Richard Shakeshaft

Saturday, 16 January 2021

Adolescents' Perception of Musical Instruments - An Exploratory Study by Trevor Shakeshaft & Jim Doherty (circa 1983)

The text, and download links, for an unpublished academic paper:

Original Manuscript (scanned) | Transcribed/Formatted Paper: Word | PDF

Adolescents’ Perception of Musical Instruments – An Exploratory Study

by Trevor Shakeshaft and Jim Doherty

Faculty of Education, University of Birmingham

Abstract

A group of 47 adolescents, aged between 12 and 13 years of age, took part in this investigation. They were presented with line drawings of ten musical instruments, and they were asked to rate these on a set of 25 bi-polar scales, in the method devised by Osgood et alia (1957). The results indicated that certain instruments were typically grouped together into one of two general categories. The flute, for example, was seen as the most feminine, agile, quiet, delicate, light, peaceful, smooth, gentle and calming. Other instruments similarly perceived were the clarinet, the violin and the oboe. At the other extreme, the drum was perceived as the most rough, exciting, harsh, popular, threatening, masculine, unpleasant, easy to play, loud, strong, robust, irritating, warlike, ugly and ‘pop’ (as opposed to ‘classical’). Other instruments similarly perceived were the trombone and trumpet. A factor analysis of the 25 ratings of all the instruments revealed three main factors, labelled POTENCY, EVALUATION (NEGATIVE) and ‘POP’. The factor of potency was by far the most important, accounting for almost two-thirds of the variance. The results of this investigation are discussed in the context of the phenomenon of animism and with reference to children’s preferences for musical instruments.

Introduction

This research focuses on how adolescents perceive musical instruments. A group of secondary school pupils were asked to rate certain instruments on a variety of bi-polar attributes, some of which are generally used to describe human beings. It has long been recognized that we tend to describe musical instruments, and particularly the sounds that they produce, in terms of adjectives drawn from other fields of experience, In this sense we are using a mode of analysis which might loosely be described as metaphorical, often drawing on a network of epithets which have been built up in social and personal life. But perhaps one might claim that this tendency towards metaphorical analysis is part of a greater and more general proclivity to ascribe to the inanimate qualities and characteristics that are essentially human. At one level, this proclivity may be no more than a tendency to use metaphors drawn from life to describe inanimate objects or forces. At another level, the proclivity may be much more intense: objects or forces are perceived as human. This phenomenon is referred to as ‘animism’.

In more primitive times, animism seemed to be much more widespread than it is now. To Sir James Frazer, it was a universal characteristic of human thinking. In his book, The Golden Bough (1922), he provided examples of animism from many diverse cultures. “To the savage,” he wrote, “the world in general is animate, and the trees and plants are no exception to the rule. He thinks that they have souls like his own and treats them accordingly” (p35). So trees and plants (rice, corn, barley) have at various times and in various cultures been personified; but this personification could also include the winds, the rocks, mountains, lakes and seasons. Animism, it would seem, was an enduring trait in primitive man.

It would be easy to infer that modern man is more rational in his thinking, and that this tendency towards animism is no longer with us, but the evidence points to another conclusion. As Piaget has shown, animism is still a salient feature in the thinking of young children. Even among adults, there is evidence to prove that modern man is still failing to distinguish between the animate and the inanimate. Frude (1983), for example, describes how humans ‘interact” with computers: for some users these can take on living qualities. Quoting evidence from Weizenbaum (1979), Frude reveals that the use of computers in psychotherapy can have devastating effects on the reasoning of the clients. Weizenbaum, who created and used such a program (ELIZA) became so alarmed by its effect upon patients, that he abandoned this kind of approach, and began a crusade against the use of computers in counselling and psychotherapy. What alarmed Weizenbaum was that “[p]eople who knew very well that they were conversing with a machine soon forgot the fact, just as theatregoers, in the grip of suspended disbelief, soon forget that the action they are witnessing is not ‘real’ […] They would demand to be permitted to converse with the system in private and would, after conversing with it for a little time, insist (in spite of my explanations) that the machine really understood them” (p67).

We could conclude that man still has a tendency to ‘humanize’ that which is inanimate. It is this conclusion which underpins research into how we perceive musical instruments. The reasoning is that we do not merely perceive musical instruments as ‘things’, but customarily react to them in terms of a network of meanings, some of them drawn from human interaction and experience.

One such study has been reported by Abeles and Porter (1978). In the main, these investigators were concerned with children’s preference for musical instruments: they wanted to find out if boys preferred certain instruments and girls preferred others. They did find that there was a clear association between sex and preferred instrument, and that this began at a comparatively early age. But one aspect of their research is of particular interest here. Eight instruments (flute, violin, clarinet, cello, saxophone, trumpet, trombone and drum) were ranked for masculinity, using the method of paired comparisons. The respondents were 58 American college students, some specializing in music and others specializing in other disciplines. The results showed that the instruments which were rather most masculine were the drum, the trombone and the trumpet (in that order. The instruments that were rated as least masculine (and presumably most feminine) were the flute, the violin and the clarinet (in that order).

