonic style.

b. Arpeggios: p m a m i m, p m i p i m, p m p a p i.

c. Intervallic study: fourths.

d. Introduction to third position.

IV. COUNTERPOINT

A. Objectives:

1. Introducing two-part counterpoint.

2. Further development of right and left hand techniques.

3. Maintaining legato effect with one note while others

change.

4. Reinforcing second position, continuing into third

and introducing the fourth positions.

B. Graded examples:

1. Allegretto--Mauro Giuliani

a. Intervallic counterpoint between p and i m.

b. Balancing production of tone between rest stroke

and free stroke in i m.

c. Half bar and five string bar on first fret.

d. Third position.

e. Left hand finger stretching.

2. Study #7--Dionysio Aguado

a. Rhythmic counterpoint between two voices.

b. Introducing fourth position.

3. Study #6--Dionysio Aguado

a. Intervallic and directional counterpoint.

b. Primarily in second position.

 91 @

/
4. Etudes Simples #VIII--L~o Brouwer

a. Intervallic, directional and rhythmic counterpoint

with an accompaniment pattern in the middle section.

b. Triplets.
92 I '

Example IB-1

Study #2--Dionysio Aguado

 93

~ ~
. c.,)

1
I ~

- 1-

!
...--
I >--

1 L-
"~

.___ .___
t-
r-

r;
...
"-- ['-
I I
~~
...._..,I
1 '---- [

,.--- .-I
~
i
r---.''
fc' ~
I

4:-
~

1~ I

m
....:...i
~f"lel
f- I
Q lliiItve~
I
94

Example IB-2

Study #4--Dionysio Aguado

 95

E-

E-

t '1 tl, 1 I
~
iI ,. ~
! I .. ,
96

Example IB-3

Study #1--Dionysio Aguado

 STUDY No.1
Dionisio Aguado
Moderato M.M. J=tOS (1784-1849)

'l' : l ~ ~ ~
~!FPH I~ I~ ?~= ~~~ ~ l.f ~
'!'

I' ' :II

a m a
i i i

-
"
--
' t r r r r -r -r #--
J
rr rr r ra

\0
-...J
98

Example IB-4

Andantino--Anton Diabelli
ANDANTINO

\.0
\.0

.,
100

Example IB-5

Walzer--Ferdinand Carulli
 WALZER
Ferdinand Carulli
Allegretto (1770-1841)

=fe -~ii IJ. D b JJ JI J. Jiitt:J-t~ I J. J J I ) J j I ] ~

u m a i m

=I

" " " r

' "t=}i~ ~ I J. j J ij{J J I J. J 3IJ. J J I J. J J I J. J JI! :~i
fl I r
I

f I = lJ J 1/ J J 1~. ~ J I ~ ~ J J 1/ J J 14 ~ J I~ ~~I
Jr--"t'-""1.

'h J~.~~ 1/
pp
J J 1J. ~

J I~ ~ J 1/J J I/ J J 1J. ~ J I! ij =I
D. C. al Fine

~
0
~

...
102

Example IB-6

Study #2--Dionysio Aguado

 103

c.
e
~

N
0
.
z
>-
0
:::> e-
~
rJ)
104

Example IB-7

Study #3--Fernando Sor

 STUDY No.3
Fernando Sor
J
Allegretto M.M. =160 (1778-1839)

~
4 ~ ~ -~ ~- ~ ~
$e~r' !r\ ~'Jf'!; ftirr' r1!r fJ;rf,y ~rrm
m

a
m m a a
i.i

p .,... 2
. 13
d tm.

