FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W19692854> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W19692854 startingPage "43" @default.
• W19692854 abstract "Abstract This study was second in a series examining wind band repertoire and lists of recommended literature. The researcher gathered published lists (N = 101) of recommended wind band literature which produced a collection of unique wind band titles (N = 6,496) and concomitant information regarding composers, arrangers, grade levels, and frequency counts. Analysis revealed significant differences among frequencies of wind band pieces appearing within sample which suggested varied levels of perceived importance ascribed to each piece. There were also significant differences among grade levels of wind band music which suggested a disproportionate representation of grade levels on published repertoire lists. Other findings suggested sufficient consistency among published lists to provide a basis for identifying a core wind band repertoire. Implications for wind band curricula, concert programming and future research were also explored. A Comparison and Analysis of Published Lists of Recommended Wind Band Literature Repertoire selection is perhaps one of most important curricular issues confronting music educators. Reynolds asserted that repertoire selection created the framework for an excellent music curriculum that fosters musical growth of our students (Reynolds, 2000, p.31). Other researchers seemed to agree on importance of judicious repertoire selection (Apfelstadt, 2000; Budiansky & Foley, 2005; Crocker, 2000; Hay ward, 2004; Persellin, 2000; Schupp, 1964; Weir, 1939). Some researchers suggested instrumental music educators consulted lists of recommended literature during repertoire selection process (Bauer, 1996; Carney, 2005; Young, 1998). Grant (1993) noted that reputable authorities often sanctioned literature lists and usually provided grade level information for included compositions. Halseth (1987) reported that College Band Directors National Association assembled repertoire lists while facilitating repertoire development. However, not all researchers agreed on value of literature lists versus other repertoire materials (Reames, 2001). Researchers also suggested curricular implications of literature lists. Saville stated educators often relied on preponderance of graded music lists to identify meritorious literature and that repertoire, became the textbook and curriculum for students (Saville, 1991, p.50). Ostling (1978) completed perhaps most often emulated study on artistic merits of wind band literature. Ostling surveyed 20 experts and used specific criteria to generate a list of nearly 200 works deemed to possess serious artistic merit. Gilbert (1992) used Ostling's methodology, but generated a slightly different list of works. Thomas (1998) focused only on grade level 3 and 4 pieces while Rhea (1999) studied grade level 3, 4, and 5 works from a prescribed music list. Honas (1996) also applied Ostling methodology to mixed-wind chamber compositions. Bellinger (2002) evaluated unaccompanied solo trumpet literature with an Ostling methodology while Baker (1997) modified Ostling methodology to determine a core repertoire for mixed- wind chamber ensembles. In addition to artistic merit, some studies focused on identifying essential or core repertoire (Anderson & Sevier, 1989; Kohut & Mohr-Sheahan, 1991; Peercy, 1958; Peterson, 1986; The basic band curriculum, 1987; The best band music, 1958; The Instrumentalist's basic library, 1979). Gaines (1997) concluded that a sample of high school band directors collectively could agree on core repertoire. Howard (2002) demonstrated similar findings for middle school repertoire. Olson (1982) invited eminent wind conductors to evaluate a list of works to determine which pieces merited inclusion in a defined and succinct list of core repertoire for wind ensembles. Holvik (1970) collected collegiate concert programs which spanned five years and investigated whether a core repertoire emerged based on frequency of performance. …" @default.
• W19692854 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W19692854 creator A5027513157 @default.
• W19692854 date "2012-04-01" @default.
• W19692854 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W19692854 title "A Comparison and Analysis of Published Lists of Recommended Wind Band Literature" @default.
• W19692854 cites W1542137697 @default.
• W19692854 cites W1969245352 @default.
• W19692854 cites W1987047566 @default.
• W19692854 cites W2001043648 @default.
• W19692854 cites W2036930155 @default.
• W19692854 cites W2078963421 @default.
• W19692854 cites W2738497744 @default.
• W19692854 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W19692854 type Work @default.
• W19692854 sameAs 19692854 @default.
• W19692854 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W19692854 countsByYear W196928542013 @default.
• W19692854 countsByYear W196928542014 @default.
• W19692854 countsByYear W196928542018 @default.
• W19692854 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W19692854 hasAuthorship W19692854A5027513157 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C124086623 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C2778473898 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C81917197 @default.
• W19692854 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C124086623 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C124952713 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C142362112 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C154945302 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C15744967 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C19417346 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C2778473898 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C41008148 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C47177190 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C52119013 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C81917197 @default.
• W19692854 hasConceptScore W19692854C95457728 @default.
• W19692854 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W19692854 hasLocation W196928541 @default.
• W19692854 hasOpenAccess W19692854 @default.
• W19692854 hasPrimaryLocation W196928541 @default.
• W19692854 hasRelatedWork W1969561672 @default.
• W19692854 hasRelatedWork W2024693921 @default.
• W19692854 hasRelatedWork W246649102 @default.
• W19692854 hasRelatedWork W2748510824 @default.
• W19692854 hasVolume "47" @default.
• W19692854 isParatext "false" @default.
• W19692854 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W19692854 magId "19692854" @default.
• W19692854 workType "article" @default.