In a similar study, Griswald and Chroback (1981) examined the perceptions formed of certain musical instruments among a group of 89 college students, 40 of whom were specializing in music, the remainder in other disciplines. The investigators analyzed the perceptions formed by the group as a whole, and then compared the sexes. Griswald and Chroback studied responses to seven of the eight instruments that were included by Abeles and Porter (1978): they excluded the trombone. They added the harp, the piccolo, the glockenspiel, the piano, the French horn, the oboe, the guitar, the cymbals, the saxophone, the string bass and the tuba. Griswald and Chroback asked their subjects (50 females, 39 males) to rate each of the eighteen instruments on a 10-point Likert-type scale, anchored on the words MASCULINE and FEMININE. They found that undergraduates, irrespective of sex, rated as most masculine, the following instruments: tuba, string bass, drums and saxophone (in that order). The instruments that were rated most feminine were the harp, the flute, the piccolo, the glockenspiel, and the cello (in that order).

Both of these studies concentrated on one dimension, the masculine-feminine polarity. But there is no reason to doubt that musical instruments may be perceived in terms of other dimensions as meaningful to the individual. It is relevant in this context to refer to the research which was carried out by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). Underpinning their attempts to chart what they called ‘semantic space’ was the belief that “most of the variance in human semantic judgements could be explained in terms of a relatively small number of orthogonal factors” (p71). In a variety of judgemental situations, Osgood et alia did find that three major factors – EVALUATION, POTENCY and ACTIVITY – kept emerging. Evaluation typically accounted for approximately double the variance due either to potency or activity. As we shall see, the research carried out by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum provided an invaluable frame of reference for the present study. Some of the adjectives that were analyzed by these researchers have been included in the rating scales used in the present project.

This research was initiated by a desire to extend the work reported by Abeles and Porter (1978) and Griswald and Chroback (1981). It will be recalled that in both of these studies the investigators used one scale only. In the present project, a wider network of bi-polar attributes has been used.

The Investigation

Two classes in the first year of a secondary school were selected for the study. There were 47 children in the sample, 21 of them boys, and 26 of them girls, all aged between 12 and 13. Since this investigation was concerned with their perceptions of certain selected musical instruments, it was important to ensure that the instruments were fairly familiar to the respondents. The investigator, a music teacher of many years’ experience, made the final choice. The musical instruments that were included are shown below. They were presented to the subjects in the same order:

1. Trombone (Tbn)

2. Cello (Vlc)

3. Drums (Dr)

4. Oboe (Ob)

5. Violin (Vln)

6. Trumpet (Tpt)

7. Clarinet (Clt)

8. Guitar (Gtr)

9. Flute (Flt)

10. Piano (Pft)

It was not possible to provide an aural example to the subjects. However, as an aide-memoire, a line-drawing of each instrument was provided for every subject.

Each instrument was rated on a set of five-point bi-polar scales, in a manner similar to that employed by Osgood et alia (although these investigators preferred a seven-point rather than a five-point scale). The adjectives used for the 25 scales were partly drawn from Osgood’s lists (1957), and partly selected on the basis of the investigator’s knowledge and understanding of the children involved. The 25 bi-polar adjectives are shown below. A double asterisk indicates that both polar adjectives are derived from Osgood; a single asterisk denotes the fact that one adjective is so derived, and Osgood’s original adjective is placed in brackets alongside. These changes to Osgood’s original format were made because it was felt that the new form would be better understood by this sample of British children.

1. feminine – masculine

2. rough – smooth**

3. agile – ponderous

4. pleasant – unpleasant

5. difficult to play – easy to play

6. exciting – boring

7. sad – cheerful* (happy)

8. harsh – gentle

9. quiet (soft) – loud*

10. popular – unpopular

11. better played on its own – better played as part of a larger group

12. weak – strong**

13. delicate – robust* (rugged)

14. light – heavy**

15. soothing – irritating

16. peaceful – warlike* (ferocious)

17. evil – good

18. beautiful – ugly**

19. ‘classical’ – ‘pop’

20. threatening – calm

21. ‘high class’ – vulgar

22. squeaky – boomy +

23. rumbling – screeching +

24. majestic – frivolous

25. expressive – inexpressive

+ Note: Osgood employed the adjectives high – low, and bass – treble. The scales numbers 22 and 23 were chosen as being more easily understood by the subjects in the present experiment.

The scales were administered to the two classes separately, during a normal, forty-minute lesson. The pupils easily completed the responses within the time available, and a high level of interest and participation was noted.