1-'
0
V1
106

Example IIB-1

Study #3--Dionysio Aguado

 107

cu-

I~

II -

~
.
0
z <U

>- IL
0
::J
t--
r.n
I~

IlL
108

Example IIB-2

Waltz, op. 121 no. !--Ferdinand Carulli

 109

WALTZ (op. 121 no. 1)

Ferdinand Carulli
Allegro (1770.1841)

' pJJ JJ 1,/J JJ JJI~ JJJ pdr l =I=]Jr J J Jj dJJ JJJ I

r
p

$ ~ JJJ IJ? Jj JJI

~==== f
r Jj JJI~_J JJJJ I~ j ~r;
r-= =
l =I
D.C. al Fine
110

Example IIB-3

Country Dance--Ferdinand Carulli

 Country Dance

Allegretto

~
v
i Fine

rt

D. C. al Fine

1-'
1-'
1-'

..,
112

Example IIB-4

Poco Allegretto--Ferdinand Carulli

 POCO ALLEGRETTO
M.M.J=84 Ferdinand Carulli
(1770-1841)

.,
fP Fine

.,

1-'
1-'
w

...
114

Example IIB-5

Espanoleta--Gaspar Sanz
 115

N,-..
.,_
co

I)
tilt-
~~ e
~\0
,_
c.;,- N e

I~
c..
~
I~

I+-
j._

~
,_
II~

<
f.
,,___ e
'-U
...1
0 ~
,__ .,--..
2z
<
c..
CJ)
'-U

~ . ..
I~
. j(_

s
~ c. c. <U- c.
"'8
116

Example IIB-6

Calleno Costure Me--Anonymous

 CALLENO COSTURE ME
Anonymous
{16th century)
M.M. J=144

p
mf'P

m
v
a
j ).

m
V m a i a m

'~ ~ J II~: J 11:

1
.b ~ 1'~: ) :J I ~: :II

1-'
1-'
-...J

""
118

Example liB-7

Andante Grazioso--Ferdinand Carulli

 ANDANTE GRAZIOSO
Ferdinand Carulli
M.M.J=56 (1770-1841)

~ l'
'"emrl' fill~ ~~ $1;. ~:. ;1~. ~: m:~~~. ~I
". m
I i ,
m i m .I m 3

'u ~ ~ ~~;;. ~f-11 ~- ~~ =I ~:- I~-~- ~~~~. ~- i ~~- ~~- ~I

m
i a a

1-'
1-'
1.0

""
120

Example IIB-8

Study #7--Anton Diabelli

 STUDY No.7
Anton Diabelli
(1781-1858)
Moderato M.M .J=tos

-
r -
pr -~~========= mp

tJ Jwf i
v;
1 i m
jj 2
N ~~J
r......... .1 1 1 ~.....-~-w-v-4 1 n ~] ~
Ir !P ~ ~I f ~ f :J~r ;~ ~ I ; I
m
mi l
1 2 4 1 2 1

r r f
r r

f-'
N
f-'
122

Example IIB-9

Ecossaise, op.33 no. 2--Mauro Giuliani

 ECOSSAISE (op. 33 no. 2)
Mauro Giuliani
(1781-1829)

v
112. i :h L :J
frJ F J r.a t
m . It. I u

tV 1 :~ ! lift;= w a r. ! ~ 1
J: f r r mi ~~========
Fine
2

D.C. a/ Fine

f-'
N
w
124

Example IIC-1

Six Short Preludes #1--Manuel Ponce

SEIS PRELUDIOS CORTOS

(SIX SHORT PRELUDES) by Manuel Ponce

Copyright 1953 by Peer International Corporation
Copyright Renewed by Peer International Corporation
International Copyright Secured
All Rights Reserved Including the Right of Public
Performance for Profit
Used by Permission
 125

Para Juanita Chavez

Seis Preludios Cortos

Guitar Six Short Preludes
1 MANUEL M. PONCE
Moderato 0 o 0

0
0 2 4.

~ ~ #s i t [I1

Copyright 1953 by Peer International Corporation

!uterna.tiona.l Copyright :s~cured Printed in U.S.A.
690-+
All Right Reserved Including th~ Right of Public Performance for Profit
"WARNING 1 Any person who copu~s or arran~es all or oart of the words or mus1c o( th1s mus1cal compos&tion
shall be 11able to an acnon (or !OJUncaon. damages and proi1ts under the L:mted States Copynght Law."
126

Example IIC-2

/
Etudes Simples #III--Leo Brouwer

Used by Permission
 127

III

)
_ II
. #.
't -
it .
-
# - ...__. 1'00
'G' ' ?7" 77' -u. p
~ I I ~~
p cresc. f
~I.E.7997
128

