Preferences for piano versus harpsichord performances in Renaissance and Baroque keyboard music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether preferences for recorded piano versus harpsichord renditions of the same music, controlled for tempo and pitch level, would be affected by style, tempo, and musical experience. Two hundred and eighty undergraduate music majors and non-majors heard 12 pairs of excerpts. Each pair consisted of a recording performed on piano and a recording performed on harpsichord. Participants chose the version they preferred, or chose no preference. Results showed that musical experience affected preferences: preference for piano was significantly stronger for non-majors than for majors, and for participants who never learned to play a musical instrument than for participants who had at least one year of applied musical experience. Preference for harpsichord was stronger for performers than non-performers, and approached significance in the major–non-major comparison. Both majors and non-majors chose harpsichord versions more frequently when excerpts were fast rather than slow, and when they were of Renaissance music than when they were of Baroque music. Harpsichord was preferred over piano in only 2 of the 12 trials, and both were of fast Renaissance music.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".