Results

The results were analysed as follows:

(A) Ranking of the instruments on each of the 25 scales. On each of the 25 scales, the mean ranking of each instrument was calculated. The scales were laid out in such a way that the left-hand side of the polarity represents the lowest value (a rating of 1), and the right-hand side represents the highest value (a rating of 5). Table A reveals that for feminine/masculine scale, the instrument that was judged the most feminine was the flute, and the instrument that was rated the most masculine was the drum. The order is completely reversed when we come to the next rating scale, rough/smooth. In fact, the flute and the drum form the extremes in a significant number of scales. Thus the flute is rated as the most feminine, agile, quiet, delicate, light, peaceful, smooth, gentle, and calming. The drum is rated the most rough, exciting, harsh, popular, threatening, masculine, unpleasant, easy to play, loud, strong, robust, irritating, warlike, ugly, ‘pop’ (as opposed to ‘classical’), vulgar and boomy.
(B) Ranking of the instruments on each of the 25 scales: sex differences. The mean ranking of each instrument on each of the 25 scales was calculated, for each sex separately. A sex-comparison revealed that in general there was little difference between the perceptions of the boys and the perceptions of the girls, so far as the musical instruments were concerned, Opinions appeared most unanimous in the case of the trombone (only five significant sex differences over the 25 scales), and most divergent in the case of the cello (eighteen significant sex differences over the 25 scales). In view of the small numbers in each sex group and the close similarity in the perceptions of the sexes, data for this aspect of the research has been omitted.
(C) Factor analysis of the scales. The data was also subjected to factor analysis. The distinction between each instrument being set aside, the data was ‘pooled’: this gave 470 scores on each of the 25 scales (sample size was 47 and ten instruments were rated). The ‘pooled’ scores were factor-analysed, Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization being applied. Three factors with Eigen-values of more than 1 were extracted, and Table B presents the respective factor loadings on each of the 25 bi-polar scales. Factor I accounted for 59.8% of the variance, and Table B shows that if we accept a ‘cut-off’ point of 0.3 as the lowest acceptable level of factor loading, then eleven scales were significantly loaded on Factor I. Child (1970) advises that in trying to interpret and label factors, one should sample the ‘flavour’ of the most heavily loaded items, in an attempt to establish a semantic link. The list below sets out those scales that were most heavily loaded on Factor I. For the sake of clarity, only the stressed polarity of each scale is given.

Table A: Rankings of instruments of each scale, for the whole sample

Left Polar Adjective

Rankings of Instruments

Right Polar Adjective

feminine

Flt

Clt

Vln

Pft

Vlc

Gtr

Tbn

Tpt

masculine

rough

Tbn

Tpt

Vln

Pft

Clt

Gtr

Vlc

Flt

smooth

agile

Flt

Gtr

Vln

Clt

Vlc

Pft

Tbn

Tpt

ponderous

pleasant

Pft

Gtr

Flt

Clt

Vlc

Tbn

Tpt

Vln

unpleasant

difficult to play

Tbn

Flt

Vlc

Clt

Vln

Gtr

Tpt

Pft

easy to play

exciting

Gtr

Pft

Tpt

Clt

Flt

Tnb

Vlc

Vln

boring

sad

Vlc

Vln

Flt

Tbn

Clt

Gtr

Pft

Tpt

cheerful

harsh

Tpt

Tnb

Vln

Vlc

Clt

Pft

Gtr

Flt

gentle

quiet (soft)

Flt

Vln

Gtr

Clt

Vlc

Pft

Tpt

Tnb

loud

popular

Tpt

Pft

Gtr

Clt

Flt

Vln

Tbn

Vlc

unpopular

better on own

Gtr

Pft

Flt

Clt

Tpt

Vlc

Vln

Tbn

better in a group

weak

Vln

Flt

Vlc

Clt

Gtr

Pft

Tpt

Tbn

strong

delicate

Flt

Vln

Gtr

Clt

Vlc

Pft

Tbn

Tpt

robust

light

Flt

Vln

Clt

Gtr

Vlc

Tpt

Pft

Tbn

heavy

soothing

Gtr

Flt

Clt

Pft

Vlc

Tpt

Tbn

Vln

irritating

peaceful

Flt

Clt

Vln

Gtr

Pft

Vlc

Tpt

Tbn

warlike

evil

Tbn

Vln

Tpt

Vlc

Clt

Pft

Flt

Gtr

good

beautiful

Gtr

Vlc

Flt

Clt

Pft

Vln

Tpt

Tbn

ugly

‘classical’

Vln

Vlc

Tbn

Clt

Flt

Pft

Tpt

Gtr

‘pop’

Threatening

Tpt

Tbn

Vln

Pft

Vlc

Clt

Ftr

Flt

calm

‘high class’

Vlc

Flt

Pft

Vln

Clt

Tbn

Gtr

Tpt

vulgar

squeaky

Vln

Vlc

Clt

Flt

Gtr

Pft

Tpt

Tbn

boomy

rumbling

Tbn

Pft

Tpt

Gtr

Flt

Clt

Vlc

Vln

screeching

majestic

Clt

Tbn

Pft

Vlc

Flt

Tpt

Gtr

Vln

frivolous

expressive

Clt

Tpt

Pft

Tbn

Vlc

Flt

Gtr

Vln

inexpressive

Tbn = Trombone
Vln = Violin
Flt = Flute
Vlc = Cello
Tpt = Trumpet
Pft = Piano
Dr = Drums
Clt = Clarinet
Ob = Oboe
Gtr = Guitar

Table B: Factor loadings on each scale:

Scale			Factor I (Potency)	Factor II (Evaluative)	Factor III
1	feminine	masculine	0.645	0.189	0.232
2	rough	smooth	-0.337	-0.473	-0.158
3	agile	ponderous	0.344	0.141	-0.004
4	pleasant	unpleasant	0.042	0.613	-0.141
5	difficult to play	easy to play	0.123	0.116	0.208
6	exciting	boring	-0.105	0.415	-0.533
7	sad	cheerful	0.127	-0.134	0.451
8	harsh	gentle	-0.378	-0.468	-0.069
9	quiet (soft)	loud	0.612	0.184	0.143
10	popular	unpopular	-0.113	0.285	-0.520
11	on own	in group	0.166	0.373	-0.077
12	weak	strong	0.743	-0.028	-0.159
13	delicate	robust	0.643	0.127	0.015
14	light	heavy	0.608	0.111	0.102
15	soothing	irritating	0.221	0.590	-0.074
16	peaceful	warlike	0.524	0.493	0.086
17	evil	good	-0.092	-0.466	0.183
18	beautiful	ugly	0.108	0.600	-0.132
19	‘classical’	‘pop’	0.263	0.250	0.505
20	Threatening	calm	-0.299	-0.521	-0.125
21	‘high class’	vulgar	0.146	0.425	0.062
22	squeaky	boomy	0.626	0.015	0.261
23	rumbling	screeching	-0.525	0.039	-0.221
24	majestic	frivolous	-0.142	0.393	0.057
25	expressive	inexpressive	-0.142	0.333	-0.211

Scales heavily loaded on Factor I

· MASCULINE
· LOUD
· STRONG
· ROBUST
· HEAVY
· WARLIKE
· BOOMY
· RUMBLING

Clearly Factor I is very similar to Osgood’s Potency factor, as a survey of the above list will show. But whereas Osgood found that the factor of Evaluation typically accounted for double the variance due to either Potency or Activity, in this case it is the factor of Potency which is by far the most important, accounting for almost two-thirds the common variance. Factor I has therefore been labelled POTENCY.

In the same way, we may set out a similar list for Factor II. Scales heavily loaded on Factor II:

· UNPLEASANT
· IRRITATING
· UGLY
· THREATENING

Obviously Factor II is very similar to Osgood’s Evaluative factor, as a survey of the above list will show. But the stressing reveals that the evaluation is decidedly negative, and Factor II has therefore been labelled EVALUATION (NEGATIVE).

In the case of Factor III, the list of heavily loaded scales is as follows:

· EXCITING
· POPULAR
· ‘POP’

Clearly Factor III differs from the other two, in that it was not one originally elicited by Osgood. One would not necessarily expect the same pattern to emerge in every judgemental situation, however. Each of the two minor factors identified by Osgood (POTENCY and ACTIVITY) typically explained only a small proportion of the variance; and in a variety of judgemental cases, one would expect to find situation-specific factors playing a minor role. That has happened in this investigation, where a ‘pop’ factor was elicited. What is unusual here is the relative importance of POTENCY, compared to EVALUATION, the reverse of what Osgood and his associates found.

Discussion

Several interesting points may be noted here. For one thing, it was clear that this sample of children did not perceive the musical instruments in a random way. There was a clear pattern in their responses, a pattern which ‘makes sense’ when one considers the instruments and the sounds that they emit. The correspondence between musical and semantic essence is highlighted by the ranking of the instruments on the 25 scales (see Table A). To perceive the flute as feminine, agile, delicate, light, peaceful, gentle and calming is to appreciate the very qualities that make it distinctive as an instrument. To see the drum as rough, exciting, threatening, strong, robust and warlike is to understand why it is so important in orchestra and band. What this study underlines is that we do not hear and appreciate musical instruments in a vacuum. We perceive and respond to them within a framework of meanings, some of them drawn from social and personal life.

But underlying these meanings there seems to be some kind of organization, as the factor analysis revealed. The ‘orderly simplification’ which factor analysis brings revealed that the most important element was POTENCY. Attributes like ‘masculine’, ‘loud’, ‘strong’, and ‘warlike’ were all heavily weighted on this factor. And as Table A showed, the instruments that were rated highly on these attributes were the drum, the trombone, and the trumpet. Instruments that were typically regarded as ‘feminine’, ‘quiet’, ‘weak’ and ‘peaceful’ were the flute, violin, oboe and clarinet. POTENCY was by far the most important factor, and accounted for the major share of the common variance. Two other factors, EVALUATION (NEGATIVE) and ‘POP’ were also elicited, but seemed to play a much less important role.

This paper started with the general observation that man has a tendency to render animate those things which are without life; and that this could range from the mere application of metaphor, to the state where total personification of the object or force is achieved. When we say that these children regarded the flute as more ‘feminine’ or the drum as more ‘rough’, we are not implying that they were ‘humanizing’ these instruments, or even that the associations they made with the instruments were necessarily intense or important for them. One might even criticise this study on the grounds that the respondents were forced to make an assessment on a set of pre-selected scales. A more natural form of investigation would have involved the elicitation of personal constructs, using the repertory grid technique devised by Kelly (1955).