Example IIC-3

Etudes Simples #I--Leo Brouwer

Used by Permission

-l'>
 129

,
ETUDES SIMPLES
(ESTUDI OS SEN C ILLOS)

.Duree totaie: 6' 25 Leo BROUWER

I
Movido

r.
-
p
-.....
.,. r I
I 7. r
- ..... ~
I
T
~ u_::oren
d
0
IP'--'
1'00
Enrcgrstr~ par OSCAR CACERES sur dtsqut: ERATO STC.' 70 7J4
@ Copyngllt 1972 by EDITIONS ~1AX ESC HlG TOUS OAOIT! 0'1ECUfiCN IIU.L.IQUIE. DE UPIIODUCffa.
~8 rued~ Rome. Parts (S~) ~.E. 7997 .;:T O'A.RRAM(iEMEJrtTS litESR\IES POUR TOUS PAt::.
130

Example IIC-4

Study #14--Anton Diabelli

 131 ~ '

STUDY No. 14
Anton Diabelli
Tempo di minuetto M.M. =108 ~ 11:1--,--.,..., (17811858)
m
m , m~a, m
m~ll

. I !.* ~.
-1-1

0~
,3

<a
,2 p'
p

..-. ItI r
a
m

.
I I ..
0;;
:II:
'l!
~
~

,2
3#
2 ...,.
f ffa x
-
1

m
II
-m
~
l!

:n
tl
m

' ' I
a
.,01~)
:n

u~!!
i J,

3~

mfln~-------===================~
3# 0 #
;2 37
if' -
,o

..
I

t
P
'li tn
2

v
i

~-- ;; , :II
p

f'
132

Example IIIB-1

Study #5--Dionysio Aguado

 STUDY No.5

Moderato M.M. =160

m . m
J .
Dionisio Aguado
(1784-1849)

~- ~
..... ~ --9I d
= I;.
2I

uJ 4g r n I;
~
m

P P P
.I

t I~- r.
1

mp
F
~ j~ J
ht '$=f n~ f~ Flq
m i i m
:J=1 -J r. r r.
~r. I p

m m
al n
. m
11 ?.I
"
~r
~

i r vr.
r rr ======~r
t

I-'
w
w
134

Example IIIB-2

Etude--Fernando Sor
 ETUDE
Fernando Sor
(1778-1839)

~I i_;1 ~
:}=:1__
~E_===o--=q-----==-~-%%1
'I

r. Fr. r r.:" -r b-r ?-

l1J 1
0-----=----r- ~ T
-m
J~ j
. m i
I

1 "1" 1
?J" ? ~? 1.T
3
rit.
D

3 It 12 ~====--

1-'
w
\J1
136

Example IIIB-3

Etude--Dionysio Aguado
 ETUDE
Dionisio Aguado
(1784-1849)
Moderato

~~~~
i" r = 7 ~ I m:J
3
~ _ 11mi~
i
~ i n: I ~7 : I ~~ qra
~i
2 ,J I
mf r~rrr r mp

$~ ;
p
i. : J If J
p
!r ~ Ii 3
: :11:
mf
~ ~ ' r I~ ~ ~ a
i I
m

' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ -D l1; ~ ft~ 'r I ~ (~ ~ ~ I J ~ ~ ~-~I - .I

r r --- m; : p
4
rr r ---

1-'
w
'-.J

...
138

Example IIIB-4

Study #4, op. 51 no. 1--Mauro Giuliani

 STU 0 Y N 0 4 Mauro Giuliani
Maestoso (Op. 51 No. I) v (1781-1829)
I m ui
M.M. ,J:ll6
,J=J=
i m i
J.

_ ... j :~=.J~~
~'~ r Tr rfdifrr r ?f.r r :r=td
m i m . i m I

mp P
'=?e--rr
1 p
v
II
v J V
a
Ill
La
II
m
IV.
a
11

~j j ~~#;~: i J b;:;r)&; ,:r~ :reJ ~~~ J

u

'---===== p "ff ,. r ~

u u Piv.
Ill Ill

sr
~f
r sr ift ---

I-'
w
1.0
140

Example IIIB-5

What Is a Day?--Philip Rosseter

 WHAT IS A DAY?
Philip Rosseter
(l 575-1623)
Largo M.M. J=52 a a
i' m m i m i m
t" 1-

.....
ru 3
ar u 2

~r n.; ~ ~ !fa!r '~= n~ ~P '.~ r.Ji~

1
I

11

tu= f r o' ~PF ~ '' .r~f-:h ,.~ u1

F. =II

1-"
~
1-"
142

Example IIIB-6

Six Short Preludes #3--Manuel Ponce

SEIS PRELUDIOS CORTOS

(SIX SHORT PRELUDES) by Manuel Ponce

Copyright 1953 by Peer International Corporation
Copyright Renewed by Peer International Corporation
International Copyright Secured
All Rights Reserved Including the Right of Public
Performance for Profit
Used by Permission
 Moderato t. 3
ll o~ 0 N o. t.~ o r--2. o ..
z_ slq) I
2_.. 2 @
@I ' ji>. li JJ I ' J IF~ J J I ' J iJ J J3 I y 9J
pf r r~ ~U---i
4 4 4 3 3 2
rA\

~ ~ 'b
I ' J ~ I hJ' -c
~ ~
2

'- JQ- -~!J I ' ~ J h I

t 7 t
3
I ' .b J ;&
0 0

r-u~r
- - === = --=
r-ur r-u.r r-u~===-= = === or ft-r:- ~ 3
10

~
I; ~I _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _t_~_
0
fJ _ I I 2 h _ _ L _ - .h r-"1

r. gJ ro . I ?il ~ijJ r "'%~ ;~m~wa

1

f=~ il i Ji . il

' ;~-o ;)lo[ ~ ~ ~ (i3 I;~

3
t 4

1~: I~ t I Jl

1-'
.p..
w
144

Example IVB-1

Allegretto--Mauro Giuliani
 145

ALLEGRETTO
MAURO GIULIANI

@i 2M
I

...
I ;;
... ! :
~ )
J
:2 I$.1!~ 2~
...i"
t
)
i:
)
" R'; .. I ;; p
I

I
,.)
I
I3 I I r
&
,)
.... ...

I
:~ .. :
)
II~ J
...:3 ?
I
I

!2;1 )
?ll"li!
Cll

)q# ' n
)
1]
I)

)

!3
T
!
2
... I
!2
~
r.l,. I .,,
~

.,
... .;. .
n.:~ .....~
If .. .. .
'I
;lH , ;)
6.., ,g
I
I

!
..,:..
15!1
... I
r ~
~ -, ... T
...
i
i
i

6... .i
I

; . ,. I)

...
.)
'

)
l
....-zc: : l/2Cl

:
.............
...
_...,

.............
.. ,.,
2*
....- ?J'

2T ,-, JT

6.., -,.
:s.,

I
-- 6 211"
... I...Q: 4
2M

~
....-
I
J' :
,.,
,.~
11'
4.~

..

)

-.

~

..
)
I!

.. ?

6 " '
I

.. , ...'
; I

.
L
.. ...;=
,.
= I
-.r:-r-
2 '

,'...
.....
-
... ... II iJ
.,.
"' !. . nr
I
JT

t--?--:
@. .g
~ ! :
~
1&

@)
=:a=i~:'
'

-~,

,..
-.....
I
...
911""

J
~
...
2
,.,.. ---
----.:. ~
=:J

6., ' ,. ,.)

I

?M
I

~
cr.
.2

6 ... ,. ... ,. iz;

/) I
11
r~~~
. ~_ _____...
.crc c.-- __;.-""~; '
'
..
liC
! ... ! :
... ~ : :...
'"'

6
...,
r
)
...
;0
:~
)

...
.
~4 :98 ..
-.- ...
'0\
.e..

;:;] ,. .... ,... ,. - ,.- :-. ..

en

:: ---. ,

- =P
?; 7
I

~.. ,Ffi 9~ :,:

--
;.,

... ... ::i ~ II

J+
...
- 11'
5-
146

Example IVB-2

Study #7--Dionysio Aguado

 147

a
i

lilt-
""""'
I!"-

0
I
... ,
~ c II~

l
I

--.....
I

c.:!
...
~
........ Q
e

I:J
I ..,.

~
0
:::
..... @
.....

~
:::,... @)
me:
-:l
~
:::
-< 0..
148

Example IVB-3

Study #6--Dionysio Aguado

 149

,._
I~

:J
-c::c::
......
0.
~
::::
c::U
-<
o.) A l:t
II -

J
""
150

Example IVB-4

,
Etudes Simples #VIII--Leo Brouwer

Used by Permission
 151 ~ '

VIII

T'!JO
.,
I

tf' I
I

!':'\

B~
~~ 0

! ~: j I J II
~ : ~t ~ r' ~~ ~ .. ~
0~
0
1 o~
I
!'.20

===========-
0 J 0 I

.li.E.09~H
 152

Footnotes

1zoltan Kodaly, Visszatekint~s, ed. by Ferenc Bonis (Budapest:

Zenemukiado, 1964), I, p. 173 as quoted by Erzebet Szonyi in Kodaly's
Principles in Practice, trans. by John Weissman (London: Boosey and
Hawkes, 1973), p. 65.

2willi Apel, Harvard Dictionary of Music, (Cambridge, Massa-

chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 189-90, 339-40, 455,
593, 742.

3wallace Berry, Structural Functions in Music, (New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1976), pp. 184-209.