What we can claim is that certain aspects of the findings suggest that the ratings were valid. For one thing, there was a remarkable degree of uniformity in the way that the sample as a whole rated the instruments. For another, the pattern of these perceptions ‘made sense’ when one considered the instruments and sounds that were being reacted to: we, too, would have rated the flute as ‘delicate’ and ‘light’, the drum

as ‘rough’ and ‘threatening’. Finally, the data that has emerged from this investigation does support the findings of previous investigators in this field, like Abeles and Porter (1978) and Griswald and Chroback (1981). So although the respondents were forced to make ratings over a fixed and pre-defined set of scales, the validity of the ratings seems to be high. Future research in this area should be more open, however, and less exploratory. We have mentioned the possibility of using personal constructs in the perception and assessment of musical instruments. Another possibility is the use of projective tests. In an area which has been neglected by psychologists, there is much scope for innovation and ingenuity. The way ahead has been clearly sign-posted.

What light does this study throw on pupil attitudes to music, and to playing an instrument? It is well known that boys tend to lose interest in music in early adolescence, and it has been suggested that if schools specialized in certain musical instruments, they might attract more boys, and sustain their interest in playing. Brocklehurst (1962) attributed the growth in the formation of brass bands in secondary schools to ‘the appeal of brass instruments to adolescent boys’, and this has certainly been supported by the evidence from this study. Boys (and in some cases girls) perceived the trombone and trumpet as more masculine, robust, warlike, and expressive. Perhaps when local traditions combine with favourable perceptions, the music interest of boys can be caught and sustained. But the general decline of interest in music and music-playing among boys is probably due to what Gill (1981) referred to as “an inevitable part of the maturation process”. It is less easy to be specific about this process, but Shakeshaft (1983) is at present engaged in a longitudinal study which could indicate what factors are at work. His investigation could throw more light on the problem of why boys are more inclined to lose interest in music, and abandon music-playing, as they move into adolescence.

References

ABELES, H.F. and PORTER, S.Y. (1978), ‘The sex stereotyping of musical instruments’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 26, p65-75.

BROCKLEHURST, J.B. (1962), ‘Trends in music teaching’, Educational Review, 15, p1-14.

CHILD, D. (1970), The essentials of factor analysis London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

FRAZER, Sir James (1922), The Golden Bough (Abridged Version), London: Macmillan.

FRUDE, N. (1983), The intimate machine London: Century.

GILL, S.J. (1981), ‘An investigation into the attitudes towards class singing amongst primary and secondary aged pupils and their teachers’, Unpublished MEd thesis, University of Birmingham.

GRISWOLD, P.A. and CHROBACK, D.A. (1981), ‘Sex-role associations of music instruments and occupations by gender and major’, Journal of Research in Music Education, 29, p57-62.

KELLY, G.A. (1955), The psychology of personal constructs New York: Norton.

OSGOOD, C.E., SUCI, G.J. and TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1957), The measurement of meaning London: University of Illinois Press.

SHAKESHAFT, H.T. (1983) ‘A longitudinal investigation into factors influencing attitudes to music lessons’, Faculty of Education, University of Birmingham, PhD research in progress.

WEIZENBAUM, J. (1979), Computer Power and Human Reason San Francisco: Freeman.

Saturday, 26 December 2020

Tablets for Singers

Changes to the way in which so many aspects of the world works recently means that, since September, I have had to use a tablet to replace sheet music when singing. Having done some research and tried a couple of options, I have now assembled what I believe is the most suitable equipment for me. There may be alternatives to aspects of the set up, but - obviously - I have not tried them all, so this is simply my personal experience.

The bulk of the expense of the set up is the tablet itself. The important thing for me was the size of the screen, which means that the selection was limited to the 12.9" screen of the Apple iPad Pro. My usual approach of buying a well-speced piece of technology means that I opted for the current fourth generation model, and I chose the 128Gb model as lots of scanned copies of music can start eating into storage.

Beyond the practicality of this application, the iPad Pro is a beautiful piece of technology which is a pleasure to own!

When singing, I like to be able to mark my copies, both to remind me in performance of the conductor's instructions and to help me next time the music comes round. With the iPad, there was no question but to add the Apple Pencil. I bought the second generation pencil, as it is designed to work with the fourth generation iPads. The pencil is pressure sensitive and, coupled with its ability to switch between pencil and eraser by a double-tap on the 'barrel' of the pencil and the iPad's palm detection, means that it is the closest I have ever coming to writing on paper when using a stylus on tablet. The responsiveness and accuracy of the tablet itself makes a big difference to the usability, and Apple's handwriting recognition feature works impressively well (although this is not relevant for rehearsal marks).

Initially, I was using Adobe's free Acrobat viewer to display my music PDFs, which worked functionally. However, my attention was drawn to forScore which is an Apple-only app written specifically for displaying music. The software itself is straightforward to use and contains a wealth of features which would clearly be useful in a variety of musical contexts, even if I don't have the need for them. The biggest selling point to me was the fact it was designed to work with the Apple Pencil for annotations and so there is no need to select an edit mode to make changes, and the experience becomes even more like writing on paper. forScore is also designed to work with Apple's AirPods, and while this is not something I have tested, the integration of the pencil suggests that it would offer helpful features to other musicians (the idea of being able to nod to turn pages thanks to their internal gyroscope is something which I would like to see in action!).