4rbid., p. 173.
 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The intent of this study is two-fold: to provide educators

desirous of utilizing the research techniques of the social sciences

with a valid and reliable observational scale for evaluating classic

guitar technique, and to develop and demonstrate a methodology for

presenting graded repertoire in a musically organized learning

procedure.

A review of the literature had indicated that although a plethora

of instructional materials for learning the guitar are currently in

print, only one educator, Dr. Roy Petschauer, had attempted to test

his method empirically. Furthermore, the lack of empirical tools for

evaluation underscored the need for the development of a way to

measure guitar technique.

As set forth in Chapter III, the observational scale includes the

full range of basic technical skills, along with definitions of the

correct and incorrect ways to perform each skill. Photographs of the

correct performance for many of the skills have been included. The

conceptual framework for the observational scale evolved from four

major assumptions: 1) basic technical skills must be established early

in the student's training; 2) measuring and evaluating technical profi-

ciency with a systematic method will yield conclusions more quickly and

accurately than the "conventional procedure" for evaluation; 3) utility

of social science methods will solve some of the problems which beset

153
 154

guitar pedagogy; and 4) establishing an observational scale to measure

technique will be an invaluable aide for ongoing research.

These assumptions considered, conceptual reasoning proceeded to

instrument development, wherein dimensions of basic technical skills

(i.e., tuning, sitting position, position of guitar, position of right

arm and hand, and position of left arm and hand) were established. The

elements within each dimension were identified and itemized; correct

and incorrect descriptors were formulated, and illustrative photographs

of the correct performance were prepared. According to the given

descriptors or rating categories, the performance of each skill was

observed and scored as either correct or incorrect. A value of 1 for

"correct" and 0 for "incorrect" was assigned to each skill rated.

A panel of experts was convened in order to secure content

validity for the scale. Independent conclusions and recommendations

were formulated and later incorporated into the final version of the

scale for final review by the panel. Content validity was demonstrated

through the panel's final judgment.

Five guitar educators with three different levels of teaching

experience were selected to establish the validity and reliability

of the scale. Prior to testing the scale's accuracy the five educators

were convened to be trained as observers, and to secure a minimum of

90% agreement on both sub-scores (i.e., scale dimension) and total

performance score.

Nine students attending California State University, Fullerton,

during the Spring semester of 1982 were selected to participate in this

study. Observations of the students were conducted and it was

established that the scale is valid (least experienced students scored

 155

lower than the most experienced students) and reliable (teachers with

different levels of teaching experience came up with the same scores).

Recommendations derived from the study are: 1) the research

director should have a guitar and footstool readily available if a

participant does not bring his own; 2) a chair with a straight back

should be placed in the center of the room or stage prior to the

observations; 3) depending on the number of observations to be

conducted, one or more rest periods should be scheduled; 4) prior to

formal observations a practice observation should be conducted; and

5) all the observers should evaluate the same item at exactly the

same time.

Despite problems, the observational scale employed in this study

not only has a sound basis in theory, but in application proved

effective in discriminating which students were the least, the moderate

and the most experienced.

The second purpose of this study is the development and demon-