Realising it would be useful to protect the iPad, I purchased a procase slim cover based on the reviews of many of the cases and the fact it appeared to be relatively light-weight. The case itself is sturdy and the iPad feels secure in it. I have also found it useful that, as the cover folds to allow the tablet to be stood on a desk, the folded section acts as a more comfortable means of holding the tablet when singing.

The case comes with a screen protector too. While I've not installed this, it's probably one of the jobs I will get around to, although I do worry slightly that it will affect the efficacy of the pencil; if I do install it, I will update the post.

In terms of holding the iPad, even though its weight does not make it impossible to hold by hand, I have found it much easier to have a sturdy music stand to hold the tablet as it is much more comfortable and helps my posture.

I bought the final piece of the setup - an Air Turn DIGIT III Bluetooth Remote Control - when I was using the tablet as an auto-cue for a school assembly I had to video record and I needed some way to turn the pages of the text at a distance. (I had a large print copy of the text I was reading on the iPad on a stand just underneath the camera so I was able to talk to the camera.) The remote, like the pencil, is integrated within forScore, so it just works. With the tablet on a music stand, using the remote to turn the pages means that there is no need to reach up slightly awkwardly high (because of the useful height of the music stand for reading) and it is easier to maintain a good posture.

My setup has evolved to this stage over the past four months, but having been using it in this form for the past fortnight, I believe this is a really good arrangement for singers, but which would also offer a great range of flexibility to all sorts of musicians, for whom the only tweak might necessarily be the remote control for page turning, whether this is done via AirPods or a foot pedal.

The two drawbacks are ensuring that the iPad and remote are charged (the pencil charges automatically when magnetically affixed to the iPad), and the cost. The charging comes down to being organised (and/or buying a power bank), and the bulk of the cost is made up of the iPad; however, for the screen size (which I have found to be necessary) I fear this is unavoidable. Overall, I am pleased to have been able to invest in the technology to move my sheet music into the mid-pandemic twenty-first century world.

Thursday, 30 July 2020

Travelling from LHR to PSA in the midst of a global pandemic

Yesterday afternoon, myself, my wife and our 5 year old daughter arrived back home from a week in the Tuscan countryside. I realise how lucky we have been to have been able to travel at present, and I wanted to write a record of what European travel was like this summer.

When Italy was added to the list of countries from which visitors did not need to quarantine, we took the opportunity to book a country house hotel at which we had stayed last summer. When we were feeling uncertainly about travel, knowing exactly where we were going and what to expect made a very positive difference in our feeling comfortable about the visit.

Our BA Club Europe flight to Pisa left LHR at 8.30am on 22 July, so we decided to stay at the airport on the Tuesday night to save a very early start. I booked one of the Bath Road Holiday Inn's 'stay and park' packages, as none of the official Heathrow parking options was available. We arrived at Heathrow mid-afternoon on the Tuesday, and took the opportunity to have a drive round Terminals 2, 3 and 5 to see what it was like. Unsurprisingly, I have never seen Heathrow so quiet. There was no traffic, very few people, and only the occasional plane landing or taking off. The airport car parks along the perimeter road were empty, and the hotel car parks only had a smattering of cars in them too. Describing the area as a ghost town would be a cliché, but...

We arrived at the Holiday Inn to find our car park pretty much deserted too, and that the Holiday Inn was closed. Our stay had been transferred to the Staybridge Suites which shares the building. We were given one of the larger suites for the night, and had an early supper alongside nine other people in the hotel. Apart from the lack of guests, everything about the hotel was as you would normally expect. We left before breakfast on the Wednesday morning, so were unable to see how that was offered, but we were each provided with a packed breakfast to get us to the terminal.

Despite the offers of a £17 taxi to T5, we took the free 423 London Transport bus which is a service I have never had the need to use before, but certainly one I would be very happy to use again. The bus was fairly empty, and we were the only passengers with luggage. The entrance to T5 was very quiet, and when we entered the departures area, the space swallowed the passengers queuing to check-in.

We made our way to the Club check-in area, where there was no queue at all. As we entered the usual rope path, we were asked where we were travelling, and duly given three copies of a form to fill in for all people travelling to Italy. When we had wound our way through the ropes to the check-in desk, the first question was whether we had had our temperature taken. While the form-issuer had been holding a thermometer, he hadn't checked our temperatures. He was duly summoned to the check-in desk where he took our temperatures, and our boarding passes note the fact that we had been checked.

There was no fast track security, but families were directed through what would normally be fast track, and the process took as long as usual.

Once through security, there were more people in one place than I have seen for some months, but nothing like what would usually be expected on a July morning. The usual banks of chairs had individual seats taped off to stop them being used, and the distancing markers that are now part of life everywhere adorned floors and walls.

The Galleries Lounge was, as BA had announced, all table service. In practice, this meant finding a table, scanning a QR code and ordering from a menu. This worked well until a window seat became available and we moved. If you do this, you need to log out from the app and start again, scanning the new QR code. We were clearly not the only people to have done this, and there was also a sense that lots of the staff did not necessarily know where all the tables were: presumably, as this is new to them and staff will be coming back from furlough, there are lots of new processes for them to get used to too. There were more cleaning staff moving around the lounge, but we were not given and did not see the red/blue cards to indicate that an area was finished with.