stration of a methodology for grading classic guitar repertoire. The

music is graded from the standpoint of musical texture, technique and

conceptualization of the fingerboard. The reasons and assumptions for

incorporating musical texture into the traditional methods for grading

repertoire (traditionally, music has been graded from the perspectives

of technique and conceptualization of the fingerboard) are set forth

in Chapter V.

The method for grading repertoire is divided into four sections.

The first section, Figure V-1: "Classificatin of Terms for Musical

Texture," includes brief definitions for the terms monophony, homophony,

polyphony and counterpoint. The second section, Figure V-2: "Chart:

 156

Beginning Levels of Instruction," outlines the general objectives

within each area (i.e., musical texture, technique and conceptualiza-

tion of the fingerboard) and each texture (i.e., monophony, homophony,

polyphony and counterpoint). The specific objectives for each piece

of music are outlined in the third section, Figure V-3: "Outline."

In the fourth section the graded examples are set forth. Music from

the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic and Modern periods have

been included.

Implications

Within the practical teaching context, the observational scale can

serve a variety of purposes and functions. Broadly considered, it can

be utilized as a guide and/or a measuring device during the instruction

and assessment of guitar technique. Because the observational scale

delineates the basic technical skills of classic guitar, in-service and

prospective teachers will find it a useful guide and a valuable alter-

native to the ad hoc methods conventionally applied in teaching and

assessing guitar technique. The student will be introduced to skills

in a logical and systematic sequence, and the possibility of over-

looking a skill is eliminated. As an assessment tool, the observa-

tiona! scale can be utilized either regularly or intermittently as a

means for monitoring and recording student progress and/or proficiency.

When applied as a monitoring device, the scale will obviate many errors

introduced by the teacher's selective perception, interpretation or

recall. Furthermore, the student can be given a scale to use as a

reminder during his practice periods. In keeping an ongoing account of

the student's proficiency, according to the scale, progress can be

 157

measured quite accurately. The credibility of the assessment will be

enhanced in the eyes of the student as the evaluation can be substan-

tiated with concrete evidence. Applying the scale in this context

will not only increase the professionalism of the situation, but will

reinforce the importance of acquiring and putting into practice

correct technical skills.

Although the research techniques of the social sciences have

seldom been utilized to provide information related to playing or

teaching the guitar, in the future educators may become convinced of

the merits of this system's approach for gathering information. If so,

the observational scale as an evaluative instrument will have implica-

tions and pertinence to research related to guitar pedagogy.

Utilization of the guidelines for grading repertoire, along with

the graded examples, will have implications beneficial to both teachers

and students. Explanation of textural concepts can be based on the

graded examples illustrating each type. Knowledge of terminology and

understanding of concepts will be of great advantage to the student in

developing interpretive skills. The student will acquire rudimentary

analytical skills and will start to develop a sense of form. Further-

more, the student at an early age will have begun the process that

eventually leads to the synthesis of sight, sound, touch and intellect.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aguado, Dionysio. Methodo Completo de Guitarra. New ed.; Buenos

Aires: Ricordi Americana, [1825].

American Psychological Association. Standards for Educational and

Psychological Tests. Rev. ed.; Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association, 1974.

Apel, Willi, ed. Harvard Dictionary of Music. 2nd ed.; Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Asher, H.A. "Some Consequences of Measurement Error in Survey Data,"

American Journal of Political Science, XVIII (1974), 469-85.

Bellow, Alexander. The Illustrated History of the Guitar. New York:

Franco Colombo Pub., 1970.

Berry, Wallace. Structural Functions in Music. New Jersey: Prentice-

Hall, [1976]. Chap. II, pp. 184-209, "Texture."

Bickford, V.O. "The Guitar in America," The Guitar Review, no. 23

(June, 1959), 17-19.

"The Guitar Today," American String Teacher, XXIII (Winter,

1973)' 26, 35.

Cahn, Meyer M. "The Guitar: Symbol of Change," Music Educators

Journal, LIV (Nov., 1967), 87-8.

Campbell, Donald T. "Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments

in Social Settings," Psychological Bulletin, LIV (1957), 297-312.

Campbell, Donald T. and Julian c. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-

Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1969.

"Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research

on Teaching," in N.L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963.

Campbell, Laura. "Letter to a Young Guitarist (Knowledge of Harmonic

Theory Important)," Music in Education, XXXIX (1975), 202-4.

Clark, Frances and Louise Goss. The Music Tree. Illinois: Summy-
Birchard, 1973. 4 vols.

Clark, Owen. "The Guitar Goes to College," Music Journal, XVIII

(March, 1960), 66, 95.

Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques. 2nd ed.; New York: Wiley, 1963.

158
 159

Cox, Paul Wathen. Classic Guitar Techniques and its Evolution as

Reflected in the Method Books ca. 1770-1858 (Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1978).

Grano, W.D. and M.B. Brewer. Principles of Research in Social

Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.

Dean, J.P. "Participant Observation and Interviewing," in J.T. Doby

ed., An Introduction to Social Research. London: Stackpole,
1954.

Duart, John W. The Bases of Classic Guitar Technique. Sevenoaks,

Kent: Novello, 1975.

"The Guitar Phenomenon," Music in Education, XXVIII

(1964), 215-16.

Edelson, Edward. "Guitar in College," Guitar Player, VIII (April,

19 7 4) , 2 0-1.

Ervin, Charles L. Systematic Observation and Evaluation of Conductor

Effectiveness. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut,
1978).

Ferguson, L.W. "More Measurement than Validation," Contemporary

Psychology, II (1957), 237-38.

Fink, Phillip H. The Development and Evaluation of Instrumental

Materials for a Beginning Class in Heterogeneous Strings
Including Guitar. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami,
1973).

Fisher, R.A. The Design of Experiments. 6th. ed.; London: Oliver

and Boyd, 1951.

Fowler, William L. "The Guitar and the University," The Instrumen-

talist, XXV (May, 1971), P 30.

Green, Douglas. Form in Tonal Music. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, (1965).

Gregory, J. George. "The Classical Guitar in the U.S.A.," American

String Teacher, XXII (Spring, 1972), 14-5.

Grunfeld, Frederic V. The Art and Times of the Guitar. London:

Macmillan, 1969.

Houldson, Elinor. "Guitar in College," Guitar Player, IV (October,

1970), 41-3.

Kidd, Robert Lee III. The Construction and Validation of a Scale of

Trombone Performance Skills. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1975).
 160

Kraft, Norbert. A Graded Series for Classical Guitar. Ontario:

Frederick Harris Music, 1980. Vol. I and II.

Krathwohl, David R., et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

New York: David~cKay, 1956.

Layne, Richard Dennis. A Comparative Investigation of Traditional

and Modified Suzuki Teaching Techniques in Beginning Clarinet
InStruction. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1974).

Loevinger, J.A. "A Systematic Approach to the Construction and Eval-

uation of Tests of Ability," Psychological Monographs, LXI
(1947), 285.

"Effect of Distortions of Measurement on Item Selection,"

Educational and Psychological Measurement, XIV (1954), 441-8.

Lorimer, Michael. "Classical Guitar: Fingernail Shape and Length,"

Guitar Player, XI (Feb., 1977), 14.

"Classical Guitar: Left Hand Position," Guitar Player,

X (Dec., 1976), 101.

Madsen, Clifford K. and Charles H. Madsen, Jr. Experimental Research