Our flight was leaving from gate A13 so our movement around the terminal was minimal. The major difference at this point was that the flight boarded from the back in groups of five rows at a time. For a single cabin plane this seems so sensible, and something which I would not be unhappy to see maintained going forwards. As we boarded, we had the three forms which we had had to complete for the Italian authorities with name, date of birth, passport number, permanent and temporary addresses, and contact details, collected. Being in row 1, we waited until last to board, and even though the flight was full, this felt much more relaxed than having boarded and then having everyone else pushing past or queuing through the aisle.

As we boarded the A320, we were each given a sachet of hand sanitiser and an antibacterial towel. The safety briefing included the instruction to remove face masks before putting an oxygen mask on in the event of the loss of cabin air pressure, and an exhortation to remain seated as much as possible, and to avoid queuing for the toilets or congregating the galley area.

There were no special (including children's) meals, and we were served the new BA Club Europe lunch box, shown in much more detail here. Everything else about the flight and service was just as it ever is.

On arrival, everyone was instructed to remain seated, and four rows at a time from the front were invited to stand up, collect hand luggage and leave the plane. This was - apparently - an instruction from the Italian government - but we also did this to disembark back at LHR. Again, like boarding, this reduced the pushing and desperation to get off the plane and would potentially be a good thing to maintain going forwards.

As we entered the terminal and before we got to Passport Control, each passenger had their temperature taken by a ceiling-mounted thermometer underneath which everyone had to stand individually. After this, the rest of the airport procedure was as always.

Outside the airport, the shuttle bus to the car rental area was not running, so people had to walk the 400m to the rental area. Some rental companies were seemingly closed completely, and others - like Avis with whom I had booked via BA - had their desks in the office closed and only a couple of members of staff available in the car pick up area.

Avis never seems very fast when it comes to collecting cars, but having to queue to have my booking number and a mobile number taken for someone to call back from head office to arrange the contract (and attempt to do all the usual up-sells), for the contract to be emailed back to the office to be printed out and to be given the keys seemed a somewhat cumbersome process. In the end, it took just over an hour to get the car, and the number of other people sheltering from the sun in the make-shift tent indicated this was very much the new normal for now.

Having got the car, and got to our accommodation, the holiday was very much as we had anticipated. The strangest thing was - again - how quiet Pisa and Lucca were (there were no queues for the tourist attractions, although I did have my temperature taken as we entered the Cathedral in Lucca), and the absence of tourists from continents other than Europe was notable.

Returning home yesterday, PSA was very quiet, with only one entrance available for departures. It transpired that this was because passengers had their temperature taken on entering the building and had to walk through some sort of disinfecting misting machine. As we checked in, those aged 6 or over were given forms to fill in with contact details and addresses, which were collected as we boarded; these were also for the Italian government. The lounge (which is always a shared, non-BA, lounge) was closed, but there was no offer of vouchers for food or drink from the terminal. Boarding was, again, from the back, and the flight was the same as the outward trip, and we disembarked in groups of rows again.

Heathrow Border Control was busy as - apparently - lots of staff are not being unfurloughed until August. Family groups (as always) are not able to use the eGates, so the queues were long. A member of Heathrow staff was very generously taking pity on families with young children and let them out of the queue early to a desk on the side. Apart from the hour's queue, we - like several other travellers - also made a mistake here. We were not told at any point that we needed to complete a Passenger Locator Form for the UK government. Yes, there had been small signs on the ropes of the queue (but there always are, and you never read them), and there was a line in the sixth paragraph of the pre-flight email from BA saying it needed completing (ditto). The electronic form is several sections long, and each adult needs to complete it. We were able to do it on our phones huddled in a corner, and duly sate the Border Control officer. I suppose I had assumed we would be specifically given something as we had been when we arrived at the airport, and then assumed the form we had filled in in Italy was the information that was needed, or that - as UK citizens - it was connected to our passports. Whichever, it was our mistake, but we were not the only people who had made it. It can be completed in advance, and you can download the form immediately to show it on your phone, but a copy is also emailed to the address provided. All adults have to do their own form, and children can be attached to one of the adult's forms.

Another nearly empty 423 back to Newport Road with no other travellers, and a still-empty car park at the Holiday Inn/Staybridge Suites greeted us before we headed home for the first decent cup of tea in a week.

Tuesday, 7 July 2020

Richmal Crompton's William Brown: his behaviour and aspirations

Correspondence published in The Daily Telegraph during May 1994:

2 May 1994

5 May 1994

13 May 1994

Thursday, 14 May 2020

David Dew

When I was at school, David Dew was a member of English Department, and he was also a stalwart member of the school's choirs and of the CCF. His particular musical passion was the music of the Victorian era, and he tried - valiantly - to introduce me to some of the more obscure composers of the era. While I failed to appreciate them to the extent he did, I would acknowledge that he did make me more aware of the merit of Arthur Sullivan's work.

When sorting out my sheet music the other week, I came across some things which he had written and had passed copies to me. I remembered reading in the school news that he had died prematurely some years ago, and a quick Google revealed the details and provided a little more of his life in an obituary from his Oxford college.