in Music. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Matesky, Ralph. "The Classic Guitar--A Modern Renaissance," American

String Teacher, XXII (Spring, 1972), 15.

Mayeur, Robert. "Classroom Guitar," Soundboard, VIII (Feb., 1981),

31-3.

McCall, G.J. and D.L. Simmons. Issues in Participant Observation:

A Text and Reader. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Michel, Donald E. "Self Esteem and Academic Achievement in Black Junior

High School Students: Effects of Automated Guitar Instruction,"
Council for Research in Music Education, XXIV (Spring, 1971),
15-23.

Nellons, Charles Edward. An Experimental Investigation of the Effect

of Blocking on the Memorization of Selected Piano Literature.
(D. Mus. Ed. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1974).

Newcomb, T.M. "An Experiment Designed to Test the Validity of a

Rating Technique," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXII (1931),
289.

Noad, Frederick M. Solo Guitar Playing. 2nd ed.; New York: Schirmer
Books, 1976.
 161

Petschauer, Roy Earl. The Development and Testing of A Guitar Method

to Enable Educators to Play and Teach the Guitar in the Schools.
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1972).

"Organizing a Classic Guitar Curriculum," The Instrumen-

talist, XXVIII (April, 1974). 78-81.

Phelps, Roger P. A Guide to Research in Music Education. Dubuque,

Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1969.

Phillips, D. Knowledge From What? Theories and Methods in Social

Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1971.

Pujol, Emilio. Escuela Razonada de la Guitarra. Buenos Aires:

Ricordi Americana, 1952. Vol. I and II.

Purcell, Ronald C. "The Evolution of Classic Six String Guitar,

Part I," American String Teacher, XXIII (Summer, 1973), 12.

"The Evolution of Classic Six String Guitar, Part II,"

American String Teacher, XXIV (Spring, 1974), 58-9.

Remmers, H.H., et al. A Practical Introduction to Measurement and

Evaluation-.- New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Rogers, William F. Jr. The Effect of Group and Individual Piano

Instruction on Selected Aspects of Musical Achievement.
(Ed. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1974).

Selltiz, Clair, et al. Research Methods in Social Relations. Rev.

ed.; New York:--Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959.

Research Methods in Social Relations. 3rd ed.; New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, (1976).

Shearer, Aaron. "The Classic Guitar Grows Up," Music Educators

Journal, LVIII (Oct., 1971), 165.

"A Review of Early Methods," Guitar Review, no. 23 (June,

1959)' 24-6.

Classic Guitar Technique. 2nd ed.; New York: Belwin

Mills, (1963). Vol. I.

Stewart, Jimmy. "The Guitarist as a Complete Musician; Learning a

New Composition, Part I," Guitar Player, VIII (July, 1974), 53.

"The Guitarist as a Complete Musician; Learning a New

Composition, Part II," Guitar Player, VIII (Aug., 1974), 53.

"The Guitarist as a Complete Musician; Learning a New

Compostion, Part III," Guitar Player, VIII (Sept., 1974), 53.
 162

Szonyi, Erzsebet. Kodaly's Principles in Practice. Trans. by John

Weissman. London: Boosey and Hawkes, (1973).

Tanno, John C. "American Guitar Methods, Published from the Turn of

the Nineteenth Century to the Present," Guitar Review, no. 23
(June, 1959), 28-31.

"Reflections on Classical Guitar Technique," Soundboard,

III (Third Quarter, 1976), 41-2.

Tiller, W. "The Development and Experimental Application of

Programme-assisted Instruction in Teaching of Beginning
Guitarists," Music Educators Journal, XXI (Oct. 1977), 57.

Tillman, Rix. "The Guitar--A Part of Your Program?," The Instrumen-

talist, XXVII (Feb., 1973), 20, 22.

Timmerman, Maurine and Celest Griffith. "Legitimizing the Guitar in

General Music," Music Educators Journal, LVI (Nov., 1969), 75-6.

Usher, Terry. "The Elements of Technical Proficiency," Guitar Review,

no. 15 (1953), 6-8.

Weedon, B. "Correct Posture Helps Technique," Melody Maker, XXVI

(Aug., 1950), 8.

Weick, K.E. "Systematic Observational Methods," in G. Lindzey and

E. Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Vol. II.

Wheeler, Rick. "The Guitar, Gravity, and You," American String

Teacher, XXIV (Autumn, 1974), 14.