Tony Lemon, Fellow in Geography, remembers David Dew (Mansfield, 1972-78) in the 2006 Autumn/Winter edition of 'Mansfield', the college's magazine.

David Dew, who died of cancer in March 2003, spent seven years at Mansfield College, Oxford, reading three degrees — first degrees in Law and English and a postgraduate degree in English — before going on to train as a teacher. He entered into all his academic work, and everything he did outside it, with gusto.

David was a college institution: a fount of wisdom and a witty commentator who contributed to almost every aspect of college life. He was an intellectual whose appreciation of the classics once expressed itself in a Greek ballad that managed to include in its dramatis personae a significant proportion of both JCR and SCR members, carefully re-named but clearly recognisable! His passion for Victorian music was allowed to unleash itself upon a chapel congregation when one of his organ compositions was performed. With these distinctive interests he combined qualities one might less easily have guessed (reflecting determination as much as natural talent), rowing several times in successive College First Eights, some of which won blades.

David's whole teaching career was at Oundle School in Northamptonshire. His career choice was perfectly suited to his personality and talents. He was the quintessential public school master, devoted to the school and those in his care and taking a very active part in many aspects of school life, as he had at Mansfield. He was especially active in the school CCF (a school CCF prize now bears his name) and both the school's and the town's musical activities, taking part in four choirs including the local Gilbert and Sullivan Society: fittingly, Oundle marked the sad death of one of their most loyal and respected teachers with a performance of Verdi's Requiem.

Many generations of Mansfield students will remember David with affection and — if sensitive enough to his intellectual qualities or the barbs of his humour — some awe.

I looked at his compositions for the first time in 25 years, and while his settings of the canticles may be cliche-riddled, I rather enjoyed them. The copies I had were old photocopies and difficult to read. I therefore took the trouble to typeset and edit them, correcting some errors and tweaking moments of awkward underlay, and as I have been unable to find any details of his family, I present them here for posterity, and for anyone who might enjoy wallowing in unashamed Victoriana. If anyone does have contact details for his family, please let me know.

Tuesday, 7 April 2020

Sous Vide Vanilla and Chocolate Ice Creams (and crème anglaise and chocolate sauce)

I have always preferred making my own ice cream (and love a home-made crème anglaise), but aspects of the method I use are possibly a little unconventional, as I use a chamber vacuum packer and water bath. As I always have to work out quantities, temperatures and times, I thought it was useful, if for no-one other than me, to make a note of my method.

Equipment Required (beyond basic kitchenware)

Liquidiser or blender
Chamber vacuum packer
Water bath
Ice cream machine

Vanilla Ice Cream

Ingredients (makes approximately 1 litre)

200ml double cream (straight from fridge)
200ml milk (straight from fridge)
150g sugar
4 egg yolks
1 teaspoon vanilla paste (or 1 vanilla pod halved lengthways)
pinch of salt

Method

Heat the water bath up to 82°C.
Blend all of the ingredients together in the blender. If using a vanilla pod, do not blend this, but put straight into the bag for the next step.
Pour the mixture into a vacuum bag and seal. (It is important the mixture is as cold as possible to get a better vacuum on the bag, i.e., the contents will not boil so quickly under pressure.)
Cook in the water bath for 20 minutes.
Chill the cooked crème anglaise in an ice bath, and agitate the contents of the bag while it is cooling.
Pour the custard into your ice cream maker and follow the instructions to freeze to ice cream.

This method also works to make a perfect crème anglaise which can be kept in the fridge for up to a week. The creme anglaise can either be used as a sauce during this time, or turned into ice cream.

Chocolate Ice Cream

Ingredients (makes approximately 1 litre)

200ml double cream (straight from fridge)
200ml milk (straight from fridge)
150g sugar
4 egg yolks
150g bitter chocolate (approximately 70% cocoa) broken into small pieces (callets work well)

Method

Heat the water bath up to 82°C.
Blend all of the ingredients, except the chocolate together in the blender.
Pour the mixture into a vacuum bag and seal. (It is important the mixture is as cold as possible to get a better vacuum on the bag, i.e., the contents will not boil so quickly under pressure.)
Cook in the water bath for 20 minutes.
Chill the cooked custard to approximately 38°C using an ice bath, and agitate the contents of the bag while it it chilling.
Put the chocolate in a large (metal) bowl, and pour the warm custard over it stirring constantly to melt the chocolate. If the custard is too cold, gently warm the chocolate/custard mixture in a bain marie. However, make sure it does not get too hot, otherwise the chocolate will have a very gritty texture.
Pour the chocolate sauce into your ice cream maker and follow the instructions to freeze to ice cream.

This method also works to make a perfect chocolate sauce which can be served cold, warmed up gently in a bain marie, or turned into ice cream. It will keep in the fridge for up to a week.

For me, the water bath method of cooking the custard (whether or not it ultimately becomes ice cream) proves to be a life-saver in terms of avoiding that horrible moment when you scramble the yolks when trying to make it in a pan. Not only is this method much less labour-intensive, it is much more reliable. The simplicity of the method also means my 5 year old daughter is able to help me make her own chocolate ice cream without risk of error. She just needs to learn to separate eggs now...